The Sino-Russo Rundown

[Disir]

Russia and China seem to be growing closer by the day. In May 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Russia. As China’s official media opined at the time, “China and Russia are deepening and celebrating their old friendship marked by successful cooperation and win-win results, while simultaneously adding new facets to their strategic partnership.”

Maybe, maybe not. There are two schools of thought about the likely trajectory of the Sino-Russian relationship. The first, which could be called the “fatally flawed” school, includes former senior U.S. officials and luminaries, such as Joseph Nye. It holds that the Sino-Russian relationship is a marriage of convenience—riven with mistrust—and consequently, as one author wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “China and Russia are unlikely to forge a sustained strategic partnership.” The second school of thought could be called the “mighty axis” school. It tends toward the view that China and Russia are building a lasting partnership to challenge U.S. dominance. That partnership will become “a feature of a new, post–Cold War geopolitical order,” as Princeton’s Gilbert Rozman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article. Russia and China will start in Eurasia, the thinking goes, but they have global aspirations.
Two Futures for Russia and China And How the United States Should Respond Foreign Affairs

I agree with the author that it is in the middle. What I disagree with is isolating Russia and China together and especially for "bad" behavior unless we have a very specific definition. Good and bad are intentionally vague.

 

[Camp]

Seems like China likes to kick the bear when it is down. China abstained from voting on accepting Crimea election, gave Russia a crappy long term oil and gas deal, made other new arrangements with central Asia for gas and oil and is buying enough agriculture products from Ukraine to make up any lose of Ukraine exports formally bound for Russia. Maybe those things mean little or nothing, but it just seems like a not very nice way to treat a friend.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Russia and China seem to be growing closer by the day. In May 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Russia. As China’s official media opined at the time, “China and Russia are deepening and celebrating their old friendship marked by successful cooperation and win-win results, while simultaneously adding new facets to their strategic partnership.”

Maybe, maybe not. There are two schools of thought about the likely trajectory of the Sino-Russian relationship. The first, which could be called the “fatally flawed” school, includes former senior U.S. officials and luminaries, such as Joseph Nye. It holds that the Sino-Russian relationship is a marriage of convenience—riven with mistrust—and consequently, as one author wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “China and Russia are unlikely to forge a sustained strategic partnership.” The second school of thought could be called the “mighty axis” school. It tends toward the view that China and Russia are building a lasting partnership to challenge U.S. dominance. That partnership will become “a feature of a new, post–Cold War geopolitical order,” as Princeton’s Gilbert Rozman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article. Russia and China will start in Eurasia, the thinking goes, but they have global aspirations.
Two Futures for Russia and China And How the United States Should Respond Foreign Affairs

I agree with the author that it is in the middle. What I disagree with is isolating Russia and China together and especially for "bad" behavior unless we have a very specific definition. Good and bad are intentionally vague.

Good and evil are never vague.

 

[Disir]

Seems like China likes to kick the bear when it is down. China abstained from voting on accepting Crimea election, gave Russia a crappy long term oil and gas deal, made other new arrangements with central Asia for gas and oil and is buying enough agriculture products from Ukraine to make up any lose of Ukraine exports formally bound for Russia. Maybe those things mean little or nothing, but it just seems like a not very nice way to treat a friend.

Russia needs a long term oil and gas deal with everyone else trying not to be reliant on Russia.

 

[Disir]

Russia and China seem to be growing closer by the day. In May 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Russia. As China’s official media opined at the time, “China and Russia are deepening and celebrating their old friendship marked by successful cooperation and win-win results, while simultaneously adding new facets to their strategic partnership.”

Maybe, maybe not. There are two schools of thought about the likely trajectory of the Sino-Russian relationship. The first, which could be called the “fatally flawed” school, includes former senior U.S. officials and luminaries, such as Joseph Nye. It holds that the Sino-Russian relationship is a marriage of convenience—riven with mistrust—and consequently, as one author wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “China and Russia are unlikely to forge a sustained strategic partnership.” The second school of thought could be called the “mighty axis” school. It tends toward the view that China and Russia are building a lasting partnership to challenge U.S. dominance. That partnership will become “a feature of a new, post–Cold War geopolitical order,” as Princeton’s Gilbert Rozman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article. Russia and China will start in Eurasia, the thinking goes, but they have global aspirations.
Two Futures for Russia and China And How the United States Should Respond Foreign Affairs

I agree with the author that it is in the middle. What I disagree with is isolating Russia and China together and especially for "bad" behavior unless we have a very specific definition. Good and bad are intentionally vague.

