Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "China's Catastrophic Oil u0026 Gas Problem" video.
-
@pepperVenge
I don't think that the US would take that risk.
Russia knows that it wouldn't in a conventional war. It has, simply put, less to lose by threatening nuclear war.
The US knows this too, and may think twice about even trying. A cornered animal is more likely to lash out, after all.
And btw, the US is doing nothing near the level it did with China in the 1990s. It understands boundaries, it only selectively chooses to enforce them.
Its likely that, since keeping the Bering Strait open is in both Russia and China's interest, the US (despite having the bigger military) wouldn't dare to block it.
Russia, even after the end of this conflict, will become the world's breadbasket again, with a hand over North Africa, Turkey, and most importantly Middle East's throat.
Holding potential Arab Spring and Levant migration to EU as a bargaining chip is more powerful than you think
I don't think I have to mention how quickly stores around the world would go broke without Chinese products.
Most finished goods still come from there, and the US does not have the capacity to replace even a fraction of what China makes. They would also face pressure from Europe to end the blockade.
You don't need to have the bigger military to win a conflict
10
-
9
-
@pepperVenge
Shortened,
'Can do' doesn't mean 'will do'. Plausibility matters just as much as capability.
If the US goes too far, not even Europe will throw support behind it, making the effect lessened and the action toothless.
Russia's access to its own side of the Bering is not disputed, so US blocking it would garner no support and give Russia the blameless right to counterattack.
China's 9-dash line is different- it only becomes legitimate if no-one challenges it, and since there's no consensus on the borders, the US can challenge it without handing the Chinese a legitimate excuse to attack.
Russia's sovereignty over its own territory isn't under question, and attacking Russia directly is something the US won't do- they refuse to set up a no-fly zone, potentially shooting Russian planes, or letting Ukraine fire into Russian territory.
(which was my whole original point- they don't attack Russia directly, that's a fact. And since the US has better armed forces, the only answer to "why don't they then?", is MAD).
I don't deny what you said, but I think you're trying to disprove a different point to the one I'm making.
4
-
@pepperVenge
No, I'm not grasping. I'm explaining why certain lines, even in the US' case, won't be crossed.
I'm not sure how else to explain it to you:
I think that the US still believes- especially given how recklessly it has acted recently- that Russia would actually attempt a nuclear attack, consequences be damned.
I also did address that point on China, though indirectly, in the first comment. Pure capability works in tandem with plausible defensibility.
That is to say, if Russia's sea lanes within its own EEZ are actively blocked, it will be much more willing to counter because there is plausible reason to do so.
There will be much less, if any, backlash from the "international community" because, whatever they may think of Russia, they are all party to agreements that state a country can counter-attack when its sovereignty is violated. To willingly disregard the norms that they themselves abide by and benefit from would be politically untenable.
Now back to the China point.
In the late 1990s, the US sent warships right next to China's border with Taiwan to defend it. This would be unthinkable today because, in the eyes of the world, China would be justified in protecting its borders- so the economic and political fallout of aggressively preventing another US encroachment would be reduced compared to, say, Russia in Ukraine.
The US knows this- which is why it hasn't done anything like that since, despite repeat violations.
Regarding Ukraine, you're ignoring that the US hasn't done many other things, despite repeat calls from Western countries. The vast majority of the rejections follow the same core logic: doing this would bring us in direct conflict with Russia, which (despite what you said, which is true) we don't want.
If you're convinced that Russia would lose, why the American hesitation? Why might that be?
Because I'm right. MAD works, and doing something that gives Russia plausible reason to respond indiscriminately (and defend those actions) is politically /unthinkable, even in the US.
For example, despite lots of Baltic, Polish, Lithuanian, and European pressure, the US has refused to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Washington also makes Ukraine promise every time it sends weapons that it won't fire beyond Ukraine's own borders.
Consider what they are avoiding here.
3
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
@TheMacC117
They do, but the US's "nautical area" doesn't extend into Russia's!
It has a clear cutoff line, and beyond that, they have no authority. They especially don't have any authority over Russia's area, so "enforcing" would just be invading.
Are you fucking stupid? It's Russia's backyard too, both agree that the area in-between belongs to neither of them. This isn't the South China Sea. Russia has territory that it legally owns, and the US acknowledges that legally. They cannot blockade Russia's "nautical area". That's my whole point.
They can try, but Russia has already proven willing to throw bodies at a losing war-- I wonder if Alaskans would like their first taste of nuclear-tipped geopolitics?
"sit there, don't bother us, and we'll leave you alone"
Bro, do you have 0 self-awareness? That's what Russia would ask the US to do in Alaska!!
Don't sail into Russian territory, stay over there, don't disrupt our trade, and everything will be fine.
Jesus Christ.
I'll say it again: the US cannot blockade the Bering. If it starts using "it's our backyard" as an excuse, then I think Russia will have a perfect reason to keep Ukraine out of NATO for another few centuries. It's their backyard, after all!
The Bering has US-recognized Russian waters on one side. They cannot blockade that without risking a serious conflict, because Russia would 100% be in the right to, say, threaten to torpedo a US warship out of Russian waters.
If you really wanna keep arguing, go ahead. But the US have no good excuses to blockade legally Russian territory, especially since it's for trade between Europe and China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1