I would say that the view point is a little biased as it doesn't mention all three possibilities.
1. US world empire
2. Equal international relations between china and the US
3. Chinese world empire
3 Is the thing not mentioned in your passage. Like the US, china itself is not some morally idealistic state, when given an opportunity for dominance they will take it.
A global balance determined by real world economic and military power. This is the way it always has been and always will be. I dont think this is a cynical take, but simple realism. Counties take what they can get and dont ceed more power than they have to.
The US doesn't want this. China wants more then a stalemate.
You are right, none of these are options by choice, they are only possible outcomes.
Additionally, China has been expanding its presence and influence through strategic investments and development initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to create a network of infrastructure and trade routes across Asia, Africa, and Europe. This expansionist strategy has allowed China to increase its economic and political influence globally, and some experts argue that it reflects an imperialist mindset
I think they are at base #2, so don't get your hopes up.
I don't think most HN software engineering folks realize how easy it is to train script kiddies. Most of the big "cybersecurity" consultancies (yes even the big IPOed ones) are staffed by people who basically went through a bootcamp and gained a few certifications. Corporate "security" especially is more about checklists and compliance. You are not getting any real talent like the ICs' blogs that get posted here on HN. The typical staff at cybersecurity companies won't be able to subvert broken branch predictors and post networking stacks exploits on twitter. Those sort of low level application security engineers are a lot rarer and more expensive. Many of the "cybersecurity" companies provide script kiddies and consultants without a STEM background. Forget about fizzbuzz, they are closer to McKinsey than Accenture.
When has China, as a state actor, done anything as remotely as egregious as STUXNET?
Monitoring the weather = surveiling the weather = spying on the weather = spying = spying on Americans
It's a game of deranged telephone, fueled by the billion-dollar anti-China propaganda industry.
Similarly, did a Chinese OEM implement a SNMP daemon in their gear? Oh no, their literally spying on us1!11
The US official policy (and they do follow this) is that nations reserve the right to ask us to leave, too, and yet, few do.
We don't always get it right, but I don't think the Chinese are interested in global peace keeping even on the surface. Its much more "winner take all". I think that does speak to a real difference.
I readily acknowledge our misadventures. We're a complex nation, same as any other, with real costs and unfortunately many ruined lives at home and abroad.
I'm not pleading ignorance, there are aspects of "American Exceptionalism" that are problematic and indefensible. I never (as many Americans) supported invading Afghanistan or Iraq. The CIA should have never messed around in many countries, (including but not limited to Iran, Cuba and Argentina)
I also want to recognize that I can freely talk about this publicly, openly, and take to the streets with protests against such things, without fear the government will lock me up in a labor camp or "disappear" people (re: Jack Ma).
Its foolish to think that just because we've made mistakes that we don't have real advantages on the world stage that may still be far preferable to some alternatives, for starters.
Nuance is required here, no? Its important to evaluate all aspects of what you're dealing with.
Please embellish. What does USA do that offsets its constant warmongering and economic coercion, and how can you possibly know that outside of blind faith?
It's because those protests are almost totally impotent and actually reinforce state power. The protests against the Iraq war were some of the largest in history and achieved precisely squat. When there is some seed of real potential, like the Floyd protests, everything you're saying doesn't happen absolutely can and does.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/body-cam-footage-shows-minneapolis...
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/police-shoot...
That doesn't make it true, it just drains those words of useful meaning.
China is guilty of Uyghur genocide. They just depend on people engaging in wishful thinking or spaghetti logic to explain how reeducation camps and mass sterilization of a populace doesn't count.
This is a nice way of covering up enforced sterilization and contraception, which is absolutely genocide. Like, it's literally getting rid of a people, by making them physically incapable of reproducing: https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-we...
> The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.
If it was just a matter of making IUD's or other contraceptives available, obviously that would be fine. But what's happening is forcing them across the Uyghurs, and that's genocide.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/ch...
A large network isn't imperialism. China's international projects certainly have some empire-like qualities; they probably do have imperial aspirations not too different in scope from the US's.
That may provide a framework to help you decide which empire you'd like to live under, if you get to influence the choice. But it's not particularly helpful in understanding the dynamic described in the quote imo, or a refutation of its premise that US-vs-china is not the most effective way to understand these systems.
