In a hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win?

In a hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win? What would the casualty and material loss figures look like?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China would flatten them so quick it wouldn't be funny, all Russia has is nukes both sides lack the balls to press the button.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      china, by a wide margin, but unlike what thinks, it WOULD be funny because both sides would have glaring moments of incompetence. china would just have less of them, enough for an easy win.

      >Verification not required.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This.
        China would certainly win but the chinese would still manage to embarass themselves.
        Overall it sounds like it would be hilarious to watch.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      China has no way of getting it's army to Moscow. Their airborne brigades are limited and only contain light armor, it wouldn't be enough to take Russian cities. Their tanks and ground forces are not surviving the thousand mile trek to Moscow, chinks have zero logistic experience to do so, and their equipment would likely breakdown. Unless a few thousand paratroopers is enough to bring Russia to it's knees, this would never happen

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >paratrooper attack on moscow airport
        >the city falls
        >putin runs, china wins in 3 days

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >China has no logistic experienced
        >Literally is building roads through the Himalayas and up Mt. Everest
        >Literally is building trains, pipelines, roads, and ports from Italy to Pakistan, to Iran, through Central Asia
        >The country building infrastructure all over Africa and defending it with PLA forces supplied in the middle of Africa
        >The country that built a massive transportation network within its borders which is almost the size of all of the US, including Alaska, which mostly doesn't have paved roads or trains in the US.
        >The country building 20 buildings over 1,500 feet right now at once with a 2,000+ building finished.
        >The country that supplies 180+ million people with food in just its 10 largest cities
        >The country that supplies bases all through Central Asia over thousands of kilometers of mountains and desert and does absolutely fuck huge public works even the US wouldn't attempt in them.
        >The country that runs many of Europes ports and makes much of the durable good on US and European shelves, also which makes the ships they rely on for supply (they couldn't even make masks without China)
        >The country that runs much of the resource extraction in Russia's Far East and builds the infrastructure.
        >The country founded on the Long March, an almost 10,000 kilometer fighting retreat.
        This is pure projection. Russia has bad logistics so China just too. France and the UK have logistics issues so China must to. Somehow they pull in natural resources from every corner of the Earth and ship, on ships they built, often to ports they built, goods to every corner of the Earth, but actually, they can't do logistics. This is also what MacArthur told himself before being routed.

        China has many problems. An opaque government. An undefined system for transfer of power. Corruption. A mix of nationalistic overconfidence and a giant inferiority complex. Inflexible leadership. .

        It does not lack production or transport capabilities.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          To be fair, I don't think there's a military on earth, including America, that could realistically take and hold all of the land in between China's border and Moscow. Not due to Russian resistance, but due to the sheer scale.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You would be correct if it was populated, and populated by ethnic Russians loyal to Moscow.

            However, it is not. There were 20,000 Han Chinese in the entire Far East in 2000. By 2014 this was 800,000 and Russia had them stop publishing facts and figures due to embarrassment. Meanwhile, Russians have been fleeing it since the USSR fell. Their last big push for resettlement was to entice/push 500,000 Ukrainians there in the 2010s (lol). There might be more Han there than Russians. The next largest group is natives, with cultures closer to China, followed closely by ethnic Mongols.

            The population is clustered and reliant on supply. There is a long history of Moscow mistreating them. Of the Europeans there, many are there because they were deported there, or their ancestors were. Many of the others are temporary residents. The entire population is tiny, less than one large city.

            So you're not talking about some vast a area full of insurgents as in Afghanistan. You're talking about a vast area that is mostly empty, with the majority of the population probably apathetic or outright happy about China rolling in.

