will china and russia partnership end the reign of the USA
Debate Rounds (5)
now, for a person you read and analyzed the history it won't be difficult to understand that america was almost the lord of the world, they did what they wanted through the years, simetimes with difficulties sometimes with an easy way. they have chewed the USSSR which in fact had greater economy, or whereever they wanted to conquer they did, maybe with legal ways maybe with making illegal ways legal(it depends how much you can understand the ulterioir of the events), maybe the USA was not succesfull at some places but still over the years no state had a stability like usa. not just power, in sport, science or almost any other categories, the USA has been the lord but last years it seems that CHina and russia seem intending to end it, maybe unreluctantly. for example: you know, how many times has past but the USA still hasnt invaded syria, last year this times the syrian army unreluctantly hit the land of turkey and the nato and the usa and the turkish government gathered and discussed attack back to syria but Putin blocked it or put it off. or according to statistics in the next future years partners of russia or BRICS will have new millioners and they will increase the number of his millioners while the USA will decrease the number of his millioners, and latest years great countries are with russia(india, iran, china, brasil) I know great countries such as germany, england and e.t.c are with the usa but they are losing power while russian allies gaining.
maybe I am wrong these are my opinions and I dont mean these are correct, if uncorrect please correct it. share ideas.
While its true that USA have had a rough time the last years they shouldn't be counted out yet.
I will split up my arguments in 3 sections. military, politics and Economy.
Compared to both China and Russia USA is the most powerful military nation on earth and is one of the few countries with massive capabilities to invade countries that lies on the other side of the earth.
For example, USA got 12 aircraft carriers while China and Russia only got one each. USA also got another 10 amphibious assault ships(smaller aircraft carriers) while the Russians have bought four which are in construction.
While United states economy has been bad now for the last few years they will soon start to get back up.
However Russia and China got their own problems.
Russia is spending enormous amount of money on the military (amongst other things) and the only thing stopping the military costs to destroy the Russian economy is their oil/gas exports, and its not good to rely so much on only one source of income, even less as its doomed to decrease as the amount of oil will diminish, also if new oil sources are found elsewhere the oil prices will go down which is not good either. The question is if Russia got the reserves needed to survive these changes if the oil income diminishes.
China has experienced a massive economic boom for the latest years but the problem is that most of it is built on top of over investments and debts. Even if the Chinese market doesn't crash the economic growth will certainly come to a halt as the rest of the market must catch up with the investments and debts(aka they must make the Chinese buy more).
And another important part of the Chinese economy is the import and export, so lets see what nations are China's biggest partners.
Looks like USA and EU are the two top partners with China while the trade with Russia is only a fraction of the top partners.
So while Russia trades mostly oil and other natural resources China trades mostly manufactured wares to USA and EU. If they would stop trade with China it would be catastrophic to the Chinese market and while for some time the markets in USA and EU would react badly but as domestically made products starts to be available again instead of cheap Chinese wares the western economy would start to go better again.
Both USA and Russia are part of the security council and like all other countries there they can put in a veto vote to any suggestions, it's something Russia and China loves to do against USA as it can stop plans without putting any power behind it.
However this time USA went besides UN and still wanted to attack Syria but Russia objected as Syria is a Russian ally.
However after something similar to a small cold war both countries got big fleets outside Syria waiting for orders. But now the Russians have told that they have no intentions to fight against USA but to only help for the Syrian regime by selling weapons and perhaps missile defense, not a direct attack against US forces as it was once believed.
"U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified this week that the Russians might even replace any military assets the U.S. destroys in a strike."
"Secretary of State John Kerry, though, said the Russians have made clear they don't intend to go to war over a strike on Syria.
Perhaps more likely is that Putin's government would continue to aid and prop up the Assad regime, undermining any gains made by a U.S. strike. "
Now this is from fox news so the Russians may sound a bit more aggressive than they actually are.
And here I stop my first arguments.
Yet again I thank you for this debate and I wish you good luck.