Anyway though while we're on the subject, it's worth noting that in africa particularly, states & institutions are often choosing entanglement with china as an alternative to engaging with the US in similar ways. Would certainly be worthwhile to get some african opinions on china and US vis-à-vis empire.
Additionally, China's military presence in the South China Sea and its territorial claims over disputed islands demonstrate imperialist aspirations
Nitpick, but China's Maoist Communism was more like the fourth of four major axes of that arrangement, than it was part of the non-aligned/3rd-world movement. At times pals with the Soviets, at times not, but practically never pals with the US—like, at times they fought alongside the Soviets against US forces, hardly non-aligned, but also definitely not part of the Soviet bloc. They had their own alignment, rather, separate from worlds one through three.
>But it soon after became the name to refer to the participants of the Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries first held in 1961. The term "non-alignment" was established in 1953 at the United Nations. Nehru used the phrase in a 1954 speech in Colombo, Sri Lanka. In this speech, Zhou Enlai and Nehru described the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to be used as a guide for Sino-Indian relations called Panchsheel (five restraints); these principles would later serve as the basis of the Non-Aligned Movement.
I don't agree with it but I also don't think I have more to say about it.
Scary? Yeah, I think we've stepped into territory where we're not even talking about the same thing.
By process of elimination, the world order was dominated by the US.
The US does have a world empire, but its core feature is they consistently haven't exhausted themselves on silly wars or socialist internal policies. If any other power tried policies that promoted their own prosperity they'd have an easy time of it. China dipped their toe into saving and accumulating wealth and look how they've gone. If they could just stick to sane policies for 50 years in a row we'd probably have room for a few great powers in the world.
Alternatively, every single competitor matured and dismantled themselves.
(In pursuit of smaller but more sustainable societies).
You throw in unsourced atrocity propaganda ("starved millions of their own people then imploded") which is like the U.S. abusing someone then asking them "why they keep punching themselves."
It's worth reading American imperial architects like Washington's "Wise Man" George Kennan in 1948:
>We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v01p2/...
Or the "Mallory Memo":
>499. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Mallory) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom) [Washington, April 6, 1960]
SUBJECT: The Decline and Fall of Castro
Salient considerations respecting the life of the present Government of Cuba are:
The majority of Cubans support Castro (the lowest estimate I have seen is 50 percent). There is no effective political opposition. Fidel Castro and other members of the Cuban Government espouse or condone communist influence. Communist influence is pervading the Government and the body politic at an amazingly fast rate. Militant opposition to Castro from without Cuba would only serve his and the communist cause. The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. If the above are accepted or cannot be successfully countered, it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06...
It's not correct to pretend others just made errors or "had wrong systems" rather than that the U.S. sabotaged any rivals with infinite violence.
Told myself I wouldn’t get baited by this thread but I guess Holodomor denial is my weak spot. The Holodomor isn’t “atrocity propaganda”. It was a factual event in history perpetrated purposefully by malicious actors.
The idea that the PRC is some benevolent country striving to break free of the Evil Capitalist Dogs is out of bounds with facts.
It's important to recognize the roots of the US's dominance post war.
Here's a source: https://holodomor.ca/resource/holodomor-basic-facts/
> The term Holodomor (death by hunger, in Ukrainian) refers to the starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1932–33 as a result of Soviet policies. The Holodomor can be seen as the culmination of an assault by the Communist Party and Soviet state on the Ukrainian peasantry, who resisted Soviet policies. This assault occurred in the context of a campaign of intimidation and arrests of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, artists, religious leaders, and political cadres, who were seen as a threat to Soviet ideological and state-building aspirations.
Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
> The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомо́р, romanized: Holodomor, IPA: [ɦolodoˈmɔr];[7] derived from морити голодом, moryty holodom, 'to kill by starvation'),[a][8][9][10] also known as the Terror-Famine[11][12][13] or the Great Famine,[14] was a human-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union.[15]
> While scholars universally agree that the cause of the famine was human-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute.[16] Some historians conclude that the famine was planned and exacerbated by Joseph Stalin in order to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement.[b][17] Others suggest that the famine arose because of rapid Soviet industrialisation and collectivization of agriculture.[18][19][20]
Ah yes, because Africa was not deliberately destabilized since basically forever and still is
Compare and contrast to Zimbabwe. Inflation at ~80%! Still printing money and refusing to let the economy stabilise. It'd be funny except the policy decisions have consequences for real people. They have had some handicaps. But their biggest problem is a refusal to abandon failed local policies.
