The US has been doing its best to alienate its allies, and has called NATO "obsolete". The alliance hasn't fallen apart entirely, and in the event of an actual shooting war with China would most likely be forced together. But shooting is unlikely, and the fragility of the alliance makes peacetime coordination more difficult.

That's potentially to China's advantage. It's not larger than the US plus its allies, but when the US goes without its allies, it's no longer the largest player. In a multiplayer world, those allies you mention could well decide that China is, if not their ally, at least somebody they can do business with.

US stance is mainly Trump's stance and neither Democrats (Obama / Clinton / Biden) nor mainstream Republicans want to alienate our allies. While Trump is indeed tapping into "America only" sentiment prevalent in some sections (make NATO allies allocate more budget towards defense, end endless wars in the Middle East etc), I don't see a broad political support to completely alienate the allies.

It focuses on one person, but that person was elected. Whether he's re-elected or not, the support that put him there remains. It makes the US an unreliable partner: agreements made today can be broken tomorrow. Our allies will be much less likely to make the kinds of serious, long-term commitments if they can't be sure they'll be held.

That America-first sentiment has always been there, but other countries have always trusted the government to rein it in. It could be dog-whistled at but didn't drive policy. Now that it has done so, they must assume it will do so again.

> In the US camp, I see Western Europe + NATO countries, Australia, NZ, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India and Israel. Do you think China can match that alliance?

Project population forward another 50 years. China will have Nigeria along with a few other African power houses, which at some point will probably comprise at least 40% of the world's population.

I don't think the US can count on India in the same way that it can count on the others in that list, although I suspect that the US and India will grow closer as immigration continues to increase/due to lingual bonds.

Unless China stops antagonizing India, I think there will at least be a conditional alliance between the US and India. We may also see slight shifts as Indian-Americans become eligible for US political office.

I agree, although there are still some potential obstacles:

1. the US is becoming increasingly liberal and India is becoming increasingly jingoistic/illiberal.

2. The US views Pakistan as an important strategic ally.

> the US is becoming increasingly liberal and India is becoming increasingly jingoistic/illiberal.

False. India is becoming culturally jingoistic but far more liberal economically than what it was a few decades ago. That brings it closer to US economic model.

>The US views Pakistan as an important strategic ally.

US viewed Pakistan as a strategic ally, mainly during Cold War era when India was tilted towards USSR (friendship pact etc).

Ultimately, "antagonism towards China" can outweigh the differences if China continues on its current path.

We'll probably view Pakistan as less of a strategic ally the further we get from the Iraq Wars temporally

In such a hypothetical situation, I think China is able to at a minimum neutralize nations into not being on a side at all given the economic sway that it has in the world.

That's why I picked the countries which are strongly in the US camp (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, Taiwan, Israel...) and/or strongly antagonized by China (India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, ...).

>NATO countries

A lot of eastern European countries have quite close ties with china. Even with countries like Germany and Italy I wouldn't be so sure.

China is trying hard to gain a foothold in Europe by establishing an alliance with Serbia. So far Serbia has been shut out of NATO and the EU due to the Kosovo issue.

Countries that want money. When you ally with China you get fat stacks for infrastructure and other development projects that those nations (Africa, SEA, Eastern Europe) simply can’t afford on their own. Now you owe China favor so you will do as they ask when they come to collect.

What prevents countries from saying thanks china, we aren't going to pay and then allying with the rest of the west, or playing back and forth to negotiate ever better deals? The problem with infrastructure investment is it's hard to move.

1. The infrastructure is often not just built, but also operated by chinese companies. So the chinese have direct operational control through their expats.

2. If you as diplomat even think about suggesting that Taiwan is its own nation, China will give an extremely offended reply. Same will probably happen if you try to negotiate. Either their terms, or you are an enemy. No meeting of equal partners.

3. China has large power over these nations by trading with them. This power will likely increase the more of their infrastructure is ran by China.

4. Eventually China will develop better tools to project power. I don't know what the Chinese analog of the CIA is, but likely they are working on it. Furthermore, recently Xi has opened the first military base outside of the Chinese mainland. If a nation's government defaults on its loans, China will just install a new government. This has little precedent because the change is so recent, but it's not unheard of in the general history of mankind.

All your saying is true, but the reality is much less negative than western media's reporting.

One such example: African countries often have the same national control mechanisms practiced by China, for example, 51% equity on joint ventures.

[1] is a good assessment from US scholar.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMCF2eu1D0E

Most of those countries remember being conquered and looted by the west. They're not going to just ally with the west -- they'll play both sides (as they should) to get the best deal from China and from the West.

India was colonized by the west and Vietnam recently warred with the US. And yet, today's China is so antagonistic towards these countries that they are tilting towards West (TPP for Vietnam, growing Indo-US collaboration etc).

A country never stops wanting more investment, and once a country has accepted investment money, there are parties in both nations that are incentivized to continue the relationship.

If a country takes money from China, they will continue to want to take more money from China instead of switching to a less well known, more risky alternative.

Also, if a country reneges on their investors, why would investors in any other country want to invest in them? They've already shown a willingness to go back on their agreements.

It would probably be part of a negotiation with the west to 'join their side' because they're worried about annexation by china or similar.