            And China can definitely support their military for a battle up there a hell of a lot better than Russia could support theirs. Especially since all the people they are getting killed are from the hinterlands (although mostly south Central Asia because there is no one up there to recruit.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >However, it is not. There were 20,000 Han Chinese in the entire Far East in 2000. By 2014 this was 800,000 and Russia had them stop publishing facts and figures due to embarrassment. Meanwhile, Russians have been fleeing it since the USSR fell. Their last big push for resettlement was to entice/push 500,000 Ukrainians there in the 2010s (lol). There might be more Han there than Russians. The next largest group is natives, with cultures closer to China, followed closely by ethnic Mongols.
              This
              People don't know but China could take the Russias far east with the people they already have on the other side of the border (if they somehow armed them)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Most of those projects failed, are failing or will never see their ROI. The chinese have shown themselves to be incredibly incompetent when it comes to infrastructure.

          Cope harder wumao

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The chinese have shown themselves to be incredibly incompetent when it comes to infrastructure.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Tofu-dreg projects is a term that has literally been coined in the last decade

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Massive difference between private residence developers and the big state owned infrastructure firms. China does infrastructure better than anyone right now because they've been doing it constantly for the last 15 years.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >China does infrastructure better than anyone right now

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lol yeah, imagine having apartment buildings collapse. That would never happen in America

                The belt road initiative was a massive failure wtf are you talking about

                According to who, 4chan and Tucker. Get your head out of your ass.

                Most of those projects failed, are failing or will never see their ROI. The chinese have shown themselves to be incredibly incompetent when it comes to infrastructure.

                Cope harder wumao

                >Belt and Road was about ROI

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a big deal in America because it doesn't happen. Meanwhile, in the chinkoid bughive...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Never happens
                I could hit the bump limit with these. 128 bridges a year alone collapse in the US. Americans just ignore it because gas taxes to pay for fixing their roads would mean their obese lard bodies couldn't afford to drive their F-250 to their office job and through the MacDonalds drive through.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >128 bridges a year alone collapse in the US
                What type of bridges were these? How many casualties? Were they brand-new or were they 200 years old and poorly maintained?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That is a controlled demolition. Something your country has been doing a lot of now that Evergrande and almost the entirety of the construction sector is going bankrupt

                The fact that you guys didn't do a simple ROI calculation when handing out loans like candy is exactly why the Belt and Road initiative has failed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, it was a controlled demolition with the people inside?
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Pulls one heavily publicized incident where the owners had to pay over a billion in reparation for their lack of ownership in maintenance

                > Claims that this somehow absolves China of the daily dozens if not hundreds of deaths that occur by the Ponzi scheme infrastructure of the nation

                Cope/bait harder, gay.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >lol yeah, imagine having apartment buildings collapse. That would never happen in America
                It's a national tragedy covered 24-7 when it happens here, in China it's just another day and the government sweeps it under the rug. It had one of the deadliest earthquakes in human history in 2008 largely because of how shitty the buildings were.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Sichuan_earthquake#Collapse_of_schoolhouses

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don't forget all the children who died in poorly made schools, and the parents who got v& for talking about how the government only let them have one kid and then killed the kid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lol, yeah, like look at this bridge collapse. Only bug men would neglect infrastructure so badly this happens!

                Except that they haven't. For all the 'succesful' projects that there are, innumerable have failed. Tofu dreg applies here.

                Also, notice how I talked about ROI? Building big fucking bridges like the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge or a high speed rail that goes through the middle of nowhere doesn't achieve anything if no one ends up using them. It's a huge waste of money that could have been invested in literally anything else and it would have been more beneficial.

                The only thing the CCP is good at is vanity projects, all of them burdening the Chinese economy and achieving nothing but wumao hardons.

                >Speaks with absolute confidence about something he clearly has no fucking clue about.

                Let me ask you, what is the ROI on an aircraft carrier? What is the ROI on cultural programs the US does to export Hollywood and American culture abroad? What is the ROI on US military aid to Egypt or Pakistan?

                Hmm, maybe it's not about money but a tool of national power? Did you know European colonies almost all had negative ROI too.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >literal everyday occurrences vs. rare scandals
                China strong!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What gives you the idea that bridges and buildings are collapsing in China every day? A society like that wouldn't be able to function, much less house the world's largest economy and industrial powerhouse. This must be a joke.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                roi for non-finanacial projects is not exclusively measured in monetary units dumb bugman

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think you missed his point. China never did this shit to make money. They did it to corner strategic areas and markets. It's why they have like all the rare earth metals.

