Herodotus

I don't know if this has been discussed or not, but I am curious what peoples' views are on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Is it a military alliance? Is it a possible threat to NATO? Does it behave similar to NATO, or not at all?

On that note I am curious if alliances "behave" a certain way throughout history. Do states buck-pass, balance, or does one strong state always dominate an alliance? What makes NATO a stronger alliance than say the League of Augsburg? This is all leading to my more poignant question--could Russia and China co-exist in a viable military alliance?

Thanks,

Herodotus

Officer of Engineers

This might give you a clue

Let's keep an eye on the up-coming Russian-China military Exercise

__________________
Chimo

dark-alias

here is some good ole prop. check out the video

J-10 Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

Sinister

Not by a mile.

Herodotus

How so?

Oscar

Not only members of the SCO have conflicting interests but what's more they are each one part of different histories and civilisations...how already difficult it is for NATO to find a common ground amid European and American countries so we can only imagine how so this could be for these nations.

Herodotus

So they have conflicting interests and different histories like all members of any military alliance (NATO). But what would unite them is a common goal, say a hedge to American power in Central Asia, or a hedge to NATO creep in Eastern Europe. In this way they could be bonded together, in a looser alliance than NATO's, but an alliance all the same. Time will tell, but if they are conducting joint military exercises together, they are at least behaving like allies.

Officer of Engineers

Correction, they are conducting dog and pony shows, not real exercises.

Oscar

They are behaving like allies?

For the conflicting interests I was talking of important things like territorial claims (Russia, China), and simply distrusting each other too much to form even a loose alliance.

And if anti-americanism and anti-western feelings were a cement to forge alliances Bandoeng and the successive alliances of third world countries would not have failed as pathetically as they did.

Herodotus

It's more than just anti-american feelings, it also deals with capabilties. Do you mean the Bandung conference in the middle of the Cold War? It did lead to the Non-Aligned Movement, which did have some influence during the Cold War; but it was never meant to be a strict military alliance. But none of those countries had the capabilites in strategic weapons and tactical arms that Russia and China have (think nuclear weapons, space programs, etc.).

You also have to remeber we are in a uni-polar world. What happens when one state has or is perceived to have too much power; the other states will try to balance it. Is Russia concerned with its territorial disputes with China even though they signed a treaty on them? Or is it more concerned with loosing its client state to NATO and the US?

Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation

They are closer to an alliance than you may realize.

Herodotus

Okay, dog and pony shows then.

Skywatcher

Neither Beijing nor Moscow seem to want to actually do anything of import with the SCO.

Its evolved a bit from being a mechanism for resolving disputes in Central Asia, but it doesn't have much growth potential.

Oscar

Herodotus,

The non aligned movement had an influence at the pulpit of the UN Assemby but honestly, who cared? That's Kissinger who said, I believe, that "the South is nothing, just zero...."

China and Russia had both the bomb and faced in their different zones the US; that didn't mean they tried to put in place a common front against America. They were more worried by the neighbour on their back than by a supposedly agressive intent from the US. It's not the means that we should look at, but acknowledging in their minds who's the potential threat? that's always -geographically speaking- the closest power.

And the condominium of the USSR and the USA during the détente? It was a duopole on the world too...

But America's greatest strategic asset is that, like Great Britain during the nineteenth century, it's an island (Brzezinski). England was the main power at these times and continental Europe never tried to form an alliance against it. Why? Because European mainland powers knew the Brits had no interests in expanding their territories on the continent, unlike their direct neighbours. Russia and China can sign as many treaties as they want that will not relocate them elsewhere. That's one of the reasons behind the american disinterested power or benevolent power. They have usually no dog in that fight: that's why Japan, Taiwan...will continue to cling to Uncle Sam rather than accomodate with closer powers or look for another patron.

Herodotus

The USSR and China had ideological differences in the Cold War that are not present in the post-Cold War. The US also exploited those differences and balanced China against the Soviets. Now the opposite could occur where the Chinese could use the Russians to balance against the US.

Bipolar is different than unipolar.

America has ocean moats, making it effectively an island. The one point it is vulnerable is throught the Caribbean, but that has mostly been resolved now. England was a balancer during the 19th century, though Napoleon did try to invade. Russia and China have formed an alliance, not to invade America, but to serve as a hedge against NATO, and US power in their spheres of influence (Central Asia).