I think that maybe China wants someone to prevent a power vacuum from forming in Afghanistan, to prevent Russia from geting its hands on it. Once Russia croaks, China will no longer need placeholders there, and will be able to spread its influence there. Then it will no longer try to push for US troop presence in the region.
Also, the US sending soldiers anywhere costs money, and why not exhaust the resources of your enemy/competitor on the global arena while you're at it.
Russia failed in Afghanistan when they had a good military. They might have an in through a proxy like Syria or Iran but I'm not sure what the play would be exactly. A baseless invasion would not go well for any nation especially a large one. Best they could do is fund anti-Taliban forces- which would be pretty cheap.
Also, the US sending soldiers anywhere costs money, and why not exhaust the resources of your enemy/competitor on the global arena while you're at it.
this is the most convincing argument. i'm just not convinced that china had to do much, if any convincing. clearly many in our government want our troops there still. again, I think our companies benefit from this more than china. I could see China doing it just to fuck us and Russia potentially.
If there is an even momentary power vacuum near Russia, it'll have its "green men" there in no time under all sorts of bullshit pretenses. Just like they did in Ossetia and Crimea. Whether the invasion is baseless or not is simply a question of who gives a damn. Nobody wants to fight Russia, as war is expensive and if you're not going to capture some kind of resource rich region, what good will it do?
Also, Russia failed in Afghanistan because the CIA actively trained the taliban forces, and even though having a powerful military makes it easy to capture new territory, it's still very vulnerable to guerrilla warfare.
Maybe these companies are benefiting, but overall I suspect the expenses of having a force overseas may be just about as big as the profit...
You misunderstood, I meant an invasion by China would not work on the int'l stage. Not Russia, they don't really care and sure- that is how they would do it as you described. The question is, would they be successful or would the Taliban not just galvanize even more support from the Afghan ppl, Pakis, ISIS, Indian extremist groups, etc.
China has investment there so I suppose preserving the status quo is a reasonable strategy for them. I'd just think they would have potential for even more presence if we weren't there, at least from where I sit.
Oh, well China's doctrine is not focused on grabbing territory using its army. It is much more patient. China can focus on economic influence, and it would be very convenient if they can spread their tentacles in the shadows, when someone else (like the US for example) is in the spotlight, being a target for the angry population. They can also strive for a demographic change, very much like the muslim invasion of Europe.
For example: Russia's failing economy relies on China to play ball (at least with the construction of the new oil/gas pipeline from Asia to Europe, which had cost a fortune and failed). As part of the agreements between Russia and China, large parts of Siberia have been leased for exploitation for about 50 years. This is convenient for China because it offers employment for its population, that settles in the new region, and after about 50 years they'll have so many Chinese there that an annexation wouldn't be out of the question.
I think that maybe China wants someone to prevent a power vacuum from forming in Afghanistan, to prevent Russia from geting its hands on it. Once Russia croaks, China will no longer need placeholders there, and will be able to spread its influence there. Then it will no longer try to push for US troop presence in the region.
Also, the US sending soldiers anywhere costs money, and why not exhaust the resources of your enemy/competitor on the global arena while you're at it.
Russia failed in Afghanistan when they had a good military. They might have an in through a proxy like Syria or Iran but I'm not sure what the play would be exactly. A baseless invasion would not go well for any nation especially a large one. Best they could do is fund anti-Taliban forces- which would be pretty cheap.
this is the most convincing argument. i'm just not convinced that china had to do much, if any convincing. clearly many in our government want our troops there still. again, I think our companies benefit from this more than china. I could see China doing it just to fuck us and Russia potentially.
If there is an even momentary power vacuum near Russia, it'll have its "green men" there in no time under all sorts of bullshit pretenses. Just like they did in Ossetia and Crimea. Whether the invasion is baseless or not is simply a question of who gives a damn. Nobody wants to fight Russia, as war is expensive and if you're not going to capture some kind of resource rich region, what good will it do?
Also, Russia failed in Afghanistan because the CIA actively trained the taliban forces, and even though having a powerful military makes it easy to capture new territory, it's still very vulnerable to guerrilla warfare.
Maybe these companies are benefiting, but overall I suspect the expenses of having a force overseas may be just about as big as the profit...
You misunderstood, I meant an invasion by China would not work on the int'l stage. Not Russia, they don't really care and sure- that is how they would do it as you described. The question is, would they be successful or would the Taliban not just galvanize even more support from the Afghan ppl, Pakis, ISIS, Indian extremist groups, etc.
China has investment there so I suppose preserving the status quo is a reasonable strategy for them. I'd just think they would have potential for even more presence if we weren't there, at least from where I sit.
We are in Afghanistan so we can control oil flow through the Middle East if we wanted to.
Further, having a base on both sides of Iran does wonders for power projection there.
China going into Afghanistan would ruffle too many feathers on the international stage. Particularly with India and Russia.
Oh, well China's doctrine is not focused on grabbing territory using its army. It is much more patient. China can focus on economic influence, and it would be very convenient if they can spread their tentacles in the shadows, when someone else (like the US for example) is in the spotlight, being a target for the angry population. They can also strive for a demographic change, very much like the muslim invasion of Europe.
For example: Russia's failing economy relies on China to play ball (at least with the construction of the new oil/gas pipeline from Asia to Europe, which had cost a fortune and failed). As part of the agreements between Russia and China, large parts of Siberia have been leased for exploitation for about 50 years. This is convenient for China because it offers employment for its population, that settles in the new region, and after about 50 years they'll have so many Chinese there that an annexation wouldn't be out of the question.
Playing the long game.