[Torus34]

When it comes to military muscle there are three big boys in the game. It's been that way for a while now and is likely to be that way for the next few decades. The latest 'wrinkle' is the apparent closeness of Russia and China as indicated by the gas pact. I predict a rash of 'talking head' bloviation on the topic in coming weeks.

On a theoretical plane, such groupings are inherently unstable. A classic example is that of three people who wish to divide up $100. The initial thought of a 1/3 split lasts only as long as it takes for one of the trio to see that a 50/50 split between two of them ... etc.

And so it may go. In jockeying for position, agreements between each of the Big Three will be made on the basis of the apparent advantages -- say an agreement between Russia and China. Later, one of them will see an advantage in some agreement with the United States, und so weiter.

[Igor Antunov]

Great power rivals neighbouring one another can become near-permanent friends, eg French and Spanish empires. China has no points of friction left with Russia in the present. Similarly Spain and France had few if any overlapping claims. China's immediate and foreseeable future concerns revolve around the US presence in the western pacific. Similarly Russia's reside with the US presence in eastern Europe.

And If those frictions are ever resolved with the US (on both fronts) China and Russia would have no reason to invent new points of contentions between themselves. Why? Because they would be busy expanding into their respective spheres of influence. When the US leaves a vacuum in East Asia or Europe, China/Russia will fill the gap.

Their natural directions of expansion do no coincide. China wants to dominate east Asia and Russia wants to dominate Europe. Greater Russia tends west, Greater China tends East and South. Beyond that things get decidedly more unpredictable but that is over a century away thus beyond the scope of this discussion.

[Solastalgia]

Russia wants to dominate Europe

Please show how, or provide a doctrine, that proves this point.

[Igor Antunov]

Simple, Russia's national security strategy has always consisted of setting up buffer states around its Moscow region heartland. It has been the victim of numerous invasions and the western plains are its weakest, most vulnerable points of entry.

[Solastalgia]

Simple, Russia's national security strategy has always consisted of setting up buffer states around its Moscow region heartland. It has been the victim of numerous invasions and the western plains are its weakest, most vulnerable points of entry.

Since when was the entirety of Europe viewed as a buffer zone by Russia? It's important to make the distinction, because you said, "Russia wants to dominate Europe."

[Igor Antunov]

Russia already dominates 40% of the European landmass. Domination of Europe occurs at above 50% of total area controlled by a single country. IT wants to dominate eastern Europe and thus the majority of Europe to buffer against the western European states.

[Solastalgia]

Russia already dominates 40% of the European landmass. Domination of Europe occurs at above 50% of total area controlled by a single country. IT wants to dominate eastern Europe and thus the majority of Europe to buffer against the western European states.

Thanks for the clarification. When you said Russia wants to dominate Europe, it seemed like you were saying they had imperial ambitions against western Europe as well.

[Fritz_Bunkerwurst]

When it comes to military muscle there are three big boys in the game. It's been that way for a while now and is likely to be that way for the next few decades. The latest 'wrinkle' is the apparent closeness of Russia and China as indicated by the gas pact. I predict a rash of 'talking head' bloviation on the topic in coming weeks.

Did anybody think about the fact that military is less and less important?

Economy is the currency what counts...

Military is some old fashionned thinking of ages ago it seems to me...

[mikema63]

Try relying on economic power without the american navy protecting global trade routes or subsidizing the military protection of Europe.

[JohnRawls]

That's not a problem for Russia because Russian trade is mostly land wise anyways. China is a different topic but they have the capability to build up the navy if they need to also since they have more major ports than most countries in the world, the only competitor is the US. (Shuipbuilding and port wise).

[mikema63]

Fritz is german though, not Russian or Chinese.

[JohnRawls]

Most of the german trade is inland also, America doesn't protect german trade that much unless what you meant by that is that America will somehow blockade Germany from any maritime trade then its not a big problem for the germans. The only piracy/trade disruption spot that matter for germans is Somalia and Americans are not really doing much about it, mostly its European countries doing their stuff there.

[mikema63]

If you really believe that America doesn't subsidize Germany's military or trade protection.

If you think Germany doesn't benefit from overseas trade your outside of reality.
[url]
http://m.bbc.com/news/business-26336180[/url]

America and Europe are tied together, and Americas military does matter to Europe. Beyond allowing lower defense budgets because of NATO.

[JohnRawls]

I am just saying that America protecting international trade is a sort of a myth because they don't really 'protect' the trade in a military way. Its a delusion that is brought by American being the world policeman. Please elaborate what you mean by protection of maritime trade. They run military convoys to protect ships? They depose governments because they are not democratic enough? America does subsidize german military in the same way a shopaholic subsidises wallmart, Germany buying American military hardware doesn't mean they cant produce or develop their own. They just have no way to do so right now because of the political climate, foreighn relations and eu disposition on the matter.

[Harmattan]

Great power rivals neighbouring one another can become near-permanent friends, eg French and Spanish empires.

It's amazing what one mountain chain could achieve at the time where large-scale engineering and modern transports didn't exist.
A toast for the Pyrénées, they saved us from yet another bunch of useless wars.

Try relying on economic power without the american navy protecting global trade routes or subsidizing the military protection of Europe.

No country regularly protect trade routes, and plenty of countries are powerful enough to defend them whenever they are attacked: Somalian pirates were a good example since all countries promptly reacted together.

However you could argue that the USA keep resources' prices low: indeed, whenever a poor country tries to increase prices or its share of the profit, it suddenly finds itself invaded by the USA and their friends in the name of democracy or whatever.