I'm sure there are some success stories in Africa that will eventually show them all the way. But the success and failure have been primarily a result of their own choices for a while now. Just because foreigners are trying to destabilise a country doesn't mean they can't adopt growth-based policies. If Asia can do it, Africa can.
And even with that the Chinese are quite authoritarian. If they would liberalise a bit more they'd probably speed past the US too. There are a lot of low policy bars to clear before blaming problems on foreigners.
Just look at this map of undersea water cables to see how embargoes and sanctions designed to torture Cubans have led to silly and wasteful design decisions:
https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/images/news/2015/10/r...
(And yes, that single connected spot in Cuba is Guantanamo Bay.)
The world is not just at all. There is no reciprocy and not all voices are being heard.
Thanks for your input. That's all
Edit: you got downvoted while I was typing this. The status quo defense force is working overtime these last few days
It's almost entirely due to one of the shitty aspects of how US elections work.
Enough Floridian ex-Cubans and their descendants, who got their land and businesses seized, are against warming relations at all, that moving that direction is seen as risky for Presidential hopefuls—which would hardly matter if we had a national popular vote for President, but instead, it's state-by-state and (mostly) winner-take-all at the state level, so that constituency's power is greatly multiplied by their mostly living in one "swing" state with a high elector count.
Miami doesn't want us to stop stepping on Cuba's throat, so we keep doing it. Why do we listen to Miami? Because our elections are dumb and bad and we (and Cuba) were unlucky with where Cuban refugees/exiles settled.
The two cables into Guantanamo -- GTMO-PR (opened 2019) and GTMO-1 (2016), after that map opened.
[0] https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/brazil-us/arima...
>The “U.S.-China decoupling” that has been the focus of public discussion in recent years would be better understood as an effort on the part of the U.S. to expel China from the “world imperial system.”
The US would love nothing more than to have China as part of the "world imperial system". China and the US simply can not come to agreeable terms on the relative power balance. Conversely, China would love nothing more than to lead the globally dominant imperial system, but at least for now, this is not a realistic possibility. Both nations behave rationally and predictably within the a real politick framework, as most counties do. They try to exert as much power as they possibly can for their own benefit, and their sucess or failure is largely determined by a combination of real world conditions, their capability to execute, and chance.
With the US and US hegemony, you can actually hold someone accountable. Bad actors can be protested, outed, and dealt with peacefully.
What I am not saying is the US acts with best interests of others in mind all the time - this isn't true either, and I'm not taking an extreme here on this, US has plenty of issues on the world stage (and as an American, at home too) - but centrally, we can be held accountable (and often are, esp. if you can get the US public opinion on your side).
You have zero recourse with China, if they decide to muscle into something, or support a horribly oppressive dictatorship to extract your national resources, there is zero - and I mean zero - way to appeal to any authority for intervention.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware we propped up dictatorships and overthrew governments, but I'm also aware of the fact that there were massive protests in the streets upon revelations of many doings that ultimately lead to them being undone or the US backing off, you have something of recourse there, you can deal with the US government in some discernible way you just can't with the CCP & Chinese government actors.
This has to be accounted for in the conversation when talking about international relations, especially when talking about "new hegemony" as it were.
I also question the assertion that the "world" has some massive distaste for the US. Unless world means China.
When Europe needs military assistance, who shows up?
When Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand need assistance, who's right there, hands open?
Which nation has taken a very public and consistent stance against Russian military intervention in the Ukraine and committed billions of dollars in assistance without blinking?
I'll give you a hint: its not China
While I generally agree with you, but there's a false choice presented here. I don't think the massive protests did anything in regards to foreign policy. And for most Latin American countries that the US has traditionally been doing whatever it wants to - there's not even an avenue for them to recourse. "and often are, esp. if you can get the US public opinion on your side" is an impossible ask that basically equates to no recourse in most situations.
So for those countries that do not fall inside the protection and alliance of the United States, China presents a true recourse, it's also true for the reverse.