                So the comparison to European colonies is apt, but IDK if that is supposed to be a good thing, since those themselves collapsed and backfired.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They backfired because they let a bunch of morons into white countries but China's out in Africa RICING the place senseless

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Retard

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Is he okay?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Except that they haven't. For all the 'succesful' projects that there are, innumerable have failed. Tofu dreg applies here.

                Also, notice how I talked about ROI? Building big fucking bridges like the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge or a high speed rail that goes through the middle of nowhere doesn't achieve anything if no one ends up using them. It's a huge waste of money that could have been invested in literally anything else and it would have been more beneficial.

                The only thing the CCP is good at is vanity projects, all of them burdening the Chinese economy and achieving nothing but wumao hardons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How is ROI even relevant in the context of a war you spastic. Just because the infrastructure is now mostly built to inflate GDP numbers doesn't mean they lack the expertise in building infrastructure.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The chinese have shown themselves to be incredibly incompetent when it comes to infrastructure
            Holy mutt moment lul
            didn’t china pour more concrete in the last 5 years or so than the US did last century

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >amount of concrete being poured is an objective measure of good construction

              We could fill the entire grand canyon with concrete and overtake Chinese concrete production in one fell swoop. According to your retarded metric that would mean victory.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Whataboutism
                Mutt moment X2 lul

                There is, literally, no country in human history which has produced as much infrastructure as China has from the 1980s onwards. One does not house hundreds of millions of a newly-urbanized workforce to work towards manufacturing world dominance and leading trade power status with a poor sense of infrastructure development.

                I had no idea what kind of head-burying ostriches the US education system was producing but you’ve given me a great insight.
                Go on, spam some more webms. I know your greasy little brown fingers are itching to do so. It’s all you’ve got left to contribute.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >One does not house hundreds of millions of a newly-urbanized workforce to work towards manufacturing world dominance and leading trade power status with a poor sense of infrastructure development.
                You mean like building 50 whole cities that no one uses?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not whataboutism, retard.

                Also,

                >One does not house hundreds of millions of a newly-urbanized workforce to work towards manufacturing world dominance and leading trade power status with a poor sense of infrastructure development.
                You mean like building 50 whole cities that no one uses?

                Bad spending is bad spending.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >or will never see their ROI
            Fuck neoliberals

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The belt road initiative was a massive failure wtf are you talking about

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why are mutts so dumb?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          May I see it?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          has no logistic experienced
          is building roads through the Himalayas and up Mt. Everest
          is building trains, pipelines, roads, and ports from Italy to Pakistan, to Iran, through Central Asia
          >>The country building infrastructure all over Africa and defending it with PLA forces supplied in the middle of Africa
          >>The country that built a massive transportation network within its borders which is almost the size of all of the US, including Alaska, which mostly doesn't have paved roads or trains in the US.
          >>The country building 20 buildings over 1,500 feet right now at once with a 2,000+ building finished.
          >>The country that supplies 180+ million people with food in just its 10 largest cities
          >>The country that supplies bases all through Central Asia over thousands of kilometers of mountains and desert and does absolutely fuck huge public works even the US wouldn't attempt in them.
          >>The country that runs many of Europes ports and makes much of the durable good on US and European shelves, also which makes the ships they rely on for supply (they couldn't even make masks without China)
          >>The country that runs much of the resource extraction in Russia's Far East and builds the infrastructure.
          >>The country founded on the Long March, an almost 10,000 kilometer fighting retreat.
          >This is pure projection. Russia has bad logistics so China just too. France and the UK have logistics issues so China must to. Somehow they pull in natural resources from every corner of the Earth and ship, on ships they built, often to ports they built, goods to every corner of the Earth, but actually, they can't do logistics. This is also what MacArthur told himself before being routed.
          >China has many problems. An opaque government. An undefined system for transfer of power. Corruption. A mix of nationalistic overconfidence and a giant inferiority complex. Inflexible leadership. .
          >It does not lack production or transport capabilities.
          Germany.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its a balance between the fact the Chinese are so retarded they still actually call themselves communists and the incest Z army

