Explain why?
Everything in China is driven by factional battles and also making sure the red elites stay rich. It’s basically a mafia state doing enough to keep the country developing. At the end of the day the party cares most about enriching itself and staying in power.
China spends more on domestic security than on national defense
What do you think the CCP is?
Why what do you know otherwise?
Nobody wants a hot war between two super powers, it’s the worst case eventuality for the whole planet and all sides will do everything to avoid it.
From Bookings on the drivers for Chinese belt and road expansions
Xi’s centralization of power, however, has been more an accelerant than the main driver of China’s more assertive influence efforts. It is, rather, the Party’s obsession with preserving its rule—a theme which both predated and facilitated Xi’s elevation to power in 2012—that more fundamentally drives China’s growing influence in developing countries. Mounting threats to CCP control have occupied Chinese leaders since early this century as they have come to terms with the unraveling of the core factors that characterized China’s reform era—relative political stability, ideological openness, and rapid economic growth. As Carl Minzner puts it, the leadership is consumed by the need to strengthen “the levees they rely on to keep the waters of a turbulent society in check
Notwithstanding the fact that this, again, is a superficial, simpleton’s analysis, for argument’s sake, let’s run with it.
When you try to run a mafia state at this level, butting heads with the world’s reigning hegemon, violent conflict is likely, if not inevitable. The CCP knows this. To put it more simply, the CCP understands that it will be difficult if not impossible to achieve its end goals and ensure its continued rule without war.
Brooking’s are superficial simpletons? We are so lucky to have you here, master of all knowledge.
If the US and China engage in a hot war, you can be certain by about 90% that Taiwan will be the trigger.
I really don’t see that happening unless Taiwan claims independence. The CCP just doesn’t make moves that threaten party stability.
I don’t agreeca hot war is inevitable. It didn’t happen between Soviets and US and is even less likely to happen in such an interdependent world.
Brookings stated:
It is, rather, the Party’s obsession with preserving its rule—a theme which both predated and facilitated Xi’s elevation to power in 2012—that more fundamentally drives China’s growing influence in developing countries.
Brookings is talking about China’s efforts in developing countries. It didn’t state that the CCP’s China is “basically a [neurotically risk-averse] mafia state doing enough to keep the country developing.”
The core of your argument is silly. What autocratic government anywhere in the world doesn’t want to preserve its rule? Do you know of any autocratic governments that have said, “Hey guys, we’re loving our absolute power and massive riches, but we’re planning to screw the pooch and give it up in a couple of years so we can retire in Cyprus. Ciao!”
It goes without saying that the people in power in every country are trying to maintain the system and structures that allow them to be in power.
They are absolutely obsessed with the fall of the Soviet Union and not replicating that.
They are always thinking ahead of any possible threats to party security. For example, Jack Ma’s Alibaba being heavily funded by Softbank and in turn Japan’s State banks. Or the BRI in itself is basically an initiative to strengthen the State and it’s industries.
Authoritarian regimes may always be foremost concerned with their own security but the CCP take it to an extreme.
The article is about the BRI and how it is in essence an extension of neurosis regarding party stability.
You keep arguing the same points over and over, but none of them really speak to the issue of war. There’s a reason the CCP has adopted a military-civilian fusion strategy and is preparing for war.
I don’t think there’s anything more to add to this discussion. Ultimately, I think it’s quite amusing that in a previous comment, you suggested that the experts in the West are basically clueless about the CCP but then argue that the CCP is about as simple as they come: a “mafia state doing enough to keep the country developing.”
Read please
sure, but that in itself doesn’t mean that the country is headed towards a hot war.
Hmmm , that’s not my analysis, it’s the same analysis echoed by think-tanks and academics.
Don’t really see the contradiction between "The US knows less about China than vice-versa” and The CCP is motivated by maintaining it’s stability at all costs.
You have nothing more to say, which is fine, but at the same time have offered nothing to counter Brookings or pretty much the consensus on the core motivation of the party beyond “everyone is naive” and “Beijing is on a cruising to a bruising from Uncle Sam”.
200 pages long, just read the executive strategy and confused about what point you are trying to make.
How does China military reform mean that headed soon for a hot war with the US? Preparing for war doesn’t mean that they want to have a war.
Since 2012 one of Xi’s main goals has been reforming the military and am well aware of China’s military-civil fusion(every airport and port in China is made to be able to convert to military use). But doesn’t that just confirm what I said about them being obsessed with stability?
It was an attempt to inform some. Never mind.
I feel that what the report makes clear but is missed in a lot of the analysis done on this board is how China does not have any strong diplomatic relationships. America does. So comparing China to America does not a smart analysis make.
It needs to be understood that China would not just be fighting a war in a single front against the USA on land or on water.
They would be fighting an asymmetrical war on multiple fronts with possible internal combatants and power struggles.
China knows this the west knows this. The likely hood of a hot war is slim but not zero.