The trade agreements across Latin America lifted millions out of poverty (though results have been lopsided at home)
Billions in foreign aid[0][1] to Latin America since the 90s
Billions in Foreign Aid to Africa since the 90s
Numerous laws passed that criminalize foreign corruption practices (you can indeed hold corporations responsible for corruption, though not a perfect process)
Trade Treaties (which we have a history of honoring)
[0]: I am speaking of non military aid specifically, I'm excluding military aid in these numbers
[1]: Crucially, in most instances, this aid isn't given to governments directly that have proven human rights abuses, but instead directed to NGOs and non profits (see https://harvardpolitics.com/debunking-myths-foreign-aid/)
How'd that work out since he left office?
More normalized relations, even under Trump
Were George W. Bush and Tony Blair held accountable for lying about WMD and launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq? Was anyone in the Bush administration held accountable for ordering torture of detainees, and was anyone at the CIA held responsible not only for engaging in torture, but then destroying evidence? There are more than just "issues" with the US on the world stage, and virtually no one is ever held accountable for them.
> You have zero recourse with China ... there is zero - and I mean zero - way to appeal to any authority for intervention.
This isn't true. Public pressure actually plays a large role in how the Chinese government acts. You do not have the same recourse to the legal system, but the government cannot simply ignore what people by and large think. It is incredibly sensitive about maintaining popular support.
Obama was elected in no small part due to outsized opposition to policies of the previous administration.
Practicing democracy isn't always fast nor is it perfect, but it does work. The question of what to do once we realized we needed to reverse course is up for debate, but yes, things changed, people lost their positions, power, and there are reforms and accountability - the CIA is subject to more congressional oversight, for example. They're banned from using blacksites and the CIA is no longer allowed to hold foreign nationals for extended periods without representation.
There's this weird thing about how the US waged two wars too, in regards to the rules of engagement. There were 100% bad actors, and many (unfortunately not all) were held by military and civilian court for war crimes, re: blackwater contractors, the case of Pvt 1st Class Andrew Holmes etc.
The US military has official rules of engagement for treating people humanely - which are in fact expected to be followed - and people were held accountable for not doing so.
Not perfect mind you - but yeah, there were huge changes as these revelations came to light.
International relations can be bizarre, and again, I'm no apologist, we shouldn't have even invaded in the first place, but do you think the Russian soliders in the Ukraine will be held internally accountable for war crimes?
Do you think the Chinese would?
Do you think they are held accountable in any way for other types of crimes, like foreign bribery, corruption, supporting human rights abuses?
Can you even freely appeal to the Chinese population?
No one went to prison. Bush served out two terms (the first one unelected, but that's an entirely different question). The US occupied Iraq for 9 years. If this is the "accountability" you're touting, it's frankly pathetic.
> Practicing democracy isn't always fast nor is it perfect, but it does work.
That's a major understatement, in the case of the US. The US killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, in an illegal war of aggression, justified to the public on the basis of outright lies, with the complicity of much of the established media.
> the CIA is subject to more congressional oversight, for example
The CIA, on orders from the Bush administration, carried out a global torture program, in which it kidnapped people off the street, including in Europe, and smuggled them off to black sites for torture. The Obama administration decided not to prosecute anyone. In Obama's words, "We tortured some folks," but we have to leave the past behind us. When there was eventually a Senate investigation, the CIA spied on the Senators involved. When that came to light, the CIA apologized, but no one in a position of responsibility faced any serious consequences. The same goes for when the CIA destroyed evidence of torture - no consequences.
> They're banned from using blacksites and the CIA is no longer allowed to hold foreign nationals for extended periods without representation
That's very reassuring. I'm sure the CIA has mended its ways and is now staffed and led by boyscouts. They wouldn't do anything like, say, plan to assassinate or kidnap Julian Assange out of an embassy in London.
What, exactly, makes China a better partner than the US then? What makes them a global thought leader in any respect? Is it stealing technological secrets from supposed allies? The fact you can't hold the Chinese government accountable in any way what so ever (please demonstrate a single instance where a foreign entity could do so)
And this just by passes the lack of understanding you may have for our democratic process and reforms in practice, judging from how you may think noone was held accountable for what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan (this just isn't true, heads rolled. No, not everyone served a tribunal or trial, but that isn't the only form of justice, and yes, people did go to prison)
I'll also throw you this: I'd love to see Bush serve jail time for those two wars. I'd also love to se Jinping serves time for the genocide of the Uyghurs.
