Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If Navalny wasn't a viable candidate, Putin wouldn't have bothered to prevent him from running.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
To be fair there is more to being a viable candidate than just voter share. Nobody gets the amount of 'free' and positive press that Putin does while not being harrased by the government. Its hard to really become a viable candidate when you're constantly demonized in the media and any attempt at grass roots building of support is being hunted down.

While it might be true that Putin is the best of the pack so to speak, its hard to independently assess that when the deck is so incredibly heavily stacked in his favor in the years up to the elections.

Aye. Putin being the only viable candidate is a self-perpetuating cycle that is only going to end when Putin steps down or dies. As long as Putin runs, there will never be a viable other candidate.
Putin is popular because he has a history of taking decisive actions. None of his opponents can build on such a history, and because they are so unpopular they do not get the chances to build one, which leads to them not being popular. Add that to the fact that most media support Putin (although there is also media in Russia very critical of Putin, but they are usually less mainstream or popular) and running against Putin in an election is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Election fraud isn't even necessary (it does happen, but out of individual initiative from local officials hoping to score brownie points. Putin knows he does not need fraud to win.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If Navalny wasn't a viable candidate, Putin wouldn't have bothered to prevent him from running.

That is not valid logic. Him being prevented from running does not mean he is a viable candidate.
Him being prevented from running could just as well have nothing to do with his candidacy. Navalny is or has been engaged in a lot of shady business (as all Russian politicians do), and becoming an opponent of the authorities and anti-corruption fighter means he has made lots of powerful enemies, which means that his own past shady dealings often have a tendency to get exposed and brought to court. Navalny being brought to court and thrown in jail for the millionth time could just as well be a grudge from some powerful bureaucrat whose dealings Navalny exposed in the past and have nothing to do with Putin or the elections. Or it could. Maybe Putin did not want to have his nice victory smeared by Navalny shouting nasty allegations. Russian politics are complicated. It is impossible for me or you to say. But that doesn't make Navalny a viable presidential candidate.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
To be fair there is more to being a viable candidate than just voter share. Nobody gets the amount of 'free' and positive press that Putin does while not being harrased by the government. Its hard to really become a viable candidate when you're constantly demonized in the media and any attempt at grass roots building of support is being hunted down.

While it might be true that Putin is the best of the pack so to speak, its hard to independently assess that when the deck is so incredibly heavily stacked in his favor in the years up to the elections.

Aye. Putin being the only viable candidate is a self-perpetuating cycle that is only going to end when Putin steps down or dies. As long as Putin runs, there will never be a viable other candidate.
Putin is popular because he has a history of taking decisive actions. None of his opponents can build on such a history, and because they are so unpopular they do not get the chances to build one, which leads to them not being popular. Add that to the fact that most media support Putin (although there is also media in Russia very critical of Putin, but they are usually less mainstream or popular) and running against Putin in an election is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Election fraud isn't even necessary (it does happen, but out of individual initiative from local officials hoping to score brownie points. Putin knows he does not need fraud to win.)

I agree completely. I suggest that members don't let factional identities get in their way of their assessment of Putin.

Putin is one of the most dangerous men on the planet today, intelligent, ruthless and resourceful and with stable control of what is fast becoming a thinly veiled Soviet state.

I am under no illusions that if Putin needed to rig elections he would, but he is clever enough not to need to. Were I Russian I would have to think twice before voting for him because he is a danger to global stability, but I am under no illusions that he is a strong leader, and worthy as and of itself to rule Russia. I wouldnt lose sleep knowing he is in charge.

Putin is one of a handful of people alive today worthy of the title of statesman, and I have enormous respect for him. He is however an enemy and I never forger that and most others in the west need to be more aware of him and the threat he poses, but he is no madman as western 'leaders' like to paint their opponents.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose

I mean, we didn't. There was no tampering of votes, no votestuffing, nothing. What we had was the classic "one candidate got more votes than the other.

A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)

Annoying, sure, but that's because we don't have a popular vote system. Now critique that system all you want (I sure as hell do) but that's very dissimilar to voter fraud.

That wasn’t me. I don’t want to get banned for talking about US politics, or people to think I would make comments like that.

Sorry messed up in deleteing quotes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If Navalny wasn't a viable candidate, Putin wouldn't have bothered to prevent him from running.

