You Have Witnessed History Today in Moscow and It Is Consequential

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: A Son of the New American Revolution.

I have seen a little, but not much, commentary on Xi Jinping’s trip to Moscow. This one — typos and all — will have to do.

I agree with the writer that the deepening alliance between Russia and China represents a turning point in history, one that is happening now in part because we have a weak president and corrupt political institutions.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

42 thoughts on “You Have Witnessed History Today in Moscow and It Is Consequential”

  1. Deepening alliance?

    Russia and China have been in bed together since 1949. Russia used to be on top. Now China is with Russia becoming a de facto vassal. Other than that, not much is different. Two fascist dictatorships clinging to each other as the Western world and countries that embrace liberal democractic principles prosper and grow stronger.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “Two fascist dictatorships clinging to each other as the Western world and countries that embrace liberal democractic principles prosper and grow stronger.”

      Comments like this are why I keep posting on topics related to the Ukraine war. I hope the bubble of arrogant delusion eventually will burst.

      How, exactly, are countries that “embrace liberal democratic principles” prospering and growing stronger at present?

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Bubble of arrogant delusion?”

        You do not deserve a response. If you think life is better in Russia or China than it is here or Canada or Europe or China or Korea or Taiwan or Australia you know what you can do.

        If you think that a hot military confrontation between NATO versus Russia or China would go there way, you are delusional.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. RE: “If you think that a hot military confrontation between NATO versus Russia or China would go there way, you are delusional.”

          I am more concerned about a hot military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia/China combined. I do not believe the U.S. has the economic or military prowess to prevail in such a war.

          Like

          Reply

  2. “ I hope the bubble of arrogant delusion eventually will burst.”

    And so it goes. The question is whether that “arrogant delusion” is on the right or the left?

    I think I know, but “so what”.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “The question is whether that ‘arrogant delusion’ is on the right or the left?”

      Is that really the question? I don’t think so.

      Like

      Reply

        1. How about the one raised in the post: The relationship between Russia and China and what Americans should make of it.

          Like

          Reply

        1. RE: “You toss out insults then deny you did?”

          What insult are you referring to? I criticized a thing (a comment, specifically), not a person.

          Do you mean to suggest that criticism of some things is not acceptable? What is the actual basis of your complaint?

          Like

          Reply

          1. You assume that some of us who do not agree with your support of Putin and that Ukraine should surrender are under “arrogant delusion” is not accurate and certainly insulting.

            But I wouldn’t belabor the issue.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “You assume that some of us…”

            The point is, I didn’t say “some of you,” and I can’t be held responsible for the way other people connect the dots with things I didn’t say.

            Like

          4. RE: “And that is how you intended me to take it.”

            Well, if you imagine that you can read minds, then perhaps you deserve the insult.

            Like

          5. “Well, if you imagine that you can read minds, then perhaps you deserve the insult.”

            It does not take mind reading to see the insult intended. It takes simple knowledge of the words used. Disagreeing with you makes someone “arrogant.” That, sir, is an insult. You can deny your insulting intent until the cows come home, but your words speak for themselves.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “I don’t have to deny something you can’t prove.”

            And I do not have to prove something that is obviously true. People who use insulting words intend insults.

            But seriously, I do not give a rat’s ass that you always fall back on insults or denying that you just said things that you just said. So carry on with whatever it is you think you are doing.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. You are asking people to prove their opinions when it is quite clear what their opinions are.

            You insulted all on this forum who disagree with your pro-Putin, anti-Democracy BS.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. RE: “I do not give a rat’s ass that you always fall back on insults or denying that you just said things that you just said.”

            You sure spend a lot of effort at not giving a rat’s ass.

            Like

  3. Seems like I remember someone around here a year ago pointing out that backing Ukraine would drive Russia into the arms of China,

    Nixon cleverly drove a wedge between the USSR and China, which persisted after the USSR broke up.

    Well, now we have brought the band back together.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

        1. So you think our trade relationship with China will be supplanted by Russia under Putin. Xi may be crafty, but he is no fool. China’s success is based on trade with the West.

          Putin has stolen his Motherland blind for decades. This is why his military is so crappy. Xi knows this, but it’s getting oil at a huge discount. So why bite the corrupt little hand that is selling at a loss.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. “. . . the disadvantage we now have strategically.”

          So what is the strategy behind NOT helping Ukraine and therefore assuring the success of fascist aggression? We then gonna be buddy buddy with a criminal regime? In order to do what?

          I am as well or better qualified as you for this “strategy” discussion. I say our long-term interests lie with defending the rule of law in international relations. How is that wrong? Russia is a puny, mismanaged country. Why should we sacrifice our principles and interests to befriend them?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Had we declined to supply Ukraine from the beginning, they would have been compelled to let the Eastern Oblasts go without a fight.

            Somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Ukrainian and Russian young men would be alive in addition to some unknown number of civilian casualties. Ukraine, the Oblasts, and Russia would be intact and productive.

            Russia and China would still distrust each other and Russia would be our ally against militant Islam,

            Russia may be mismanaged, but it controls a lot of territory, resources and raw materials that will now be available to China and not us.

            And in the end, the only difference will be that the Oblasts will be part of Russia instead of small, independent states acting as buffers.