I'd also love to know if you can go to the middle of Beijing and shout from the rooftops that he should be tried for the genocide of the Uyghurs and see how it goes
How about thinking of the global south, especially Africa, as something more than a basket case and a billion mouths to feed and actually investing in them.
> Is it stealing technological secrets from supposed allies?
Yeah that's pretty crappy but so is spying on our supposed allies and pretty much the rest of the world, even our own companies.
> The fact you can't hold the Chinese government accountable in any way what so ever (please demonstrate a single instance where a foreign entity could do so)
In what way has that happen to the US?
> I'll also throw you this: I'd love to see Bush serve jail time for those two wars. I'd also love to se Jinping serves time for the genocide of the Uyghurs.
Neither of those things have happened yet you seem to hold the US as being a better global partner. Rather than engage in this debate over who's the better leader for the world, let me present a model that avoids that: a multi-polar world where there is no one dominant power. Since neither China nor the US seems to be someone the world can fully trust, why not have a multi-polar world? With EU, US, China, India, African Union, etc. as centers of great power. Why should the world be dominated by one power? A multi-polar world is one that's much more likely to hold people or even countries accountable. A world dominated by one power means that one power will have to answer to no one but itself.
If we are shifting gears - I'd like no polars, rather a more neutral, flat world, with open ideas and borders, where human rights are respected and laws are fair and courts provide actual redress to citizens and non citizens alike.
I also realize this is...fantasy, but thats my preferred world, if thats the question.
Now I'd like to see a more good faith attempt at the conversation at hand. US has many critical flaws, and I readily acknowledge them, I also point out why the US political structure still makes it realistically amendable to being a net good force in the world (and I don't - at all - suggest it should be the only one).
Where is the equal and equivalent conversation coming from on the other side here? I'm not seeing it.
Lets try to have a good faith discussion about this, and one that doesn't just focus on the US issues (which I've been open and forcoming with). China has them too, yet we're suppose to ignore that?
Since 2014, China has implemented a more independent judiciary at the local level. Zhang Taisu at Yale Law School recently wrote a paper on this: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/xis-law-and-order-strat...
Is it the same as the rule of law as we know it? No. But that sort of conversation is happening.
You and I may be simply talking past each other despite largely having the same goals/vision for this world. My point is the debate over if the US or China is better becomes irrelevant if the world isn't dominated by one or two countries. In a world that's closer to your "fantasy", we don't need to hope for countries to be better actor because the other countries are collectively strong enough to compel better behavior. In a world like that, a system based on rules can truly emerge instead of the de facto might makes right.
I'm sorry, but I prefer to discuss reality. Maybe heads rolled in an alternate universe, but not in the one I live in.
> the genocide of the Uyghurs.
There is no "genocide of the Uyghurs." This would be the first "genocide" in history in which nobody died. Using that word in this case is offensive. Genocide is an important word, and shouldn't be thrown around for cheap rhetorical points.
I don't have a rosy view of the Chinese government either, but I object to this whitewashing of the US government, which has behaved especially egregiously on the world stage over the last 20+ years.
As per genocide, well, multiple countries call it genocide, including France[0], Belgium[1], the UK[2], Canada[3] and many others.
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-parliament-passe...
[1]: https://www.aninews.in/news/world/europe/belgian-parliament-...
The rest of your quote doesn't substantially change the meaning. This is what I left out: "No, not everyone served a tribunal or trial, but that isn't the only form of justice, and yes, people did go to prison." Nobody of any importance went to prison. The highest levels of the Bush administration ordered torture, and publicly justified it. None of them went to prison. The CIA officers who tortured people? No prosecutions. The only people I'm aware of who went to prison were a few sadistic privates in the Abu Ghraib prison who took pictures that got leaked.
> it may look different to people not used to our democratic process and how our government works
People who don't think Bush et al. were held accountable for the Iraq War and for ordering a global kidnapping/torture program just don't understand the democratic process? Intriguing.
> As per genocide, well, multiple countries call it genocide, including France[0], Belgium[1], the UK[2], Canada[3] and many others.
