Another question is, what level of sacrifices are Americans willing to make, for what sorts of gains?
Look at our recent conflicts since Viet Nam. We’ve basically tried to overwhelm some pretty pathetic opponents (Iraq, Afghanistan), while exposing as few troops as possible. We are far more willing to lob a few missiles (Libya, Bosnia) and pretend we accomplished something, than to actually inconvenience ourselves with respect to bad actor (especially if that bad actor is selling something we want!) And we’ve refused to be a consistent strong multinational partner - instead, bullying the world to advance our goals.
I can readily envision any number of scenarios in which China or Russia successfully played chicken with the US, finding us unwilling to either commit masses of troops or escalate. And I can imagine the rest of the world thinking Russian and/or Chinese hegemony isn’t necessarily all that much worse than US hegemony.
I’m sure this was a much more common line of thought than the US would like, although it’s probably taken a huge hit (at least Russia-wise) after the invasion of the Ukraine. Anyone paying attention should also be more wary of China after their turn about on their promises regarding Hong Kong.
Even saying that though, China’s been very careful and smart in lending money, technical expertise and the like in large swaths of the rest of the world… so as to your point regarding this thread, yes, absolutely.
I’ve long wondered why we think SE Asia and Africa should necessarily want to do business with US as opposed to China and India.
WRT Russia - even in the present UKR situation, the US has been very careful just to spend money. As the globe warms up, I’ve gotta imagine the arctic is going to get interesting. And Russia sure has the advantage of location.
How long is the US going to be able to spend to simultaneously address multiple large-scale military efforts all over the world, on both land and sea? And, from a pragmatic perspective - how much do we care who “owns” any number of specific plots of earth, so long as they are willing to buy and sell us stuff?
France and England sleepwalked into war in the late 1930s. War is far more likely to start with someone crossing the line than from someone randomly starting an attack. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the German aggressive moves had been resisted. We need to make it very clear that invading China would be a fatal mistake. The war in Korea and the Kuwait invasion both began when we gave the (false) impression that we weren’t concerned.
10 years and more ago the thrust of Chinese government policy seemed to be on improving the life of the people. Now the cities are starving for funds because the government is forcing useless infrastructure projects on them, and thus they are cutting benefits to their citizens and piling up massive amounts of debt. Clearly a lot of the Zero Covid policy was ego rather than sense. and look at what happened in Hong Kong. If foreign investment, and local entrepreneurs continue to flee growth will stall.
Now is the time to be firm and blocking access to technology is an excellent start.
I thought they were having to write off hundreds of millions of their Belt & Road loans because of countries being unable to pay them back. Also, some countries cancelling projects. Couple hundred million here, couple hundred million there - soon it will be real money.
If anything ever comes of the idea of forgiving developing counties debt, that’s going to add up fast.
Client nations not being able to pay China back for building port and other facilities is part of the plan; like a payday lender, China is relying on being able to take possession of those facilities and use them as they see fit. Cancelling or mothballing projects (much of which has occurred as blowback from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but also because some nations are realizing that they are getting the short end of that stick) is a different problem and one that China doesn’t have the might and reach to impose like the United States and Soviet Union did during the Cold War. China wants to be the regional hegemon but they’ve probably overextended themselves, which doesn’t mean that they still can’t pose a serious threat in the South Asian region.
By “both sides” do you mean “Republicans and Democrats” or “China and the US”? Be it as it may, I believe China plays a very long term game, the US not so much: you react differently with each administration and change course according to short term interests. And China, IMO, is setting a trap for Russia, another for Taiwan and another one for the US and Europe. They will take whatever they believe they can get away with. And probably will fall into their own trap with that.
Thank you for asking. I think this is the problem in my OP. I feel both the Chinese and the West are talking themselves into very dangerous corners. China has never been richer or more powerful. For some reason this outrages them. The world is on the verge of widespread happiness, health and wand wealth. For some reason we seem determined to avoid that fate.
Yes, it does not look like it will end well. I recommend this week’s the Economist, that is the cover subject and I, for one, like their general approach and style.
China imports the overwhelming majority of their food and energy, their entire economy is based around importing raw materials and exporting cheap produced goods. That means the second a war breaks out there is no food power or money. China exists entirely at our leisure, there would never be a war. Even if we do nothing there won’t anything that resembles current China in our lifetimes due their myriad of internal issues.
I assume by them you mean China. But the truly powerful are powerful enough and secure enough to be able to listen to allow differing points of view, which is exactly what the Chinese government doesn’t do. The truly powerful can admit when they are wrong. The truly powerful are okay with facts about conditions, not lying about things like Covid cases or the level of debt that the Chinese government does.
It is accurate to say, China is preparing to face off with the US in a way that can only lead to a war. Which is not to assign blame, but that will be irrelevant anyway because that war has the potential to be literally catastrophic. Neither nation seems eager to back down from their own grand strategy, each of which negates the other to a 2nd rate power.
We’re far from perfect, but arguing with the government is allowed and doesn’t get you tossed into jail - for the past 100 years at least. Before that it did.
I am on board with this idea. Realistically you would probably have to take out the main guy plus a few others in the same building or immediate location, but I think that works too – you get fewer yes men enablers for the leaders.
I agree that Putin is, morally, among the vilest people alive on the planet right now, and that he would absolutely deserve it if he was killed. But practically speaking, assassinating Putin is very likely to turn him into a martyr and galvinize Russian public opinion against the West.
War tends toward totality. If one side choices to limit its strikes to something clean like assassination, the other side might not, probably will not, limit itself.
Remember that in the runup to WWI, wise people were convinced modern war would not last very long.