The point of Navalny running isn't to beat Putin, it's to get enough votes to prove he can be beat. Which is why they go after him like this. His threat isn't winning the election but driving on more opposition candidates to run, and more people to vote for them.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Why wait 10 years then? If it's about showing agents what happen if you flip to the other side, why dont assassinate him right away? It doesn't come of as show of force if it takes 10 years for the blow to strike!

Most likely because Russia has changed considerably in their foreign policy aims in those ten years. Afterall, if it was about sending a message, no point negotiating for the prisoner swap then killing him, instead they just would have killed him in prison like they've done with a bunch of other people. The spies Russia got in the swap could have been gained through other means or concessions.

But when Russia made that spy swap, Russia was chasing a normalisation in relations with the West, and probably wasn't too bothered about a single disaffected spy. Things have changed a lot in the ten years that followed. From there it was just about picking the best time to send the message. And right now, with Britain lurching in to Brexit and unable to rely on support from a feckless and erratic Washington, it really couldn't be a better time for Russia to make a big, public show of killing an old traitor.

Remember, the point isn't just the dead spy, but to make the world know that Russia did it. That's why it was done with a Russian exclusive nerve agent. To show Russia can do this and the UK and other countries can't respond.

 godardc wrote:
They were free to choose and they have chosen Putin.

Uh huh.

In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose

Oh look, a guy who continually repeats Russian propaganda lines, and who is currently trying to argue Russia just had a fair election*, just happened to bring up, out of the blue, the same old dishonest summary of the Democratic primary process that just happened to be written by Russia as a means to weaponise their DNC hacks.

Weird coincidence.

Am I saying our democracies are bad ? No, it is the «normal» way of a democracy, overall it is pretty good. But how could we judge the russian for something we can't even do better ?

Yeah, this is copied straight from Putin's first line of propaganda attack 'okay maybe Russian democracy is a con but all the other democracies are cons as well'. That combines with claiming any objective statement that is negative about Russia is anti-Russian, and a plea for open-mindedness or independent thinking to produce a three pronged disinformation campaign.

Please, I know you have been brainwashed to hate Russia, but try to think by yourselves and WAIT.FOR.THE.PROOF (if they really have any, they will show us, one day).

Oh look, there's those two other lines. How weird that they'd all be here in this post. Almost as if for all the claims of open minded, independent thinking, you have ended up excatly aping the official RUssian line.



*Well, trying to argue it was as fair as other democracies. Anyway you cut it it's a comically stupid claim.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.

I think, as a matter of national security, the UK needs to start planning for a way to not do business with Putin. Doesn't have to be overnight, but the US needs to start building secondary supply options so it can, if needed at some point, just end dealings with Russia. Even just as a threat it'd be invaluable.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.

I think, as a matter of national security, the UK needs to start planning for a way to not do business with Putin. Doesn't have to be overnight, but the US needs to start building secondary supply options so it can, if needed at some point, just end dealings with Russia. Even just as a threat it'd be invaluable.

Sometimes Sebster you are spot on. we shouldnt be courting Russia, but its easy money for some and the lazy answer for certain needs such as gas. our leaders are ever cheap short-termists, and it accounts for a large part as to why Russia holds the modern UK in contempt.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.

I think, as a matter of national security, the UK needs to start planning for a way to not do business with Putin. Doesn't have to be overnight, but the US needs to start building secondary supply options so it can, if needed at some point, just end dealings with Russia. Even just as a threat it'd be invaluable.

I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.

First of all that's already largely in place with the 'eurasian hub' strategic principal. The issue is whether the UK and everyone else recognises the political situation and adjusts their economic situation accordingly.

Second up, those two combining don't make a power bloc. China is already a world power, adding Russia just means there is a big dog with a little Russian dog bouncing around at its heels. If you don't understand why, look past the Russian bluster and look at Russia's actual economic power - Russia's GDP put in its most favourable PPP light is less than Italy + Spain. By a straight reading with nominal GDP Russia is smaller than South Korea.

Russia would have to be pretty desperate to seek refuge with China. As Sebster mentions, Russia would be the minor power. Not only that, but while Russia and China's interests frequently align on the international level there is little love lost between the two countries. There are more covert signs of this. Like I mentioned earlier, Crimea really bothered China as China is huge on national sovereignity issues. Yet it stayed silent, because it wasn't in China's direct interest to go against it, while providing an interesting case study in regards to an international response. Furthermore China is removing traditional Russian allies in central Asia from Russia's orbit to add to its own.

