Is the United States losing China to Russia?

[@djiniiiii]

the very title of the video shows where the problem lies....who the hell is the US to "lose" China....any sovereign nation does and will do things that benefit it's interests

[@SeekingSynthesis]

Over reacting as usual. You anti-americans who hate america because its trendy are so predictable. So what about if I said "I lost my friends to my ex.", does that imply I subliminally want to suggest I owned them? Would you ask who the hell am I to "lose" my friends? No, you're just being picky about nothing.

[@craignazia]

+MeshiYoko... If you lost your friends to your ex, then you were probably doing something wrong. They made the decision to leave you as a result.

[@SeekingSynthesis]

Craig Watts you're taking the example too far. the point was "losing" someone or "china" does not imply the speaker thinks they own the person or country being lost.

[@Azv8217]

China is already challenging US supremacy as Military Superpower in the Southern Pacific. As China+Russia+India economic & military alliances grow stronger....America must pay attention and understand times and Global Geopolitics have changed

[@FelixMaterial]

We don't care about China

[@mayheamk]

What an informative video, I highly appreciate the ambassadors perspective.

[@ZuAux]

When did US win China? If i may ask

[@lingkong3685]

after vietnam war, before 1991

[@thatguywascool]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Nixon_visit_to_China

[@craigkdillon]

I think it was a Poker game. Or was it Keno??

[@charlesxav1er]

You loose china when you tell then via the Hague they have no right to south china sea islands

[@grantperkins368]

The international criminal court is based there

[@rolfvanheusden211]

Grant Perkins - Yes, but don't make a mistake. The South sea ruling came from the International Court of Justice, a more private organisation, while the International Criminal Court, part of UN, had nothing to do with the ruling. Both are based in The Hague.

[@grantperkins368]

I'd imagine that the International Court of Justice would be as good a body as any other. The problem is that the Chinese probably have one of the five permanent member positions, and could act following the precedent that was set by the US over Nicaragua. This is from Wiki. I found it interesting because i didn't know anything about the ICJ. Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the Court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court.[2] The Court's workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. After the court ruled that the United States's covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to accept the court's jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis.[3] Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council, which the United States used in the Nicaragua case.[citation needed] Composition[edit] Main article: Judges of the International Court of Justice Public hearing at the ICJ. The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of people nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Articles 4-19 of the ICJ statute. Elections are staggered, with five judges elected every three years to ensure continuity within the court. Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge in a special election to complete the term. No two judges may be nationals of the same country. According to Article 9, the membership of the Court is supposed to represent the "main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world". Essentially, that has meant common law, civil law and socialist law (now post-communist law). There is an informal understanding that the seats will be distributed by geographic regions so that there are five seats for Western countries, three for African states (including one judge of francophone civil law, one of Anglophone common law and one Arab), two for Eastern European states, three for Asian states and two for Latin American and Caribbean states.[4] The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States) always have a judge on the Court, thereby occupying three of the Western seats, one of the Asian seats and one of the Eastern European seats. The exception was China, which did not have a judge on the Court from 1967 to 1985 because it did not put forward a candidate.

[@grantperkins368]

Not a "private" body

[@grantperkins368]

Manolito Calor you're welcome ;p

[@sicktoaster]

Can't find the transcript at the link provided.

[@Norwegian733]

Russia is seeking to China because of their weak position. The Ukraine situation together with the fall of energy prices and a Europe talking about ways around imports of gaz and oil from Russia created a perfect storm for China to finally close the oil deal with Russia last year. This happened with a Russia in a desperate economic and political situation and China could pretty much get what they wanted. But I`m pretty sure Russia would rather see a closer relationship with Europe and the US than China. But for now, they need their support.

[@mch8957]

It is China that has a problem with "weak position": it simply does not have enough nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to withstand American bullying all by itself! And in the meantime US is positioning itself for cutting Chinese major lines of supply of energy and industrial resources. So China is in absolute and critical need of Russian support to guarantee its manufacturing, energy, food and military security!

[@lkrnpk]

It's so silly to think in those 50s terms ''not enough nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles''. Do you really think that they sit in Pentagon and count how many nuclear weapons somebody has? One is already too many. Even if China just manages to get one nuclear weapon to explode in New York, that US president that permitted that (if US actually attacked first) would be a goner. Do you know why they are not yet in Iran or North Korea? Precisely because they don't know if these countries can or cannot deliver a nuclear weapon to US shores... even one. Russia needs China more than China needs Russia. China needs money to grow, Russia needs money just to keep above water.

[@mch8957]

lkrnpk China does not need more US FIAT currency "to grow" as well as Russia does not need more printed American or Chinese paper or computer symbols "to keep above water". And US needs a big war to save it from total collapse in the upcoming debt bubble burst, so who cares about that meaningless numbers anyway! You are either totally clueless or are trying to drug me down to your level so you could then beat me with experience. Not interested either way!

[@Norwegian733]

M Ch China also has Fiat currency. The country with the upcomming debt problem is China.

[@lkrnpk]

M Ch LOL people who scream ''debt'' are clueless. How do you think what happens when the debt bubble burst? US military stops existing, all the products and services US are exporting to other countries, Silicon Valley and technology know-how, infrastructure, 100s of years of experience, populace with traditions of democratic institutions. Swap Russian and USA population overnight, place Americans in Russia with Russia's infrastructure and Russians in USA with American infrastructure. You will very soon see Russia developing and USA sinking because the main capital is still people. It's not because of racism or because I believe in American supremacy. It's because when a black man is shot in America it is very bad, but people care, people protest, people express opinions. In Russia, when any man is shot by police, well... ''it's police, what can we do''... The difference is in attitude towards yourself and your own rights and the rights of people living next to you, and willingness of majority of population to actually work on making their country better, not just waiting for handouts from Putin or whomever.

[@johnhbaldwin9178]

What is needed is a controlled collapse of US foreign police , not US military strength but it's policy . America needs to embark on a policy of less intervention and more of helping other nations build their economies with their own natural resources . A good starting place would be Haiti

[@barryshaw5660]

Lost to Russia and China are the words you’re looking for.

[@rebharath]

wish they could fix the mics. every time that woman talks, there's this doppler effect when she turns her head. annoying.

[@pardeeptandon]

A NATO like arrangement in Asia between Russia, China, Japan and India will be the worst nightmare for the sole Super power. .. Brookings should debate this.

[@lamrof]

How come you lose something you don't own.

[@queenking3520]

New Three Kingdoms Era. When B and C join force, A is destined to die.

[@mirandela777]

thank you for sharing this debate, its refreshing to see professionals in action on matters who worry us all; I just deeply regret the host do not invite / provide an russian part, for balancing purposes, and this affected - negatively, in my opinion - the value of this very interesting discussion.

[@FelixMaterial]

You can keep China

[@alana295]

Of course the US will lose! t's all about geography and demographics, the US is oceans away while Asia, Europe and Africa is connected by land with the bulk of the Global Population is within these 3 continents!!

[@psilocybemusashi]

no we are losing russia to china.

[@lixwh]

All speakers are 007s in my understanding, aren't they?

[@agnipankh108]

Really? You need a panel discussion to discuss something that obvious? Whoever is paying for this can save some trouble by writing me a cheque instead! I will even give you the answer right away - "yes"!

[@comments2840]

The fat guy in the middle has some pretty intelligent analysis, unlike most of the China phobia nonsense in the main stream media.

[@TheAHNJJ]

I didn't know U owned us, lol~

[@MidnightRambler]

Thank god trump won

[@mod0049]

Usa losing everything but never had china to lose in the first place ,silly title to the vid.