Not really, that I can assure you. Besides, why'd we have any bias towards this issue? It's of no interest for the Brazil media to keep our governement at its current spot. Just saying she's sided with China and the possible outcome on all of this would be just the perfect bait to kick the governor. And a lot would side with. Like, a lot.
And what's tiring about this discussion, is simply the fact you're making me repeat myself over and over and posing no arguments whatsover. Anyway, what everyone thinks isn't exactly what the world will take of. Your government has already said is it of NO DESIRE to send troops to Syria, and that's good enough for me, because that'd be of no solution right now.
I'd have my doubts about China not being important at all in this situation. Do you truly believe in such when its and Russia's regime conflicts with what US believes, and such also conflict with Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria? And you're speaking of the world's second largest economy. If it decides to side with Russia with whatever they do against the US, then yes, it's of huge matters.
And I'm not going to repeat myself over this. I've explained a lot of times by now. I won't fall for your game.
And it's not me only to romaticize the situation, for certain.
I don't want to sound rude, but are you even trying to understand what I'm saying? Comprehend and all, y' know. I won't use the english excuse as I think my opinion and statement came out fairly well for one to get the grasp of what I'm saying. This discussion is just getting kinda tiring by your excess of blabbering and no reasonable argument whatsover. I don't care for contrary opinions, I certainly don't as I fight with this every day. However, when in a discussion, I'm forced to express my opinions several times, explain it and keep explaining it, I don't want to come out as wrong due to one's failing miserably to take the other side's view.
I don't mean any offence, but I honestly think I'm not understanding your English. What do you mean by "perfect bait to kick the governor"? And what does "And a lot would side with" mean?
I don't mean any offence by talking about the country you live in either. I come from the understanding that different countries have different perspectives on international relations and was simply wondering if your beliefs reflected what the average Brazilian might think about the situation and China's involvement. People who don't specifically study China tend to overestimate China's interests and capabilities, and I find that it's true no matter which country they come from.
I think my arguments are very clear: that China has fewer interests than all of the countries involved in Syria and Iraq at the moment, which means that it currently is not involved in the fighting, will likely not involve itself in the future, and will probably be the first country to turn against Assad (other than those already against him right now) if things go poorly for him.
The only alliance on the ground in Iraq and Syria other than the West, is the cooperation between the Assad regime, Russia, Iran, and Iraq. China's not a part of that, and it won't be for all of the reasons I've already stated: 1) no core interests, 2) non-intervention principle, 3) not involved in creating the mess or escalating the violence. Yes, my opinion is that China will stay on the sidelines for this. Yes, China is important, but that goes without saying - China is important for pretty much anything that goes on in the world. The distinction is that as important as China is as a world player, they're not one of the key players in the Syria crisis. Yes, China and Russia disagree with the US position of getting rid of Assad (which is subject to change), but they agree with the United States that the best option is a political settlement. The only disagreement is the details, including whether Assad himself stays or goes, how much power the leaders of the old regime should have in a new regime, how to incorporate the rebels, etc.
Why do you think that Russia intends anything against the US? I don't think you've made that clear at all. It's a rather extreme position to take, especially since there are reputable news sources that take the direct opposite opinion, that the US and Russia are increasingly finding common ground and considering cooperation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/...mmon-goals-on-syria-if-not-on-assad.html?_r=0. Even though they don't agree 100%, they seem to be happy with the agreement they've achieved in their most recent meeting.
I don't think I'm just blabbering. I like to think I'm well informed about Chinese politics because it's something I keep up to date on, and it's something I've been studying for the past couple of years. I've also studied international relations, which allows me to put incidents like warships crossing territorial waters into perspective.
What I think about your position is that you're a lot more wary about China and Russia's disagreements with the US, and you exaggerate how important China actually is, as well as the degree of disagreement and aggression between Russia and the US. In a word, I'm just more optimistic about the countries cooperating than you are - and I've shown you the evidence I have for this optimism.