China knows it holds all the cards. Take natural gas for example, if Russia would loose the West as a buyer China would gain incredible leverage over Russia. Currently the supply of gas to China isn't huge yet as the infrastructure isn't developed that much, mainly beimg focused on Western Russia. But when talks were in progress you could see China twisting the arm of Russia in negotiations, knowing it had the upper hand and a choice of supliers. In reverse Russia has annoyed China with certain moves like internationally supporting Japan and India at times when that went directly against China's interests.

There will never be a Russo-Chinese powerbloc, because China doesn't view Russia as an equal power. Russia and China are allies of convenience, when that is convenient to China. Russia also recognizes this and won't do more than annoy China while China is busy taking apart old Soviet regional ties, because Russia can ill afford one international struggle for 'spheres of influence', let alone another one with China.

Meanwhile the EU is already looking at secondary supply sources. Like mentioned by others, the US is one. But Iran is a major opportunity with huge untapped reserves of natural gas. That's partly the reason why the EU was so supportive of the Iran deal. Getting access to those reserves and setting up trade with the US means being able to (almost) fully eliminate the need for Russian gas.

Iceland is currently working on a way to lay a power cable to Ireland. Once that's in place you can do the same to the UK and France from Ireland and have a nice supply of green energy into mainland europe and the UK. Gotta love geothermal power.

 sebster wrote:


Most likely because Russia has changed considerably in their foreign policy aims in those ten years. Afterall, if it was about sending a message, no point negotiating for the prisoner swap then killing him, instead they just would have killed him in prison like they've done with a bunch of other people. The spies Russia got in the swap could have been gained through other means or concessions.

But when Russia made that spy swap, Russia was chasing a normalisation in relations with the West, and probably wasn't too bothered about a single disaffected spy. Things have changed a lot in the ten years that followed. From there it was just about picking the best time to send the message. And right now, with Britain lurching in to Brexit and unable to rely on support from a feckless and erratic Washington, it really couldn't be a better time for Russia to make a big, public show of killing an old traitor.

Remember, the point isn't just the dead spy, but to make the world know that Russia did it. That's why it was done with a Russian exclusive nerve agent. To show Russia can do this and the UK and other countries can't respond.

I think you might have your timeline wrong. In 2008 Putin had been president for 8 years already and in August that year the war with Georgia kicked of, the normalisation with the west policy had already been dead for a while by then.

So the questions stands, why now? Why intentionally provoke the UK and it's allies, what do they have to gain by it? Especially as they are already under sanctions that are hurting them economically.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Most likely because Russia has changed considerably in their foreign policy aims in those ten years. Afterall, if it was about sending a message, no point negotiating for the prisoner swap then killing him, instead they just would have killed him in prison like they've done with a bunch of other people. The spies Russia got in the swap could have been gained through other means or concessions.

But when Russia made that spy swap, Russia was chasing a normalisation in relations with the West, and probably wasn't too bothered about a single disaffected spy. Things have changed a lot in the ten years that followed. From there it was just about picking the best time to send the message. And right now, with Britain lurching in to Brexit and unable to rely on support from a feckless and erratic Washington, it really couldn't be a better time for Russia to make a big, public show of killing an old traitor.

Remember, the point isn't just the dead spy, but to make the world know that Russia did it. That's why it was done with a Russian exclusive nerve agent. To show Russia can do this and the UK and other countries can't respond.

I think you might have your timeline wrong. In 2008 Putin had been president for 8 years already and in August that year the war with Georgia kicked of, the normalisation with the west policy had already been dead for a while by then.

So the questions stands, why now? Why intentionally provoke the UK and it's allies, what do they have to gain by it? Especially as they are already under sanctions that are hurting them economically.

Sebster doesn't have his timeline wrong though. You don't seem to be aware of events after 2008. Obama tried to reset relations with Russia between the start of his presidency and Ukraine. The spy swap happened right in the middle of this. So no, it wasn't dead by that time. So the question doesn't exactly stand.

 Orlanth wrote:

Putin is one of a handful of people alive today worthy of the title of statesman, and I have enormous respect for him. He is however an enemy and I never forger that and most others in the west need to be more aware of him and the threat he poses, but he is no madman as western 'leaders' like to paint their opponents.

This. Absolutely this.
TBH, I couldn't even name a handful. A couple, maybe... But you've expressed my own thoughts on Putin perfectly.

Define statesman though? Because we could ascribe a lot of qualities to that. Overall though, he probably has hurt Russia more than benefitted it in the long run. And what's there to respect? His 'no nonsense' disregard for international law or human lives?

 ulgurstasta wrote:
I think you might have your timeline wrong. In 2008 Putin had been president for 8 years already and in August that year the war with Georgia kicked of, the normalisation with the west policy had already been dead for a while by then.

