Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsq | Hacker News Reader

China may be playing the long game in more ways than one. Russia butts heads with West and undergoes economic and moral deterioration which may lead to rapid regime destabilization, after which China can annex Siberia, which is a truly world class prize, sparsely populated and full of resources.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-bo...

https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Beijing-'eating-up'-Siberia-...

View on HN

Option B is that the west swoops in and installs a western favorable democratic government after the collapse of Russia, putting china and its long term plans in a tough spot.

The world would be such a nicer place if we could recreate the Japan post WW2 success story with Russia.

Or at least, one can dream...

These installed western type governments rarely seem to be particularly stable. At best it would be a tentative step back to pre-2022 Russia.

Democracy just doesn't work as intended without popular support and faith in the institutions. In fact, Russia is one of the better examples of what happens when that is missing from the equation.

Truly, the only winners from this hell. No matter what is the outcome, China comes out on top, specially with all post-WWII international institutions now "weaponizable" by the West (even Central Banks!) and thus leading more countries to diversify away from them, giving China the leeway for esablishing its institutions in lieu.

What makes China’s institutions better than the west’s?

I think the opposite is true. Everyone can see that the west is just and it is not bulling small countries but is stepping against big bully itself.

Much of the Far East was part of China up until recently (or at least, part of the Manchurian state that took over China) so it is very much a thread. Russia and China remain frenemies even today because the Russians are paranoid that China wants that northern harbor that they don't have right now. After all, Harbin is much more populated than Vladivostok.

I don't think, however, that the (very conservative) Chinese leadership is very interested in Russia destabilizing. They aren't very happy about uncertain, and Russia imploding would lead to very uncertain outcomes. In that sense, they probably find the war in Ukraine very annoying but are going along with Russia since they burned too many bridges with the west recently. They would be just as happy with a very thankful Russia as a stable trading partner and military ally. They can (and are) simply colonize the far east via trade and investment.

> annex Siberia

and get nuked?

It of course would only happen if the current regime were to fall. Perhaps 'annex' is too hard a word. Maybe 'cover all oustanding debts and throw in some lucrative personal deals for the current Kremlin warlord'?

Napoleon sold a large chunk of North America for "$11.25 million, plus the forgiveness of $3.75 million in French debt".

https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about...

This whole mess started because Russia can't abide Sevastopol being in a NATO country. They won't accept losing Vladivostok either.

In theory, Ukraine has a agreement with China that China would protect Ukraine from nuclear threats ( supposedly through the one road one belt agreement).

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/7/china-s-unusu...

They also are turning against Ukraine, although they mentioned something different in the past:

> The Chinese Government has constantly opposed the practice of exerting political, economic or other pressure in international relations. It maintains that disputes and differences should be settled peacefully through consultations on an equal footing. Abiding by the spirit of the Sino-Ukrainian joint communiqué of January 4, 1992 on the establishment of diplomatic relations, the Sino-Ukrainian joint communiqué of October 31, 1992 and the Sino-Ukrainian joint statement of September 6, 1994, China recognizes and respects the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and stands ready to further develop friendly and cooperative Sino-Ukraine relations on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#Fr...

This to me has always been one of those very visible signs (not certainties but signs in my opinion) of how nuclear weapons have changed the conduct of large nations.

At most times in history before the advent of nukes, a geographical/political situation of a hugely populated major power being right below the vast, sparsely populated but resource rich territory of another large nation with a tenth the population would have absolutely resulted in a war of conquest and annexation by the former. Now it simply doesn't, partly no doubt because of international laws around wars of aggression and threats of international condemnation or economic sanction, but mostly I suspect just because the weaker power happens to be almost uniquely strong on having a shitload of nukes with which it can annihilate the other country regardless of the size of the latter's population, armies and economy.

Before the 1940's Russia had no nukes and the two were in the same geographical situation, but China was then extremely weak, unlike now. Today's economic and political situation between the two translated to a pre-nuclear world would be very different I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com