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >makes much of the durable good on US and European shelves,
            I don't think there is much in the way of durable goods on US shelves.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          military logistics != constructing public infrastructure

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The Third Reich built the world's largest network of concrete highways.
          >So the logistics of invading the Soviet Union will be no problem at all.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Muh Experience didn't help Russia at all in Ukraine (who had less Experience than Russia).

        Besides the majority of the Russian military is made up of conscript soldiers, while the PLA is a standing army and hadn't use conscription since the Militias bungled the 1970s Sino-Viet War.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wait, is the PLA an all-volunteer force?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            notional conscription, but effectively yeah all volunteer

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So they have conscription on paper but existing recruitment is enough to meet their needs?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon the population is 1.3-4 BILLION people. If .1% of them join the military that is 1.3 million soldiers. That .1% figure is less than half the US percentage, which is similarly a volunteer force. When you have a population that big, it is quite easy to put together an army millions strong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Technically, China has a National Conscription law and every young Chinese person is to serve the army. In reality, China realized that arming & training bajillions of conscript soldiers is counterproductive, so the law isn't used at all. To fulfill it technically, Chinese college students are made to run through a 3 week paramilitary program thats more or less about patriotism courses and doing paramilitary drills. Its hardly conscription.

            Further it has been policy since the Deng years to not rely on conscripted soldiers & militias for because one: they suck, like the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1970s showed, two: armed civilian militias and ex-conscripts nearly pushed China to Civil War 2 boogaloo when Mao Zedong mobilized them to attack political enemies of his in the Cultural Revolution. And finally China saw how much Soviet Style massed armies sucked in Iraq, so they began focusing

            Hence since the late 80s the PLA has been an all-volunteer force to professionalize the military and monopolize armed forces under Party control. Conscripts aren't even trusted with reserve/internal security anymore, with role being handed over to the People's Armed Police (a gendarmerie army who answers to the PLA).

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Chinese military
              >Professional
              Professional at siphoning funds.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's the Russian Military.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >all-volunteer force to professionalize the military and monopolize armed forces under Party control
              So basically, it's the same crap as Russia's contract soldiers? Good to know that China's military is going to be just as inept.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Literal Mercenary forces
                >The same crap.
                This is a forced analogy and you know it.

                https://i.imgur.com/dh5CSgL.jpg

                >not rely on conscripted soldiers & militias for because one: they suck
                >meanwhile in reality a bunch of reservists, territorial militias, cops, foreigners and a small number of SOF broke the entire Russian assault on Kyiv

                Militias and Conscripts are only good for one thing: defending their homelands and bolstering their military. Use them offensively to attack another country (like what Russia did) and they fall tend to not do well.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >like what Russia did
                Russia didn't use any conscripts. They're using contract soldiers in Ukraine who are getting their butts handed to them by conscripts. Also you really shouldn't be invading your neighbours anyway.
                >they fall tend to not do well
                Vietnam used conscripts armies against the South and Cambodia and they did well.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia didn't use any conscripts
                They used them a lot in the beggining. Many of them thought they were still on a training exercise.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They did use conscripts, it was a a whole scandal. They claim it was just hundreds but still

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia didn't use any conscripts
                They used them a lot in the beggining. Many of them thought they were still on a training exercise.

                They used them, but they weren't the bulk of the fighting force.

                >Literal Mercenary forces
                >The same crap.
                This is a forced analogy and you know it.