Umm, a lot changed very quickly after Georgia. That happens when the US changes presidencies.



See that image there? That's the awkward and incredibly misjudged 'reset button' that started the new Obama administration's attempts to rebuild the relationship with Russia. It was in 2009, and afterwards we had Obama then Biden travel to Russia, and then in early 2010 Russia and the US signed New START, reducing their nuclear stockpiles. A couple of months after New START we have the spy swap in which Skripal is released.

So yeah, the swap happened at what was really the peak of recent Russian and American relations. So your idea that relations were as bad then as they are now is false.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Define statesman though? Because we could ascribe a lot of qualities to that. Overall though, he probably has hurt Russia more than benefitted it in the long run. And what's there to respect? His 'no nonsense' disregard for international law or human lives?

Aahahahahahaha!
You forget so easily which country has started the most wars, and how many countries get invaded/liberated by said world power.
Especially in the Middle East. And over oil.
It's funny how quickly everybody forgets how many wars the US has instigated.

And don't even get started on the Patriot Act if we want to talk about ignorance of freedoms and national/international law.

Putin is another politician that the media is painting as a threat so the military industrial complex has a reason for its existence.
Putin has been in power for longer than any US leader. Yet we are still lead to believe that an attack or threat is imminent.
Remember what mass media is used for, and it's easy to spot how we're being emotionally manipulated to tow the political line.

 Ghool wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Define statesman though? Because we could ascribe a lot of qualities to that. Overall though, he probably has hurt Russia more than benefitted it in the long run. And what's there to respect? His 'no nonsense' disregard for international law or human lives?

Aahahahahahaha!
You forget so easily which country has started the most wars, and how many countries get invaded/liberated by said world power.
Especially in the Middle East. And over oil.
It's funny how quickly everybody forgets how many wars the US has instigated.

And don't even get started on the Patriot Act if we want to talk about ignorance of freedoms and national/international law.

Putin is another politician that the media is painting as a threat so the military industrial complex has a reason for its existence.
Putin has been in power for longer than any US leader. Yet we are still lead to believe that an attack or threat is imminent.
Remember what mass media is used for, and it's easy to spot how we're being emotionally manipulated to tow the political line.

I'm sorry, did I say anything about the US? No, but nice attempt at deflection though.

You don't see me lining up to say I respect Bush or calling him a great statesman, yet Putin inexplicably has his fans. Speaking of which, you really think Putin is just another politician? Also who is to believe an attack is imminent? Everybody here understands Putin would never attack the West directly.

You might wanna tone down on RT and the 'mass media manipulation' kool aid.

I can't help but notice that most of the people who come out with the "don't trust anything the mass media says!" line never seem to actually offer any alternatives, probably because they instead choose to get information from the parts of the mainstream media which tells them what they want to hear and crackpot conspiracy peddlers like Infowars and its ilk.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I can't help but notice that most of the people who come out with the "don't trust anything the mass media says!" line never seem to actually offer any alternatives, probably because they instead choose to get information from the parts of the mainstream media which tells them what they want to hear and crackpot conspiracy peddlers like Infowars and its ilk.

Infowars for the right, GlobalResearch for the left. If you want to have a laugh you should check the website, you can find totally unironic "poor little North Korea" pieces. I would say its manipulation, but what they are doing is so obvious I can't believe anyone actually falls for it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I can't help but notice that most of the people who come out with the "don't trust anything the mass media says!" line never seem to actually offer any alternatives, probably because they instead choose to get information from the parts of the mainstream media which tells them what they want to hear and crackpot conspiracy peddlers like Infowars and its ilk.

What alternatives are there?
An Infowars and other 'alternate' news sites do the same thing - emotional manipulate you to react.
All media is the same - it's for emotional manipulation so people call for action.

I'm not a crackpot, or conspiracy theorist. I just don't believe everything I'm told.

I think the important lesson here is: Do not "Listen and Believe", you should "Listen and Verify".

It never ceases to amuse me how unique and special some people think reading between the lines and consulting multiple news sources makes them, whilst being convinced that most of the rest of the world are just mindless media led sheeple (of whatever denomination).

If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.

 Ketara wrote:
It never ceases to amuse me how unique and special some people think reading between the lines and consulting multiple news sources makes them, whilst being convinced that most of the rest of the world are just mindless media led sheeple (of whatever denomination).