(I hope the links work as I am new to this site)
now, let us ponder military plight.
yes the USA has the most powerful army in the world but when compared with the allies russia's crew seems better. according to http://www.globalfirepower.com... russia is second, china is third and india is foruth place. these three are all with russia and I guess they will be.
you have statistics, but statistics does not mean that who has more he will be better, it is the era of atom bomb no matter how many vehicles you have if a war exists between russia crew and the USA crew I have no doubt that nuclear weapon will be used and there will be nobody like the UNO who can say: stop using , I mean nuclear weapons will be used and no point in having more tanks, carriers or e.t.c one nuclear bomb is enough to destroy everything.
yep, neither has nuclear weapons, india, pakistan, china, korea, north korea have nuclear weapons and behind russia, usa, france, englaand have nuclear weapon and behind usa. russia crew countries all are countries which occupy large area. it will not be difficult for russia and allies to destroy the usa allies. it is my opinion, at the moment usa allies avoid russia and china to attack syria, vice versa the usa does not care what the UNO says, they just trying to negotiate with Putin in order to set him agree to attack Esad, Putin does not agree with this and the USA allies are still avoiding, I think this presumptions show that in military the usa is beware of russia.
let us ponder economy.
during the war your economy does not cost so much, for example: north korea and the south is the best example I think. the south has population twice to north and south kore's economy is still better than north but the north has nuclear weapon, it shows that during a war your economy does not mean much. I have no boubt that north will have no difficulty to destroy the south if a war starts among them.
now, nothing will cost in case a war starts between the usa crew and russia crew, if you hav enucleear weapon and enough budget to use it then that is enough.
looks like the USA and EU are the biggest partners but still they are with russia, they and china are partners just for money but when comes to taking part whether they need to be with the usa or russia, they are with russia.
china, iran and russia are behind syria, despite the usa is thesecond biggest partner of china, china is still with russia, it shows that china cares russia more than they value the USA. even in 2008 china and russia wanted ruble as an international money instead of dollar. this also shows that china values russia. coming to iran, no difficulty to understand that iran hates the usa.
let us come to political comparison between the two.
russia said they do not want to figth but putin said we may do anything if the international laws get chewed by the usa for attacking syria, and it is the policy of russia, they just sell weapons and they do not lose power for fighting liker they did in vietnam. they want their weapons to be sold and get money, they dont care syrians, just money, and now Esad is the bigest source for money.
btw, my arguments are based on my predictions and opinions. thank you.
The Nato forces got over 3.5 million army personnel plus reserves(plus other allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia. The Russo Chinese(as I call it) partnership(including India) got 4,7 million army personnel plus reserves. With that said the technology level on the western forces are much higher than any of the Russo Chinese allies.
Russia and China(with India) may have more nuclear weapons than USA but you are forgetting NATOs nuclear defense. In almost all NATO countries in Europe there are Patriot missile batteries(or similar missile with the same task) and US carrier groups are protected with Cruisers/Destroyers outfitted with AEGIS making them a hard target for any ballistic missile.
"- I have no boubt that north will have no difficulty to destroy the south if a war starts among them."
If we compare north to south Korea south is definitely going to win. First while NK got nukes SK got anti ballistic Patriot missiles that easily can take down the presumed primitive nuclear weapons NK use.
The NK military is also a standing joke with equipment that belongs more on a museum than in combat, like T55s and even their best tanks are basically updated old Russian tanks. The air force isn't much better with planes like Mig 21.
That's the problem with both Russia and China, they may have the numbers on their side but the individual soldiers have bad equipment and bad training. Of the thousands of tanks Russia got only a couple of hundred are of the most modern types. The rest are old T72 and T80, the exact tanks M1 abrams are made to face.
China got more modern tanks but the question is if its enough.
With all due respect, I understand that this debate is about USA and its allies vs a Russo Chinese partnership(with India) in many ways including but not limited to war.
As I understood its how they would fare against each over in both war and peace(economic and political battles). If I am mistaken I am sorry and will change accordingly.
"-looks like the USA and EU are the biggest partners but still they are with Russia, they and china are partners just for money but when comes to taking part whether they need to be with the USA or Russia, they are with Russia."