                [...]
                Militias and Conscripts are only good for one thing: defending their homelands and bolstering their military. Use them offensively to attack another country (like what Russia did) and they fall tend to not do well.

                https://i.imgur.com/EQcIkzo.jpg

                Technically, China has a National Conscription law and every young Chinese person is to serve the army. In reality, China realized that arming & training bajillions of conscript soldiers is counterproductive, so the law isn't used at all. To fulfill it technically, Chinese college students are made to run through a 3 week paramilitary program thats more or less about patriotism courses and doing paramilitary drills. Its hardly conscription.

                Further it has been policy since the Deng years to not rely on conscripted soldiers & militias for because one: they suck, like the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1970s showed, two: armed civilian militias and ex-conscripts nearly pushed China to Civil War 2 boogaloo when Mao Zedong mobilized them to attack political enemies of his in the Cultural Revolution. And finally China saw how much Soviet Style massed armies sucked in Iraq, so they began focusing

                Hence since the late 80s the PLA has been an all-volunteer force to professionalize the military and monopolize armed forces under Party control. Conscripts aren't even trusted with reserve/internal security anymore, with role being handed over to the People's Armed Police (a gendarmerie army who answers to the PLA).

                Napoleon's Grande Armée was made up of conscripts from all backgrounds and all of their notable victories were on foreign soil. At the end of the day, of course it matters what you're swinging, an aluminum bat has a better chance of killing than a wooden stick, but it won't mean much if the guy swinging can't hit anything. It all comes down to competency, and I just don't see the chinks being competent.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry but I fail to see how the PLA's use of professional soldiers is different from Russia's use of professional soldiers. It's the same thing.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Kontraktniki
                >Professional.
                >Disappears in peacetime.
                Ok.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >not rely on conscripted soldiers & militias for because one: they suck
              >meanwhile in reality a bunch of reservists, territorial militias, cops, foreigners and a small number of SOF broke the entire Russian assault on Kyiv

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >broke the entire Russian assault on Kyiv
                once this war is over there are going to be so many kino stories and videos we'll get to hear and see.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      china, by a wide margin, but unlike what thinks, it WOULD be funny because both sides would have glaring moments of incompetence. china would just have less of them, enough for an easy win.

      >Verification not required.

      China. They wouldn't take Moscow, but that won't matter to them; Moscow is thousands of miles away on another continent. They'd just seize the areas they wanted, dig in, and there'd be no way Russia could ever take anything back because China also has Nukes.

      These.

      The Chinese don't have the logistics to invade and occupy thousands of miles of territory, but they don't need to. They could easily take the parts of Siberia that are closest to China, put the population into camps to completely preempt partisans, and then just batter the Russians on the ground and through air strikes until they agree to a peace.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russian vehicles can operate in -50 degree conditions. Chinese escalators don't even function at room temperature. The Russians are really weak, and really corrupt, and really stupid, but China is so incompetent they couldn't show up to the fight. They could take border towns and maybe their Navy could land a meaningful force on Kamchatka, but that's about it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How is Russia even getting vehicles to the front when most of their armored forces are in Ukraine or in reserve in European Russia, and China is raping every train and convoy with swarms of shitty 4th gen F-16 knock offs?

          There's no non nuclear way that the Russians would hold any ground against a much more numerous and modern ground force, especially now that it would be two fronts.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >with swarms of shitty 4th gen F-16 knock offs?
            These little guys are charming

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I love using the dirt cheap Chinese LGB trucks in Wargame. There's something immensely satisfying about some shit that's cheap and good enough.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              i like the way they look, china has a handful of nice looking fighters. Kinda sad really. it looks like a fighter designed for GTA that got rejected for looking too normal

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Their aircraft and naval vessels are both really pretty.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Russian vehicles can operate in -50 degree conditions
          The russians also claim that most of their BMPs are amphibious

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Neither. They would cripple each other's economy with missiles, killing fuckton of people in the process. But rusnigs don't have the numbers to match chinx, and chinx don't have what it takes to makes a thousands of kms long trip to Moscow

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That being said, bug men would be at an advantage and could seize a significant portion of rusnig territory