What?? Thats not directecd at me I hope.

We covered the difference between Infowars etc and NY Times at some length in another thread fairly recently.

Is it really worth revisiting it again so soon?

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.

First of all that's already largely in place with the 'eurasian hub' strategic principal. The issue is whether the UK and everyone else recognises the political situation and adjusts their economic situation accordingly.

Second up, those two combining don't make a power bloc. China is already a world power, adding Russia just means there is a big dog with a little Russian dog bouncing around at its heels. If you don't understand why, look past the Russian bluster and look at Russia's actual economic power - Russia's GDP put in its most favourable PPP light is less than Italy + Spain. By a straight reading with nominal GDP Russia is smaller than South Korea.

Yes, and that is the only reason a Russian-Chinese alliance has not happened yet. Russia is very reluctant to commit to that because China is a truly massive country, like 10 times the population of Russia with a massive economy. In any partnership that goes beyond military power and technology Russia would always be the junior partner. But Russia is a very proud nation, it sees itself as a great empire. It doesn't want to be the junior partner in anything. But despite that, if the West shuts off all openings, Russia simply won't have a choice but to become the dragon's sidekick. If you pay attention to the language people like Putin and Lavrov use towards China and cooperation with China, there has already been a significant shift in tone compared to 5 or 8 years ago. If Russia is isolated from the West, a very close cooperation with China is inevitable. And Russia may not offer China much economically, but it does have a lot of resources, a very powerful military and highly advanced (military) technology. A solid alliance and close cooperation with Russia on Chinese terms would be a huge boost to China's hard power. With the US already starting to struggle to keep up with China, having to deal with China+Russia as a single bloc would most certainly not be in Western interests.
Which is one of many reasons why the West should keep open dialogue, trade and cooperation with Russia on as many fields as possible. Russia and the West need not be enemies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We covered the difference between Infowars etc and NY Times at some length in another thread fairly recently.

Is it really worth revisiting it again so soon?

While it may seem like a Sisyphean task for those participating, I believe this discussion should always be had, at least for the short term.

The discussion is not to convince the other side, but to sway the anonymous reader, and on a global site like this that reader is always changing. (Even as some of us stay the same )

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.

First of all that's already largely in place with the 'eurasian hub' strategic principal. The issue is whether the UK and everyone else recognises the political situation and adjusts their economic situation accordingly.

Second up, those two combining don't make a power bloc. China is already a world power, adding Russia just means there is a big dog with a little Russian dog bouncing around at its heels. If you don't understand why, look past the Russian bluster and look at Russia's actual economic power - Russia's GDP put in its most favourable PPP light is less than Italy + Spain. By a straight reading with nominal GDP Russia is smaller than South Korea.

Yes, and that is the only reason a Russian-Chinese alliance has not happened yet. Russia is very reluctant to commit to that because China is a truly massive country, like 10 times the population of Russia with a massive economy. In any partnership that goes beyond military power and technology Russia would always be the junior partner. But Russia is a very proud nation, it sees itself as a great empire. It doesn't want to be the junior partner in anything. But despite that, if the West shuts off all openings, Russia simply won't have a choice but to become the dragon's sidekick. If you pay attention to the language people like Putin and Lavrov use towards China and cooperation with China, there has already been a significant shift in tone compared to 5 or 8 years ago. If Russia is isolated from the West, a very close cooperation with China is inevitable. And Russia may not offer China much economically, but it does have a lot of resources, a very powerful military and highly advanced (military) technology. A solid alliance and close cooperation with Russia on Chinese terms would be a huge boost to China's hard power. With the US already starting to struggle to keep up with China, having to deal with China+Russia as a single bloc would most certainly not be in Western interests.
Which is one of many reasons why the West should keep open dialogue, trade and cooperation with Russia on as many fields as possible. Russia and the West need not be enemies.

Wait what? How is the US already starting to struggle keeping up with China? Even in the best of estimates for China it won't achieve parity with the US for another few decades. It will be decades more to actually move beyond the level of relative parity if that is even going to happen of course.

As for Russian advanced military tech. I highly doubt that is so attractive, seeing as last time China got advanced Russian tech they simply copied it and started manufacturing it for themselves. Going forward the technology gap is going to weigh more favourably towards China. Where it counts most for China, the navy, Russia is sorely lacking. So really, all that Russia realistically can offer in the future is a resource market. Army wise China can do fine on its own.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think it is as simple as that. Western nations cutting ties with Russia will drive Russia further into the arms of China. And the last thing the West needs is a Russo-Chinese power bloc. That is a far bigger long-term threat to the West than Putin will ever be.