Good and evil are never vague.

Not to you and I but these folks are very slow to address it when they encounter it.

 

[Camp]

Russia and China seem to be growing closer by the day. In May 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Russia. As China’s official media opined at the time, “China and Russia are deepening and celebrating their old friendship marked by successful cooperation and win-win results, while simultaneously adding new facets to their strategic partnership.”

Maybe, maybe not. There are two schools of thought about the likely trajectory of the Sino-Russian relationship. The first, which could be called the “fatally flawed” school, includes former senior U.S. officials and luminaries, such as Joseph Nye. It holds that the Sino-Russian relationship is a marriage of convenience—riven with mistrust—and consequently, as one author wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “China and Russia are unlikely to forge a sustained strategic partnership.” The second school of thought could be called the “mighty axis” school. It tends toward the view that China and Russia are building a lasting partnership to challenge U.S. dominance. That partnership will become “a feature of a new, post–Cold War geopolitical order,” as Princeton’s Gilbert Rozman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article. Russia and China will start in Eurasia, the thinking goes, but they have global aspirations.
Two Futures for Russia and China And How the United States Should Respond Foreign Affairs

I agree with the author that it is in the middle. What I disagree with is isolating Russia and China together and especially for "bad" behavior unless we have a very specific definition. Good and bad are intentionally vague.

Good and evil are never vague.

Not to you and I but these folks are very slow to address it when they encounter it.

Sounds like the topic for a philosophy debate.

 

[Disir]

Russia and China seem to be growing closer by the day. In May 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Russia. As China’s official media opined at the time, “China and Russia are deepening and celebrating their old friendship marked by successful cooperation and win-win results, while simultaneously adding new facets to their strategic partnership.”

Maybe, maybe not. There are two schools of thought about the likely trajectory of the Sino-Russian relationship. The first, which could be called the “fatally flawed” school, includes former senior U.S. officials and luminaries, such as Joseph Nye. It holds that the Sino-Russian relationship is a marriage of convenience—riven with mistrust—and consequently, as one author wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “China and Russia are unlikely to forge a sustained strategic partnership.” The second school of thought could be called the “mighty axis” school. It tends toward the view that China and Russia are building a lasting partnership to challenge U.S. dominance. That partnership will become “a feature of a new, post–Cold War geopolitical order,” as Princeton’s Gilbert Rozman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article. Russia and China will start in Eurasia, the thinking goes, but they have global aspirations.
Two Futures for Russia and China And How the United States Should Respond Foreign Affairs

I agree with the author that it is in the middle. What I disagree with is isolating Russia and China together and especially for "bad" behavior unless we have a very specific definition. Good and bad are intentionally vague.

Good and evil are never vague.

Not to you and I but these folks are very slow to address it when they encounter it.

Sounds like the topic for a philosophy debate.

Perhaps. I was thinking that there is a huge difference between those that plan and the rest of us in our thinking styles. I was also thinking of the Banality of Evil by Arendt.

 

[Camp]

Russia and China seem to be growing closer by the day. In May 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Russia. As China’s official media opined at the time, “China and Russia are deepening and celebrating their old friendship marked by successful cooperation and win-win results, while simultaneously adding new facets to their strategic partnership.”

Maybe, maybe not. There are two schools of thought about the likely trajectory of the Sino-Russian relationship. The first, which could be called the “fatally flawed” school, includes former senior U.S. officials and luminaries, such as Joseph Nye. It holds that the Sino-Russian relationship is a marriage of convenience—riven with mistrust—and consequently, as one author wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “China and Russia are unlikely to forge a sustained strategic partnership.” The second school of thought could be called the “mighty axis” school. It tends toward the view that China and Russia are building a lasting partnership to challenge U.S. dominance. That partnership will become “a feature of a new, post–Cold War geopolitical order,” as Princeton’s Gilbert Rozman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article. Russia and China will start in Eurasia, the thinking goes, but they have global aspirations.
Two Futures for Russia and China And How the United States Should Respond Foreign Affairs

I agree with the author that it is in the middle. What I disagree with is isolating Russia and China together and especially for "bad" behavior unless we have a very specific definition. Good and bad are intentionally vague.

Good and evil are never vague.

Not to you and I but these folks are very slow to address it when they encounter it.

Sounds like the topic for a philosophy debate.

Perhaps. I was thinking that there is a huge difference between those that plan and the rest of us in our thinking styles. I was also thinking of the Banality of Evil by Arendt.

