The next triple alliance?

Hello, I used to be a nadir of the user base but now I have come out of my hole to address an autistic concern of mine. To begin, I have noticed that China and Russia seem to have been making pretty much useless and empty threats too the DPRK (North Korea) regarding their missile tests and usually stop enforcing sanctions after a certain period of time. Additionally, this situation makes me think that Russia, North Korea, and China may be in some sort of secret alliance of some kind, I mean think about it if the U.S tries to invade North Korea there presence in Europe would not be as great and that generally leaves the Baltic region open to invasion and once the U.S enters North Korea China could step in and flank U.S soldiers and ultimately killing the invasion force. Furthermore, this would leave South Korea alone, and Japan very afraid possibly leading to them joining forces with the Russians, North Koreans, and Russia?

pretty good but more important question:

what anime do you watch?

No lad. They don't make any concrete moves on North Korea because it's in their strategic best interests to see the regime hang on.

>North Korea falls
>American forces bordering Russia and China
>massive refugee crisis that is going to inevitably spill into China and Russia

I started off by watching one punch with my friend but I am not a huge fan of anime, I will also be gone for a bit getting snacks at my local shoppers.

Ah yes, fear the chinks and ruskies and nork gooks. Do so, by all means. Soon you will suck chink balls and your women will belong to the Russians and the Norks will have your penises surgically attached to them prosthetically. Bow before the mighty Chinks. The Bulgarians can have the nigger women.

Look up Silk Road 2.0, Eurasia is diversifying land-based logistics to counter Atlanticist domination of the high seas (and thus global trade). Every Eurasian country is jumping on the bandwagon because they're sick of getting slapped with sanctions or having their sea freight stopped for inspection.

Bulgaria is going to get half of its population killed again.

Russia and China hate each other, and have since the 1960's. China views Asia as its sphere of influence, and so does Russia. There is about as much chance for them getting along as there was for pre-WW1 France and Germany. They want the same chunks of land under their control. I wouldn't say they hate each other, they just don't really like the idea of sharing.

Furthermore, neither of them are superpowers. Even combining their forces, they don't have anything approaching the level of force projection that NATO does. Their carriers are shit, their experience in inter-continental logistics is shit, and their track record for inciting nations to join their side willingly is abysmal. Most Baltic states hate the Russians, and most Asian states hate the Chinese. They are both just horrible allies.

As it stands right now, they are both regional powers, and regional rivals.

Could they become superpowers, and allies, if they made the right moves going forward? Yes. Russia needs to get off its dependency on the oil industry and branch out into higher tech to avoid dutch disease. China needs to stop being an asshole to its neighbors and spend its now depleted wealth wisely and avoid both an incoming real estate bubble and demographic crisis. And both need to invest in real carriers and start learning how to operate continent spanning campaigns.

The US didn't get to where it is today by magic, it took us 150 years of slow buildup and experience to become a superpower. You can't become one just because you want to be one. Japan learned that the hard way, and now it's just our bitch.

But the truth is that the Russians are headed for another economic crisis, and China is about to get the biggest demographic kick in the ass in human history. Both are too proud to admit their faults.

>Russia and China hate each other
>I wouldn't say they hate each other

kek at myself.

What I mean to say is that they don't like each other, but don't desire the other's death.

Both are cozying up to each other out of economic and military necessity. They have realized the west cannot be negotiated with and they have also realized that they need each other more than either of them need the west. China needs energy, weapons, and raw materials while Russia needs consumer goods, financing, and help constructing central Asian logistical infrastructure. They are both anticipating the coming crash and are looking at it as an opportunity to move away from their current model of exporting to their enemies. As for their military problems with blue-water navies and inter-continental logistics, none of that matters since they are only trying to consolidate control of Eurasia.

Thanks for the better insight on politics in the Baltic and Asian regions. Furthermore, what do you think elevated the us to be a world super other than kicking Germany's shit in then doing it again once they awoke the American industrial machine? (don't take that as I hate Germany and have been cucked by the cuck himself Mr.Trudeau and the Canadian ideal that Multiculturalism is the best thing to ever happen)

Ill make sure too I just got home with some pretty nice snacks so if you have a nice documentary I could watch right now would be great!

I just found a map that showed what I trying represent. Furthermore, why is Bulgaria destroyed again?

What elevated the US to being a superpower was global naval dominance after Great Britain collapsed militarily. The reason US power has been declining is because blue-water navies have less economic leverage over Eurasia than they did in the 20th century.