Again, this is a "genocide" with a death toll of zero, even according to the people who are calling it a "genocide." This must be the first genocide in history in which no one died. I've rarely seen a propaganda campaign as transparent as this - even the disinformation campaign about Iraqi WMD had more plausibility.
The current CIA director got promoted BECAUSE of their role in the torture program, not in spite of it.
Yes, they (and their political parties) lost power in elections a few years later. Try that in China.
He was reelected because of his role in foreign interventions not in spite of them.
Xi looks like he'll be dictator for life. And the people didn't elect him.
The last time Europe actually needed military assistance was WWII, and China arguably played a larger role in that than the USA.
More Chinese people died. By any other measure the United States won the war via the Lend/Lease program.
Interesting snippet of history.
Even in the Pacific theatre, the US Navy was absolutely critical to collapsing Japan's empire.
Sounds familiar...
> With the US and US hegemony, you can actually hold someone accountable. Bad actors can be protested, outed, and dealt with peacefully.
It's a good thing we held one random trader from Credit Suisse accountable for 2008.
> When Europe needs military assistance, who shows up?
Europe is a vassal. If the US didn't show up that would be a problem for the US.
The definition of a vassal and how European countries act and engage do not match. This is both factually false and even subjectively false. European countries are not vassal states of the US. No country is, in fact.
>It's a good thing we held one random trader from Credit Suisse accountable for 2008.
This makes no sense. The US is not singularly responsible for the mortgage crisis that swept the world. No one country is.
Not even sure how to address the rest, since there is no real attempt to engage the issues at hand, nor provide counter points to how it would be better with China helming global issues
You say this as if the Ukraine invasion is the ethical bar, meanwhile the US has been invading countries for 50 years.
And Ukraine is still an ethical bar, a big one, as to when push comes to shove, China isn't a great partner. I don't think the Ukrainians are going to look fondly on how China has acted here. Remind me again why China supports Russian aggression in the Ukraine?
China is bordering Russia. If you think that somehow doesn't change the type of relationship both parties are forced to have you don't understand geopolitics.
The United States has extremely weak neighbors and huge oceans separating us from threats. Obviously our situation is very different.
Can you explain what you are thinking? One implication is that China is supporting Russia because they are afraid of a Russian military actin, but is that what you mean?
To use a crude analogy - if you're in a apartment complex you would probably be nicer to your neighbor than if they lived in another building, and not literally next to you, right?
Russia, China and India are the three neighbors living in a triplex. Meanwhile the United States is in a mansion surrounded by a moat a mile away.
If one of your neighbors was beating up and stealing from another of your neighbors, are your really saying you’d cosy up to them?
I am critical of the Chinese system of government, but I’d never think of them as cowards.
Also, I guess you can’t explain why Finland isn’t Russia’s best friend despite bordering Russia.
If you can explain why your argument doesn’t apply to Finland, I’ll point you to a news report showing China’s support for Russia.
"Finlandization is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system. [...] The Finnish political cartoonist Kari Suomalainen once explained Finlandization as "the art of bowing to the East without mooning the West"." [0]
The Soviet Union's collapse allowed Finland to spread its wings a bit more broadly, but it's worth pointing out that yes, Finland was cozying up to the Soviet Union like mad, in order to best survive their physical proximity. The logic does seem to check out, at least while the bogeyman of the USSR still shambled around.
China can defend itself just fine, is the general assertion they make, so what are they worried about exactly? If Finland can speak out against Russia, why can't China?
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/science-technology-business-mexic...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_s...
They also don't support poking a fucking insane leader of a nation with nukes that shares a massive land border with them and which they are heavily reliant on for natural resources.
Those positions aren't at odds with each other. Wanting peace but also not wanting to sour relationship with perhaps your most important neighbour aren't unreasonable things to want at the same time.
China was a great partner to Ukraine and invested a shit ton of money there, they are probably very upset that Russia has decided to go in there and fuck up the infrastructure they built.
I just don't understand what people expect from China here?
Turn around and say, "Hey Russia, I know you provide like 1/3rd of our energy and commodities imports but I would like you to go fuck yourself until you abandon your invasion of a small country that we like but isn't critical to our economy. kthxbye".
Yeah. That is entirely unrealistic and everyone should know that.