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This country with a larger population and functioning economy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Easy to forget that a few decades ago the easy answer was that Russia / USSR was by far the superior fighting force. Goes to show what persuing economic development and globalization will do for a country. China has recently un-learned this lesson seemingly which is fine they'll stagnate in turn while the free world just chugs along getting 2 percent richer and more powerful year after year compounding which in the same few decades will make China a backwards inconsequential nuisance with nukes analogous to Russia today.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China by a long long fucking shot

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China. They wouldn't take Moscow, but that won't matter to them; Moscow is thousands of miles away on another continent. They'd just seize the areas they wanted, dig in, and there'd be no way Russia could ever take anything back because China also has Nukes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia has more nukes than China and Putin absolutely would launch them at China if they invaded confident (not incorrectly so) that a nuclear attack on another nuclear power would not trigger a nuclear response from all other nations

      the USA would launch on behalf of itself, and NATO, and maybe other strategic neutral nations, but not on behalf of China

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >China and Russia, who would win

    The rest of the world

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >who would win?
    Chinas going to wait for Putin to commit even more troops in Ukraine then swoop in for the loot in Siberia

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is projecting a British / American empire mentality onto China. A region having raw materials does not automatically mean China has to invade. It’s why China is a thousands of years old spciety, not an empire which tries to occupy the whole world, has great game vs Russia, and fails changing its name every couple hundred years like European powers. Siberia might worry their towns might grow due to people working for companies who get much more orders because China is growing. Not “we will invade you for selling in gold not the queens lates paper garden gnome scheme”. China sees empire dying for fighting great games vs Russia.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no, I simply expect them to behave how the parties of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact did

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think they would find themselves in a prolonged stalemate.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Would taking the rest of the Amur basin be worth it for China? Wouldn't it open them up for more attacks from the sea? Assuming they don't also take Sakhalin.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not worth losing their attack dog.

      Russia's value to China is that it causes trouble and consumes resources for the west.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean purely from a strategic scenario assuming Russia and China are already killing each other. Getting easy access to the Sea of Japan is nice, but you'll have to split up a piece of your navy to the north. The northeast is also pretty barren economically.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think the main thing would be raw resources. China could use oil, timber, minerals.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        China's attack dog has managed to neuter itself over the last 7 months. Russia's lost its value as a distraction, so comparatively, its territory must be looking better and better to China every day.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's worth it because it's where all of Russia's T-I-G-E-R-S are.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China will have a clear advantage over Russian mediocrity, corruption and incompetence but its a mistake to assume Sinoids wont find a way to choke and flounder hilariously too. Remember their invadion of Vietnam was their last trye combat experience.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It would make sense for China to do this. Russian land would be one giant mine, and China is obsessed with mining. They're like thin yellow dwarves.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    china through human wave warfare 1:4 loss ratio

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who wins? The rest of the world. They should nuke eachother

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's weird to think how much better everyone off would be without them

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In a hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win?
    Everyone else, especially if the war could be dragged out to maximize loss of human...well, loss of Russian & Chinese life.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this the chink copium thread

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia is literally the path of least expansion to China, and Russia made the mistake of committing to a losing war just as China is looking for places to expand into.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the path of least
        resistance*

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    china sux

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia's military is fucked right now, another war would break them

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russian army desserts en mass when they arrive at the Chinese ghost cities and China now has to deal with the horror of 100s of thousands of Russian squatters

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Strange how I can't find any numbers on annual Chinese bridge collapses. Is no one keeping count?

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China, no question. Even though Carter and the west thought that Deng talking about declaring a 'People's War' against the USSR and drowning them in bodies was a joke, it's quite true - especially now that Russia has shown itself to be a joke.

    China has been very open about wanting it's 'historic' borders, right now they've been adopting the Mexico strategy of taking over without a shot, but it circumstances change then a military method would be on the table.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    luckily biden passed the infrastructure bill to save american infrastructure, right bros?