They trade a lot with china and with Russia but most(if not all) of Europe is allied to USA. If you take a look at the NATO countries in Europe you can see that almost all European countries are part of NATO and many of the eastern block countries would rather be extinct that to be back under Russian "protection"(that many scarified their lives for to leave during the first time)
"-china, Iran and Russia are behind Syria, despite the USA is the second biggest partner of china, china is still with Russia, it shows that china cares Russia more than they value the USA. even in 2008 china and Russia wanted ruble as an international money instead of dollar. this also shows that china values Russia. coming to Iran, no difficulty to understand that Iran hates the USA."
China and Russia are of course allies in this scenario, as is Iran, Syria and India. However even if the Russians and Chinese wanted the Ruble as an international currency doesn't change the fact that the dollar is more worth than the Ruble. And the fact remains if USA and Europe stops to trade with China the Chinese economy will plunge down into chaos even if Russia will try to back up. The Chinese government may be closer to Russia but they are still dependent on the buyers in Europe and USA.
"-Russia said they do not want to fight but putin said we may do anything if the international laws get chewed by the usa for attacking syria, and it is the policy of russia, they just sell weapons and they do not lose power for fighting liker they did in Vietnam. they want their weapons to be sold and get money, they dont care syrians, just money, and now Esad is the bigest source for money. "
Syria is one of few Russia friendly nations in the middle east and a important ally to Russia. Of course they want to sell weapons to earn money without getting to much in the way for USA. USA on the other hand don't want to get into another Afghanistan/Iraq with prolonged fighting against Russia backed terrorists. So they both back their side with weapons and perhaps a few air strikes. Its nothing new. Its been done several times in history that one side is at war with a soviet/USA backed enemy. For example, Afghanistan(USA funded the Mujahedin), Vietnam(Soviet backed the NVA and Vietcong, USA backed south Vietnam) (Korea, NK were soviet backed) and so on.
Both sides are careful not to be to aggressive as they don't want a full blown nuclear war.
Thank you and good luck.
links to different sources.
patriot missile system
North korea army
no point in talking about koreas after your infos.
"They trade a lot with china and with Russia but most(if not all) of Europe is allied to USA. "
yes they are, but still at the time the USA needs support they are not behind the usa, for example: The UK or germany, they were ally of the usa at the time cold war was existing and after that, but now? avoiding russo chinese partnership, they have left the usa alone, just france supporting the usa, among g20 11 or 12 countries wanted syria to be attacked by the usa but jsut france and turkey said we want to join the usa, but china, iran and others were always with russia no matter russia is right or not, seems american allies can leave at any time while russo chinese partners are always together.
" However even if the Russians and Chinese wanted the Ruble as an international currency doesn't change the fact that the dollar is more worth than the Ruble."
by giving this info I have not meant that ruble is more worth than dollar, I have meant that china gives more value to russia than they give to the usa or the eu despite that his big trade allies are the eu or the usa.
"And the fact remains if USA and Europe stops to trade with China the Chinese economy will plunge down into chaos even if Russia will try to back up. The Chinese government may be closer to Russia but they are still dependent on the buyers in Europe and USA."
maybe but if the buyers from the eu and the usa stop working with chinese economy do you think that china economy cannot survive? if it was like this, the usa and the eu would have already made a law againt trade with china. 2. china wouldnot have supported russia instead of the usa. they know that without the usa or eu too they can survive.
" USA on the other hand don't want to get into another Afghanistan/Iraq with prolonged fighting against Russia backed terrorists."
they do want it, if they didnot want, kerry and obama wouldnot have tried to attack syria, behaviour of kerry and obama, also majority of senate shows that the usa does want to get into another afghanistan and iraq but russia prevents them.
"yes they are, but still at the time the USA needs support they are not behind the usa, for example: The UK or germany, they were ally of the usa at the time cold war was existing and after that, but now? avoiding russo chinese partnership, they have left the usa alone, just france supporting the usa, among g20 11 or 12 countries wanted syria to be attacked by the usa but jsut france and turkey said we want to join the usa, but china, iran and others were always with russia no matter russia is right or not, seems american allies can leave at any time while russo chinese partners are always together."