The US provides weapons to Ukraine because it's convenient. They send them surplus old crap and it hurts the Russians. Good for Ukraine, good for the US and costs them essentially nothing in the grand scheme of things, in fact it's probably the cheapest $/russian_damage they can currently purchase. They get to fight a war (their favourite pasttime) with none of the negative domestic consequences. Win win!
On the other hand there is nothing China can do here on either side that isn't negative expected value for them.
Them backing Russia would fuck them over with Europe which is actually a really good trading partner. Most people agree it's all negatives here so I don't think I need to elaborate.
Them going against Russia would just obliterate the relationship they have spent decades fixing and probably buy them absolutely nothing with anyone else.
The US isn't going to turn around and be like "Hey! China doesn't like Russia anymore, now they are our best friend!". That shit ain't happening. The US will continue to contain and suppress China because that is their prerogative and has nothing to do with their alliance with Russia. US can't allow a world were there is a power that rivals theirs, it violates every current US doctrine of "world order".
TLDR: China doesn't have anything to gain by directly rebuffing Russia and plenty to gain by staying relatively neutral in the matter.
Would you mind explaining where they have made it clear?
All I’ve seen are statements blaming it on the US for being open to new NATO members.
Why is this better?
Prolonging the war harms Russia (so long as Russia doesn't win). It increases tensions between NATO and OPEC. It's a drag on economic productivity for most of the countries engaging. If resulting shortages hurt the developing world, that's another anti-NATO talking point for China in its relations with those states, and weakened economies or state-stability might open up new opportunities for China. Meanwhile, China gets cheap fuel and can generally do as they like with Russian relations, since, what're the Russians gonna do, push them away?
Meanwhile, what would they gain from flipping hard against Russia?
China's whole deal, to paint with a broad brush, is avoiding entanglements and prodding things the way that suits them... from the sidelines. Their foreign policy doesn't really follow some kind of moral narrative like we like to (try to) apply to ours in the West, to the point that the narrative they do have is about how they won't screw with foreign countries for reasons of morals or ideology—though neither their narrative nor ours fully fits the facts of their or our behavior. We play our cards, they play theirs. Our favored move right now is to help Russia wreck its military and economy while embarrassing itself. China's favored move is swooping into the resulting trade vacuum to their own benefit, and keeping this mess going as long as possible, because it's hurting everyone involved while helping them and improving their overall diplomatic/strategic position.
I keep hearing rumors of chinese buying brazilian farm lands, even assassinating land owners. Not exactly sure how much truth there is to this but I don't doubt it.
Oh please. China is already busily building a quasi-empire by persuading poor nations to enter debt slavery over infrastructure projects. One must also point out every single one of this account's comments is either Chinese or Russian apologism.
Why must one do that? Is it wrong to question the typical narratives we get out of Western-aligned sources?
> China is already busily building a quasi-empire by persuading poor nations to enter debt slavery over infrastructure projects.
Citation needed. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/ch...
Because they're overwhelmingly less reliable.
Just look at how often Russian sources brag about destroying Western equipment sent to Ukraine before it's even been sent yet. Or the dogged insistence that Russia has no intention invading Ukraine and this is all silly Western propaganda mere days or weeks before yeah, they invaded Ukraine and acted like all those previous proclamations never even happened.
However this type of thing happens at a larger scale than just the Ukraine war. I mean look at the "uigher files" that contain like actors from hong kong and shit lol. If you think just Russia and China exaggerate in their news you're not looking hard enough at our news.
There's a reason "whoops dropped a cigarette" has become a running joke any time there's an explosion deep within Russian lines.
Compared to China? Is this a serious question?
US media has plenty of problems, but there's no shortage of publications trashing whoever the current president is, unlike China.
You can't even talk about Winnie the Pooh in China, their premier is so butthurt.
This is frankly, silly. The essay is just doublespeak.
If you can’t articulate clearly why it’s not in China’s interest to extend its influence throughout the world, it’s because you don’t have a coherent position.
For what it’s worth, I think most of the criticisms of the American system are valid, and the extent to which we are aware of them is because it’s founded on being open to criticism.
We’re faced with humanity being deeply flawed and not having developed a utopian system of government anywhere, ever.
A central question we are facing is - do we want a world in which governments can be criticized, or one in which such criticism is brutally repressed?
Ridiculously naive. China wants an empire to match or surpass the US.