            Like

          2. …” they would have been compelled to let the Eastern Oblasts go without a fight.”

            And if Mexico did to Arizona, New Mexico and portions of Texas and California, should we just let that happen?

            And NOW you become concerned with the civilian casualties? Didn’t matter that the criminal behavior of Russian forces bombing civilian targets and infrastructure has been occurring since February of last year.

            And Ukraine was bombing SEPEARTIST targets in the east to root out the KREMLIN backed groups that invaded in 2014.

            Take your “no good guys” rhetoric and plant it under you fertilized garden.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Over a year ago I pointed out that all supplying arms to Ukraine would do is get a lot of people killed with no change in the outcome, I remain convinced that is the eventual outcome.

            This war is a CIA creation from before 2014, they just can’t stop trying to destroy the USSR even though it’s been gone almost 30 years.

            Like

          4. “This war is a CIA creation from before 2014 . . .”
            Bullshit!
            Russia started the war, not the CIA.
            Whom did we arm? Whom did we poison? Whom did we invade?

            Ukrainians chose to be an independent European state instead of a de facto colony of Russia. Russia could not allow that. Prosperous neighbors are a source of discontent and dissatisfaction with the fascist kleptocracy running Russia.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. So, you think it is in OUR interest that criminal fascist aggression succeed. Funny, the people living closest to Russia do not share that view, but, hey what do they know?

            “Russia would be our ally against militant Islam,”
            I figured this nonsense would come up again. We are not at war with or threatened by Islam and very little of it is “militant.” And, we have plenty of allies, thank you very much. We do not need the likes of Putin.

            There is war and massive death in Ukraine because of Putin, not us. Ukraine repelled the initial onslaught with very little help from us. Their weapons and ammunition were mostly holdovers from the USSR and ordnance captured from the invaders. And to a certainty, had Biden followed your advice and done nothing to prevent Ukraine from being rolled over you and MAGA would be telling us how weak and stupid he was.

            I will ask again the question you dodged . I say our long-term interests lie with defending the rule of law in international relations. How is that wrong?

            Liked by 1 person

        3. RE: “I say our long-term interests lie with defending the rule of law in international relations. How is that wrong?”

          It is wrong in a number of ways. For one, the world didn’t elect the U.S. to be the global policeman. For another, the U.S. has a long history of breaking the “rule of law in international relations,” for example by seizing the assets of other countries or their citizens.

          More importantly, it is wrong to treat the war in Ukraine as a moral crusade. This self-indulgence fails to acknowledge or appreciate the human harm the war causes — undermining, in fact, the moral principles it pretends to promote.

          Like

          Reply

          1. ” This self-indulgence fails to acknowledge or appreciate the human harm the war causes”…

            Then there is one person to blame for the harm caused by this war, to Ukraine and to his own people that have been sent to the “meat grinder” in Ukraine: VLADIMIR PUTIN.

            It is NOT a moral crusade. It is a democratic country fighting for its survival.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “It is NOT a moral crusade. It is a democratic country fighting for its survival.”

            That’s funny. First you say it is not a moral crusade, then you pitch the moral concern.

            Like

      2. RE: “the disadvantage we now have strategically”

        It helps to visualize it: Russia, China and associated alliances represent about 2/3 of the Earth’s total population.

        Like

        Reply

        2. RE: “Fighting the largest markets is not helping.”

          1/3 of the human population does not represent the largest markets. The thing to contemplate is this: Russia and China can survive without trading with the U.S. and Europe; the U.S. and Europe cannot survive without trading with Russia and China.

          Like

          Reply

          1. The government of China cannot survive if they put their country in survival mode. The people of China have made a Faustian bargain with the Communist Party – increase prosperity and we will tolerate your bullshit.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “The government of China cannot survive if they put their country in survival mode.”

            Are you saying the government of China is not fascist now?

            Like

          3. “Are you saying the government of China is not fascist now?”

            Uh, no. It is a fascist dictatorship that is tolerated because – to use an old fashioned expression – it makes the trains run on time. If that dictatorship causes China to lose the benefits of its trade with the West, Japan, Korea, and even Taiwan, that government would no longer be tolerated.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “ Russia and China can survive without trading with the U.S. and Europe; the U.S. and Europe cannot survive without trading with Russia and China.”

            Why would any third or second world nation want to halt trade with their reliable and wealthy markets?

            China has a sizable, and vocal, middle class now who won’t be happy if Xi doesn’t deliver.

            Russia is irrelevant in the world trade except for oil and gas that they are practically giving away. Here arms exports have taken a hit as the buyers are seeing how ineffective they were in not taking out a tiny country in a week.

            If Ukraine falls, then Moldova is next. China is watching to see how effective the West is militarily while eyeing Taiwan.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. RE: “Why would any third or second world nation want to halt trade with their reliable and wealthy markets?”

            Do you think China is a second or third world nation? I think it better to describe China as the world’s largest manufacturer.

            RE: “Russia is irrelevant in the world trade except for oil and gas that they are practically giving away.”

            You exaggerate. Russia is far from irrelevant as a supplier of potash, grain, rare earth metals, military equipment and advanced technology. They are not “giving away” oil, but selling it at a profit.

            Like

Leave a comment