"First of all, as you mentioned NATO, NATO is not the usa's ally, the USA is part of nato, that is all. there is no point in writing about NATO when comparing THE usa and its allies with russia and its allies"
You say that this is a conflict between US allies and Russian allies but then say that NATO members are not allies to USA because USA is also a member, it doesnt make any sense as they basically made NATO because they were allies against the Soviet union and needed a unified organization to easily handle enemies.
And while it's true that USA is not a leader it's still the single most powerful member of NATO and basically the force everyone looks up to, but NATO members are all free to choose whether they want to take part in an operation.
I understand that you think that most of Europe will go over to Russia's side, however I don't exactly see you reasons.
It's one thing that they dont want to be drawn into another conflict in the middle east started on not so certain causes(a regime gas attack) (well, all except France because they also want to bomb Syria). It's another thing to choose to join Russia in a conflict with Russo China and USA. What you don't seem to know is that the cold war and the fact that Russia(or the soviet union) is still warm in many people's mind. The German people where divided for decades and numerous nations were practically enslaved. To finally get out of the union many countries payed a high price in the form of blood, belive me when I say that except for a few excuses no european nation wants to be forced into a new Russian alliance. Believe me when I say that many people in eastern Europe hate Russia(or atleast dislike them) and would never join them. And the Georgian conflict didnt do much to change that, more than to increase the hatred in some places.
My opinion is that Most if not all of Europe will be on NATOs side(aka USAs side).
However if we play with our mind and they stay out of the conflict and join neither side lets see which nations are truly friends to USA. One way to find out is to see what nations USA got forces in(mutually of course). I also guess you wouldn't want foreign troops of a hostile nation in your country so they must be friends then, right?
So her is a list
So in that list we got several of the most powerful European nations, lots of middle eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate. And of course many countries in Asia like, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Austraila, Singapore.
As you can see USA got many allies across the globe, some more powerful than others, and don't forget countries like Israel that are very close allies with USA(Or Pakistan who are extremely hostile to India(enemy of my enemy is my friend).
"they do want it, if they didnot want, kerry and obama wouldnot have tried to attack syria, behaviour of kerry and obama, also majority of senate shows that the usa does want to get into another afghanistan and iraq but russia prevents them."
Also you say they want a new Afghanistan, however as Obama points out, they are not planning to have boots on the ground but to only use the air force and artillery to assist the rebels. And even if Kerry said its not impossible to get troops there in an interview the main mission will be to help the rebels with air strikes and missile strikes and the occasional SF team, not to take control of the entire country like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"maybe but if the buyers from the eu and the usa stop working with chinese economy do you think that china economy cannot survive? if it was like this, the usa and the eu would have already made a law againt trade with china. 2. china wouldnot have supported russia instead of the usa. they know that without the usa or eu too they can survive."
This is all hypothetical, right now EU and USA would have nothing to win by shutting down trade with China, its if the conflict escalates they could start putting trade embargos. And I know its Russia and China vs usa and allies. I dont mean to make China go over to USAs side but to make it harder for the Russo Chinese partnership to economically defeat USA. And while China will survive(USA and EU arent their only trade partners) however no other parts of the world consume as much as EU and USA, and as the most consuming countries in the east also are allies to usa(Japan, South Korea) it would be even harder for the Chinese.
However if we say that trade will continue like ordinary China got other problems. Like I have said earlier they are fueling their economic groth with massive infrastructure projects and debts which is something of an bubble. Its growing larger and larger until the bubble bursts, what I mean is that they can't keep up the pace they got now indefinitely as one day it will be to much.
I dont know if it will crash, probably not but their economic boom will get a fast ending and probably neglect a bit before it stabilizes.
Chinas biggest advantage has so far been its cheap salaries, many companies are using things produced in china as its cheaper to build them there and then ship them over to the states and Europe. However in the last years the Chinese workers have started to demand higher salaries making the production more expensive. This will cause some companies to pack up and move to a different cheaper country instead unless matters are done, but Chinas production might will go down a bit even at best.
my arguments are based on my predictions and analyzes, I can not find a way to explain it and evidence is not evidence until it is shown, fact is not fact until it is proven, everybody is innocent unless the crime he or she has done is proven, hence here I claim that my opponent wins and i have forfeiten this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.