I don't necessarily blame them for that in and of itself -- I'd blame them more for being non-democratic -- but it's comical to act like China doesn't want an empire as it goes about building outposts in the South China Sea.
> The United States operates an imperial arrangement within its continental territory, followed by a second imperial core in the form of the Five Eyes alliance, followed by a system of vassal states in the guise of allies such as the military domination systems of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East
This is also incredibly silly.
Sure, categorizing military bases all over the world as imperial is reasonable, but looking at it as "military domination" over all those countries is simplified tankie reasoning.
If it was just a matter of militarily dominating those countries, the US wouldn't frequently push for allied countries to strengthen their own independent militaries, as it has.
And what does "imperial arrangement" over the continental US even mean? Sure, manifest destiny was empire building, but at this point it's largely a singular nation with a federal system.
Oh yes, the US has military bases in 80 countries around the world in the interests of the "host" countries, and not for strategic military reasons. As soon as the hosts catch up on military spending, the US will leave, no doubt!
Imagine believing this for one second.
For example, the reason the Philippines is now allowing the US to establish semi-permanent bases on its territory is obviously because it's more worried about China in the South China Sea. The US military is simply the lesser of the two evils from the Filipino perspective. (And of course it helps that so many Filipinos have positive feelings towards the US)
The hardliners may fantasize about the benefits of world hegemony, and conveniently ignore the downsides, but in reality there's much less enthusiasm in pursuing such a goal than often boasted about.
For example, when the Cold War was already over in 1991, even Bush Sr. gave a big speech in Ukraine to emphasize that they really shouldn't rush to break up the Soviet Union.
As an American I'd say the US has very mixed feelings about this, but isn't 100% opposed.
You're right that the US doesn't exactly want to be world police, not most Americans anyway. That said, there's definitely a certain sentiment of, "if not us, then who?" and seeing acting as world police to be the lesser evil.
Like in principle, Americans want to be somewhat more isolationist (especially militarily), particularly since the Iraq war was such a disaster, but then something like the Syrian civil war happens and many Americans feel an obligation to help out the 'right' side.
The whole "shining beacon on a hill" thing is ingrained into the American mindset. Even people on the left within American politics who are self-critical of US history just have the stance of, "well, the US hasn't really behaved like that in the past, but it should".
Sure, it's an alternative to the US' imperialism, but make no mistake that the Chinese government has the capacity to be just as evil.
The Great Firewall vs the US Government telling social media companies what to censor.
>The reason why I emphasize here that this is a new type of “world empire,” instead of accepting Darwin’s “world-system” designation or the usual “liberal international order” from international political theory, is that the theory of sovereign states obscures the imperial essence of Western hegemony. This “new imperial history” narrative, based on postmodern theory, diminishes the political dimension of imperialism. The framing of “U.S.-China relations” or “U.S.-China competition” that is so commonplace today, premised on the concept of sovereign states, is actually deceptive and misleading. It is deceptive and misleading to portray China and the United States as two equal sovereign states, ignoring the three faces of modern Western imperialism, and the fact that the imperial system of the United States is even more complex than the British Empire’s ever was. The United States operates an imperial arrangement within its continental territory, followed by a second imperial core in the form of the Five Eyes alliance, followed by a system of vassal states in the guise of allies such as the military domination systems of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, operates Latin America as a “backyard,” and, of course, it also has control over other supplementary “world-systems” such as the Internet, finance, and trade. Thus, the U.S.-China relationship is better characterized as China, a rising sovereign state, facing the U.S.-dominated world empire or world system. It’s not a question of managing a relationship between two sovereign states, but a question of how China faces the U.S.-dominated world empire. The “U.S.-China decoupling” that has been the focus of public discussion in recent years would be better understood as an effort on the part of the U.S. to expel China from the “world imperial system.” Therefore, the U.S.-China struggle is not only about the fate of the two countries, but also about the future of the world order itself, i.e., is the whole world subservient to the U.S.-dominated world empire, or will it establish truly equal international relations between sovereign states? When the U.S. and Soviet superpowers were trying to build two different types of world empires, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that emerged in countries like India and China intended to create a more fair and rational international order. Today’s U.S.-China rivalry represents a struggle over these two world visions and the shared destiny of humanity.
https://redsails.org/jiang-on-empire/