First of all that's already largely in place with the 'eurasian hub' strategic principal. The issue is whether the UK and everyone else recognises the political situation and adjusts their economic situation accordingly.

Second up, those two combining don't make a power bloc. China is already a world power, adding Russia just means there is a big dog with a little Russian dog bouncing around at its heels. If you don't understand why, look past the Russian bluster and look at Russia's actual economic power - Russia's GDP put in its most favourable PPP light is less than Italy + Spain. By a straight reading with nominal GDP Russia is smaller than South Korea.

Yes, and that is the only reason a Russian-Chinese alliance has not happened yet. Russia is very reluctant to commit to that because China is a truly massive country, like 10 times the population of Russia with a massive economy. In any partnership that goes beyond military power and technology Russia would always be the junior partner. But Russia is a very proud nation, it sees itself as a great empire. It doesn't want to be the junior partner in anything. But despite that, if the West shuts off all openings, Russia simply won't have a choice but to become the dragon's sidekick. If you pay attention to the language people like Putin and Lavrov use towards China and cooperation with China, there has already been a significant shift in tone compared to 5 or 8 years ago. If Russia is isolated from the West, a very close cooperation with China is inevitable. And Russia may not offer China much economically, but it does have a lot of resources, a very powerful military and highly advanced (military) technology. A solid alliance and close cooperation with Russia on Chinese terms would be a huge boost to China's hard power. With the US already starting to struggle to keep up with China, having to deal with China+Russia as a single bloc would most certainly not be in Western interests.
Which is one of many reasons why the West should keep open dialogue, trade and cooperation with Russia on as many fields as possible. Russia and the West need not be enemies.

Wait what? How is the US already starting to struggle keeping up with China? Even in the best of estimates for China it won't achieve parity with the US for another few decades. It will be decades more to actually move beyond the level of relative parity if that is even going to happen of course.

As for Russian advanced military tech. I highly doubt that is so attractive, seeing as last time China got advanced Russian tech they simply copied it and started manufacturing it for themselves. Going forward the technology gap is going to weigh more favourably towards China. Where it counts most for China, the navy, Russia is sorely lacking. So really, all that Russia realistically can offer in the future is a resource market. Army wise China can do fine on its own.

The benefits of a partnership with Russia are extremely obvious for China. Saying that China can do fine on its own army-wise is ridiculous. The US can do fine on its own army-wise, but it still likes to have military allies. There is no such thing as 'enough power'. Russia happens to have the second-strongest military in the world with a massive military-industrial complex that is still lightyears ahead of China's still developing military industry. Russian assistance would be a massive boost in advancing up their own military-industrial complex, with the Russian military forces at their side they would instantly skip ahead of the US and NATO in terms of military power, they would gain increased access to a lot of the raw resources that China really needs, and they would get increased access to a not insignificant market for Chinese products. It would propel them to number one world power status much faster, and allow them to challenge the US' hegemony much more confidently.
You say that Russia is lacking in the naval department, but it says enough that the entire Chinese navy is based on copied Russian technology. You are self-contradictory. You say you doubt that advanced Russian technology is attractive to China while in the same sentence acknowledging that China bases its technology on Russian technology. Obviously having access to more of those technologies and being able to make use of them without having to illegally copy it is very attractive. China has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from drawing Russia into its sphere of influence, and has been pretty willing to increase cooperation. It is Russia that is reluctant to cooperate with China, as it stands to lose a lot. But if the West were to sever contact and cooperation with Russia, Russia will not have much of a choice. And bringing this back on topic and to my original point, that is why the UK should not sever ties with Russia too much. It needs too keep open dialogue and eventually lift sanctions and increase trade and cooperation with Russia. An isolated Russia being driven into the arms of China is a scary Russia. A Russia that is well-integrated and enjoys good relations with the West on the other hand is much less scary and won't do any dangerous, desperate things. And you don't want the world's second-most powerful military and largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction do anything desperate.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If all the media is "the same" that might be more of a personal problem than a media problem, seeing as there is a world of difference between say the New York Times and Infowars.

Of course there's a difference between media.
The point is to not get so emotionally wrapped up the information, and be detached from how it's presented.

I tend to look at a story from several angles and sources, and even then a lot of what you read, see and write is always skewed in some manner no matter the source.
Which is why I feel being skeptical isn't a personal problem.