Think about this. Do you expect countries with strained relationships with China and who also share a board to not take advantage of China’s focus on a war with the USA.
Give you another podcast to listen to. It’s Yan Xuetong , professor of international relations at Tsinghua speaking at Penn State. He talks a lot about threat of hot war and future relationship between two hegemon.
Worth noting he did his PHD at Columbia and is very appreciative of good parts of US.
It’s a 200 page document man, you need to give some commentary of the point you are making.
This point I totally agree with you. I want with all my heart for the US to reform and push global democratic societies to be better. US has some key advantages over China
US needs to rebuild alliances but it can’t be the bully hegemon anymore and pushing unfair trade deals and telling countries what to do.The US needs to get it’s shit together and act like a partner.
This is especially true in the developing world and Latin America , where China is extending it’s influence. US does not have its post war moral high ground anymore. Developing countries have been fucked around by Washington and are open to business with China.
Again, Trump did a good job at fucking this up.
When democracy is run right it’s better at innovation and creativity. I truly believe that
But the US is clearly not a healthy democracy right now and this week has proven that.
I expect those with borders to abstain and those at threat from China like Japan, Korea and maybe Vietnam to support allied efforts.
But again that’s not related to any point was making. I don’t think China wants a hot war with the US while the US has military superiority and these alliances. It’s not part of their MO, when party stability is the foremost priority.
China is beating the US in tech wars, wars of technology standards, wars of influence, taking control of international institutions, trade etc etc.
They don’t need or want a hot war.
The fact that the CCP is focused on its longevity and stability and the fact that keeping its promises to its subjects will necessitate actions that increase the risk of war are not mutually exclusive.
I never said war with China was imminent/would happen “soon”.
Brookings has not characterized China as a “mafia state doing enough to keep the country developing", which is your characterization that I took issue with as being naive and simplistic.
It’s amusing how in one breath you claim that the experts in the West are effectively clueless about China, and then you point to a report by a think tank that is the beltway’s go-to think tank.
You claim you hate the CCP but you sure as hell drink up their kool aid. For instance, you talk about the “war” to set technology standards and how China is supposedly winning it. Yes, China has a plan for growing its influence in this area (“China Standards 2035”). But you seem to take CCP propaganda at face value without any real analysis.
What experts actually say about this latest amazing Chinese initiative:
The intended audience is the Chinese populus, in this case Chinese companies and Chinese technical experts. So it’s really meant to be a little bit more effusive and kind of have the tone of almost like a game day pep talk.
China will likely play an increasingly important role as their companies develop. The standards process and standards development doesn’t operate in a vacuum and it’s not the be all end all of technological competitiveness either. It’s one stage in the process. It’s an important stage, but it’s not an opportunity to sort of carte blanche rewrite the rules for technology’s future.
While increased Chinese participation and government involvement has created some procedural challenges, it has not created undue influence or tipped the competitive scales in favor of the Chinese.
In fact, U.S. and multinational companies are still largely regarded as the most influential participants in ICT-related standards bodies — based on their technical leadership and expertise, deep understanding of standards processes and rules, quality of contributions, and consistent participation over time.
Ironically, the Chinese government’s proclamations and U.S. policymakers’ interpretation belie foundational misunderstandings of standards. International standards are not required rules, laws, or even norms. Companies choose the most appropriate standards for their products, which change with rapidly developing technology. The notion that the Chinese government is going to swindle the world’s best engineers into adopting voluntary standards that will shape the technological landscape in China’s favor, and continue to do so with every technological change, is a significant reach.
– Naomi Wilson, senior director of policy for Asia at the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
These standards are set by industry bodies through companies that participate in them. Usually the companies want the best, the highest standards, and the best tech usually wins out. That is why the U.S. and Europe have the incumbent advantage. They have highly advanced companies.
They (China) won’t be able to get away with dominating standards regimes in various areas with subpar technology. They have to have Huaweis in other areas.
– Andrew Polk, partner at Trivium China (a Beijing-based consultancy)
"In an interview with Hit FM, Health Minister and CECC head Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) said he would never consider such a bubble. Exasperated, he asked: "Isn’t everyone aware of the epidemic situation in China?"
Chen said that judging from the reports of new cases coming out of China, the rate of infection is accelerating rapidly. He said what he is concerned about is the speed at which the virus is spreading and the traffic restrictions the Chinese authorities have put in place.
He said the situation in Hebei Province is very similar to the situation in Wuhan at the start of the pandemic. Chen pointed out that some cities in the province are in complete lockdown now.
From here.
All under control @OrangeOrganics ?
Yes, for the time being it seems under control outside of Hebei. Again you are missing the point of “out of control”, it means the genie is out of the bottle and you cant put it back again. And China can put it back, because it has the technology and no respect for individual rights. The US is out of control, Brazil is out of control and blah blah blah
I cant be bothered to really keep repeating this to you, you are like Falungonger. If it makes you happy to believe that China is at every moment on the cusp of imminent collapse, then do your thing man. Live your best life
Yes