OK, but that might be a kind of bad example. Well, maybe it's a great one. I fear his kind are not that uncommon and can jump out of just about any kind of society. I never believed Eichmann's story.

 

[Disir]

Russia and China seem to be growing closer by the day. In May 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Russia. As China’s official media opined at the time, “China and Russia are deepening and celebrating their old friendship marked by successful cooperation and win-win results, while simultaneously adding new facets to their strategic partnership.”

Maybe, maybe not. There are two schools of thought about the likely trajectory of the Sino-Russian relationship. The first, which could be called the “fatally flawed” school, includes former senior U.S. officials and luminaries, such as Joseph Nye. It holds that the Sino-Russian relationship is a marriage of convenience—riven with mistrust—and consequently, as one author wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “China and Russia are unlikely to forge a sustained strategic partnership.” The second school of thought could be called the “mighty axis” school. It tends toward the view that China and Russia are building a lasting partnership to challenge U.S. dominance. That partnership will become “a feature of a new, post–Cold War geopolitical order,” as Princeton’s Gilbert Rozman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article. Russia and China will start in Eurasia, the thinking goes, but they have global aspirations.
Two Futures for Russia and China And How the United States Should Respond Foreign Affairs

I agree with the author that it is in the middle. What I disagree with is isolating Russia and China together and especially for "bad" behavior unless we have a very specific definition. Good and bad are intentionally vague.

Good and evil are never vague.

Not to you and I but these folks are very slow to address it when they encounter it.

Sounds like the topic for a philosophy debate.

Perhaps. I was thinking that there is a huge difference between those that plan and the rest of us in our thinking styles. I was also thinking of the Banality of Evil by Arendt.

OK, but that might be a kind of bad example. Well, maybe it's a great one. I fear his kind are not that uncommon and can jump out of just about any kind of society. I never believed Eichmann's story.

That he was following orders?

I think there are a lot of folk like him. That was never supposed to happen again. Then Rwanda came and went. Then there was Darfur. And Gambia. And Saloth Sar.

 

[Camp]

Good and evil are never vague.

Not to you and I but these folks are very slow to address it when they encounter it.

Sounds like the topic for a philosophy debate.

Perhaps. I was thinking that there is a huge difference between those that plan and the rest of us in our thinking styles. I was also thinking of the Banality of Evil by Arendt.

OK, but that might be a kind of bad example. Well, maybe it's a great one. I fear his kind are not that uncommon and can jump out of just about any kind of society. I never believed Eichmann's story.

That he was following orders?

I think there are a lot of folk like him. That was never supposed to happen again. Then Rwanda came and went. Then there was Darfur. And Gambia. And Saloth Sar.

That whole following orders line has always seemed suspect to me. I think people who get involved in these things enjoy the status, power and thrill of power. Those who are forced into positions are cowards for not getting out of the situation. In Germany many volunteered for the eastern front or committed suicide. Is there some system whereby the human mind can convince itself to simply follow orders and do ones job when their jobs are so evil, and not realize it is evil? That is the question I suppose.

 

[Disir]

Not to you and I but these folks are very slow to address it when they encounter it.

Sounds like the topic for a philosophy debate.

Perhaps. I was thinking that there is a huge difference between those that plan and the rest of us in our thinking styles. I was also thinking of the Banality of Evil by Arendt.

OK, but that might be a kind of bad example. Well, maybe it's a great one. I fear his kind are not that uncommon and can jump out of just about any kind of society. I never believed Eichmann's story.

That he was following orders?

I think there are a lot of folk like him. That was never supposed to happen again. Then Rwanda came and went. Then there was Darfur. And Gambia. And Saloth Sar.

That whole following orders line has always seemed suspect to me. I think people who get involved in these things enjoy the status, power and thrill of power. Those who are forced into positions are cowards for not getting out of the situation. In Germany many volunteered for the eastern front or committed suicide. Is there some system whereby the human mind can convince itself to simply follow orders and do ones job when their jobs are so evil, and not realize it is evil? That is the question I suppose.

I think the system is dehumanization. Using words like extermination which is the terminology we use for killing bugs and rodents is dehumanizing. Jews were compared to rats. Slaves were considered animals. The Nazis kept meticulous records that were very detailed. A very clinical, sterilized business approach was used. All of this reinforces the view that Jews were subhuman. Killing humans is wrong but killing a rat is ok. Men should not be enslaved but subhuman men are not entitled to the same. You have to create a hierarchy and then justify it. Power is a plus and there are many tangible and intangible benefits gained from adopting this attitude.

For those lower down the totem pole it works like this:
Deceiving the Public