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia and China would end up glowing more than 4chan. They would avoid nukes at first but then Russia would blow up the 3 gorges dam, possibly on accident.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      china is more likely to blow up the dam (or more realistically let it fail and blame Russia) in a stupid game of false flag one upsmanship to produce a casus belli or to justify further escalation during the conflict. our only problem is that, since this is fictional, we can’t take bets on what’s more likely

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  24. 3 weeks ago
    sage

    two mongoloid populated communist-in-name shitholes whose military histories consist of raw numbers and human wave tactics. I wonder

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, it would probably be an even bigger clown war than this one.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If China aims for Russian far east, then definitely China.
    The transsiberian is their huge weakness. If China cripples their railway infrastructure, they're done, they can't send any reinforcements.
    If China wants to invade the entire Russia, the Urals will be a tough challenge.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The rest of the planet. Makes me wonder if a war between the two did break out who the US would send weapons to.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      have a nice day! We don't need a apocalypse you gay!

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Immense material damage, but not a single human life lost.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This one Russian I listen to on Youtube keeps saying China is amassing troops on the border but claim it's just for training purposes. However, he's brought it up a few times, I think he's getting nervous.

    He also said the Russian/Chinese alliance is a joke and China does not have Russia's best interest and that they are going to have to deal with them soon.

    Could we actually see it guys? I mean, no one thought Hitler was gonna turn on Stalin

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In a non-nuclear world it'd be a no-brainer that China would liberate Russia of it's entire far east. There would be nothing they could do about it conventionally. Maybe they still do what's the use in European Russia commiting nuclear suicide for a territory they can't defend but then Russia clearly doesn't operate according to cost-benefit logic...

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    USA.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China has more soldiers than Russia has total population, and they're more competent
    It would be a blowout no question

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >China has more soldiers than Russia has total population
      Russia has less than 2.5 million people? No wonder they are losing in Ukraine.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm assuming this would be the chinks invading Russia, in which case I would actually have to give it to the Vatniks.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Assuming no nukes, I think it'd be a Chinese victory in the sense that they'd take a chunk of land and call it a day. I don't think China and Russia actually have meaningful ability to reach each other fast enough for there to be some major land battles. At best you'd see a fight over vladivostok or something, but that's a paltry amount of force relative to their units facing the West. At the same time, I don't think the Chinese are quite prepared for a massive trek across the Siberian expanse to reach the western (ie., populated/industrial heartland) portion in anything resembling a timely fashion. And Russia similarly probably can't pull it off if Ukraine is any indication.

    You may as well be asking if Brazil could beat Iran. The answer is neither side could really reach each other. There'd be a burst of violence and then everyone just gets tired, no one has stamina to maintain reach like the NATO powers do.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >who would win?

    What do you think is going to happen?

    Chinese ICBM tech can already reach Moscow, it's only about numbers now.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China swarms Siberia like locusts, and occupy the key locations until Monke either presses the nuke button or gives up. Russia literally can't win without noooking.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >China swarms Siberia like locusts

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why should any country claim to own territory it obviously can't defend? It's destabilizing. Russia needs to shrink down to manageable defensible borders

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because Russia is really just a number of natural resources to be plundered by oligarchs. They need a lot of territory to exploit. Also their varniks would lose their shit if they gave up any territory.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do any of the Russians really give a shit about Far east Russia(past Siberia) though? Or is it just a we got smaller on the fucking map, Let's chimp out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >we got smaller on the fucking map, Let's chimp out.
            Pretty sure that's all it is.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The rest of the world.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In a hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win?
    Draw. They would both just shell each other and loose men in a benny hill war of incompetence. The Chinese communists would use the opportunity to purge the Army by enemy shellfire just like Mao did in Korea and the Russians would be so incompetent that even though the Chinese were walking slowly towards them blowing trumpets they would miss occasionally. This place would have to open a new board just for them to skill at each other

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Qing empire duhhh and now it can easily overtake eastern europe and probably middle too.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That happened from the Philippines.
      Also cope