I'm on my phone right now but look up the Sino-Russian investment fund and the new Silk Road economic belt.

America became a superpower mostly because we got crazy good at logistics during WW2 - not at fighting, but at SUPPLYING the fight - and we were pretty much left untouched following the conflict.

Every single time America goes to Bumpfuckistan and fights a war, our military keeps up its experience at fighting in distant conflicts with our supply chains constantly under fire and any hope of fresh reinforcements weeks away. We learn and relearn to plan the entire campaign before it ever even starts.

So if the US needed to invade China, we'd probably have a hard time at first, but eventually we'd win.

China or Russia trying to invade the US would be in for a living Hell so vast and bloody that it'd make Afghanistan and Vietnam look like camping trips. This isn't to say it's impossible to invade the US successfully, it's just unimaginably difficult for a nation with poor power projection but a big military like China to pull off without their troops getting attrition'd and convoy raided to death. Every tank a piece of dynamite blows up needs to be replaced, every soldier some minuteman shot needs to be taken to a hospital and/or replaced, and every machine gun and stomach needs to be fed. Big army = large amount of supplies needed = big logistical burden = big vulnerability when invading.

China and Russia would have to learn. Probably by invading some smaller country, then some distant country in Africa let's say, and so on. They'd need to build up their navy to be able to do all this as well.

America isn't the world's last superpower because it's super special. It's because it's military learned to think 20 moves ahead at all times. Our doctrine is 'do not fight until you have a three to one advantage.' That's literally what was drilled into me at ROTC.

>China owns Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan

I could understand the confusion with Taiwan, but what the fuck? how do you fuck up a map this badly?

This is also true. Submarines have become extremely sophisticated and, in some circles of military thought, can win a conflict all by themselves - both through nukes and through conventional torpedoes. Sub-hunters have not seen comparable advancements, and I think the US's coastal anti-sub patrols still use prop-planes.

Carriers are still key to power projection and landing troops on the ground, however, as you cannot literally just paradrop your entire army half-way across the world and expect it to be completely fine.

So if you want to blow up the world, or at least threaten to, you just need nuclear submarines. But if you actually want to fight a conventional war, you need carriers.

what?

>Bulgaria
What did they mean by this?

I don't know what's up with that but Tajikistan in particular often ends up being a part of China on Western maps. It's especially hilarious with IQ maps since there is about 20 points of difference.

I was paying attention to the map to be honest I saw something that looked like it worked well enough

You only need carriers if you're a maritime power trying to exert global influence. The Russians and Chinese came up with the asymmetrical response of area-denial and land-based logistics. The Chinese and Russians don't want to build a global superpower like the US, has, they just want to make the maritime Atlanticist model of global superpower obsolete. America can't be a global superpower if the world's largest landmass stops taking orders.

Sorry mate it is pretty much a little very crapy conspiracy that I think North Korea, China, and Russia are allied.

Most of Asia is mountains, deserts, and tundra.

'World's largest' doesn't mean jackshit.

I think it's fair to say that they would respond to US aggression in the region as a united front. But Russia's wars are not China's wars, and vice versa.

Yes it does, as they develop the pipelines, rail, and roads they need to conduct significant trade over lands that the US can't touch, they break the ability of the US to strangle them economically.

That's just defeatist talk. Soviet Union didn't build carriers because the main carrier proponent in the navy fell out of Stalin's favor and it was only in 60s that minister of defense had enough influence to actually put the projects in place. They still had to call them "plane carrying cruisers" and "large bargers with extensive air carrying capabilities" due to the stigma. Shit was retarded. These days we don't have resources to maintain a huge navy but MOD wants to build a new nuclear carrier or two by 2030.
China simply didn't have neither need nor expertise in building blue navy ships until lately but they are catching up pretty fast. They won't be able to rival US navy in the near future but Chinese global power projection within a decade is a very real perspective.

Okay so my idea was not completely stupid!

I'm not saying that the Russians or Chinese will never build large blue-water navies, all I'm saying is that they are taking the smarter route of negating American control of the high-seas by devoloping land-based logistics. Why fight fire with fire when you don't need to? It's not defeatist, it's a smart strategy for these countries. In fact, it's the worst nightmare for the old Atlanticist power model. The US is shitting itself

>The US didn't get to where it is today by magic, it took us 150 years of slow buildup and experience to become a superpower. You can't become one just because you want to be one. Japan learned that the hard way, and now it's just our bitch
Americans were more successful at conning, terrorizing, threatening (coercing) and abusing their targets.

That's the amount of what you call "150 years of buildup".