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    china, with varying degrees of success depending on whether russia has already descended into civil war, shattered into several independent states already or is capable of calling for total mobilization.
    i dont think it would be convenient for them to attack now, they'd rather wait a few more months to see the outcomes of the war in ukraine in relation to russian internal political and economic stability.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia would unironically win as USA and India would side with it.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China unironically in two weeks.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Three Stooges fight while the rest of the world looks on and wonders why they were so scared of these guys

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Without nukes, China would win. Both sides would make blunders, but somehow the other side wouldn't exploit them due to incompetence/inexperience. Russia would be on the defensive as corruption once again cripples the army, while the Chinese would try to do fancy combined arms maneuver warfare, failing 1/4 attempts but eventually driving the Russians back due to sheer overwhelming numbers, technology and economy. The war is a shitshow, but the chinese grabs parts of Siberia and calls it a day. Russian propaganda points to the number of western knock-offs and say it was NATO units all along.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In a hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win?
    The United States.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Build a dam that if it ever breaks or is destroyed will cause biblical floods that can destroy entire cities and kill your food industry.
    >The Yangtze River was self-cleaning, but its so polluted that it no longer self-cleans.
    Chinese infrastructure is truly great.

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In a hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win?
    Me

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In a hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win?
    Us

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whichever side was to attack would lose. China would get nuked into oblivion if they attacked Russia, and Russia has no real capabilities besides nukes

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China because they have simply more men and equipment to use. Even if half their tanks sink while crossing the Amur they'd still outnumber the Russians easily.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Russia would take over Ukraine simply because thye have mre men and equipment to lose. Even if half their tanks sink while crossing the Dnieper they'd still outnumber the Ukrainians easily.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russia doesn't have NATO training or support. It's going to be a fight between two retards and the retard with more bodies will win.

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >China and Russia engaged in a bloody war that could potentially ruin both their countries for decades
    >Meanwhile, in the United States:

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Due to population demographics issues, China would benefit from getting get rid of around 30million military aged males to prevent them causing other problems. Russia is already in population collapse and can't afford to lose any, giving Putin only managed to capture a few million people from Ukraine, with almost as many Russians leaving Russia to dodge draft and economics since the start of war. Putin would give up low population areas of eastern Russia without much resistance. With the probability of nukes rising as China's horde moved towards western high Russian population areas.
    Human wave tactics, albeit modernised with technicals and RPGs would be the order of the day. With both sides losing any advanced equipment rapidly.
    The war will stop because the next tsar will agree terms with USA / NATO / Japan etc for security.
    China's manpower losses will be huge, but so will the area of land captured and held.

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the reason Putin hasn't sent more troops because he's shit scared it'll make all the other borders too weak and they'll get invaded?

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Indian Shill

    China.

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    China would seize the borders quite easily, and take a good chunk of the Russian Far East before the war was over, but they'd be limited by Russia's sheer size and the limited infrastructure in the east.
    I don't think the PLA has the experience or equipment needed to quickly construct forward air bases or sustain multiple corps-sized units through airlifts alone.
    If nothing else, the Russians can just sabotage the Trans-Siberian Railway as they retreat and let gasoline shortages halt the Chinese advance. And while Russia is incompetent on the offensive, on their own turf they have General Winter to help them.
    The Chinese would be limited to whatever they can take in the first 12 months, because as improbable as this feels right now, I can actually see the West sending Russia aid or invoking sanctions against China provided Putin isn't in charge anymore and the new guy swears Russia is serious about democracy this time, you guys, for real.
    China gaining control over Siberia by setting up a puppet regime (or even worse, annexing it outright) would just be too destabilizing for the West to allow. But unlike Taiwan, I can't imagine anyone intervening unless the Chinese crossed the Urals.
    Xi might even pull it off and be known in (Chinese) history books as "the conqueror of Siberia" as opposed to "the guy who fucked up Covid and ruined the economy so bad it set China back forty years".
    That all being said, the Russians' military efforts would have a negligible effect on the outcome.

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In a hypothetical war between China and Russia, who would win?
    The rest of the world

Your email address will not be published.