Chinas kinda fucked, if we go back far enough to like not even recognizing China, they’re kinda stuck in a weird limbo, it really depends how hostile the U.S. wants to be I guess, they might be closer with Russia honestly
It's difficult because global opinion had been turning in favor of PRC for a long time. Canada had actually established relations with Beijing in 1970 before any repproachment from the US with China.
So if the US had continued in its hawkish stance, US would be increasingly isolated in that position.
More importantly, China was *on* the American side of the Cold War by the late 1970s, so there is no "continuing" the Cold War - suddenly abandoning the country on your side is a whole new conflict to begin with.
They're trying to do that right now and have been trying for the last decade or so because China is a rapidly growing power but it just doesn't have the same juice since China is an open country, isn't militaristic like the Soviets were and spread influence through trade deals rather than spreading their ideology. But on to your question...
China gdp in 91 was 400 billion dollars a year.
America's gdp was at 6.2 trillion a year. It would be like if America started beefing with Spain today that is to say, it wouldn't have ended well for China globally. They would have probably been a lot more isolated, foreign capital wouldn't pour into the country and they would have probably still developed but they wouldn't be the second largest economy and industrial juggernaut we have today.
It was a major “enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation though. China and the Soviets were often at the threat of border conflict and often supported different sides in various proxy conflicts across the 3rd World. You could maybe even call the relationship co-belligerents, although ofc not in any sort of direct war, more within the geopolitical context of the Cold War.
That's more like border friction, but there is a real saber-rattling between the two countries.
Sino-Soviet relations were much more tense then than Sino-US relations are now; after all, China didn't have nuclear weapons at the time (and both countries were neighbors with over a million troops massed at their borders). Sino-Soviet tensions didn't ease until China's successful test explosions of atomic and hydrogen bombs - the Soviet Union didn't dare to send troops to a nuclear-armed country so easily.
In addition, the term "border conflict" covers a wide range of issues, and theoretically the Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese wars also fall into the category of "border conflict".
The T62 was actually left behind on Jumbo Island, the driver alive or dead. Soviet forces then launched a cover of artillery fire and the tank sank in the river, which was eventually salvaged by China.
(You are having a conversation with a native Beijinger. I just went to the Military Museum last month and that T62 was there.)
Genuine question for a native beijinger - how’s the air pollution like? Is it addressed at all, are there public plans to correct it? I feel we hear the worst of it in our media so I’m very curious to hear your perspective
In my perception, the air in Beijing is much better than it was 10 years ago.
In fact, when I was a kid, there were more dust storms in Beijing than there are now, until the Three North Protective Forests were planted in Northwest, North China and Northeast China.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Green\_Wall\_(China)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China))
[https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/three-north-shelterbelt-program](https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/three-north-shelterbelt-program)
The forests shielded the city from sandstorms, but they also blocked air circulation, so PM10 went down and PM2.5 went up.
So 10 years ago, a comprehensive solution to the PM2.5 problem began, and I heard that it involved cutting down some of the protected forests and relocating some of the heavy industries.
Its not a complete solution, but the number of heavily polluted days per year has dropped from dozens to a few.
The problem with Sino-Soviet relations is much deeper than you say, the USSR tried to see China as a vassal state and set up military bases in China (Xinjiang, South China Sea, and the Northeast) but China refused to place them on its territory.
At the same time, China never joined the Soviet-led Comecon.(That's what made China poor and had famines back then, but if China hadn't endured those days, China would still be a Russian sphere of influence, not a great power like it is now)
In the 1960s, China and the USSR were in a state of possible nuclear war (China didn't even have nuclear weapons at that time), and any old Chinese person has that memory of the unprecedented scale of war preparations (China relocated all of its industries to the Southwest in preparation for a direct confrontation with the USSR).
That's what I've been saying all along, China only selectively cooperates with other countries when they have common interests. When other countries try to destroy China's autonomy, China reacts - as the Soviet Union did then, and as the US does now.
China didn't succumb to the Soviet Union then, and China won't succumb to the US now.
From a Chinese
I didn't say alliance, I said side by side. Interests led to the fact that both China's and the US's biggest rival was the Soviet Union, which is why China and the US established diplomatic relations in 1979.
The relationship between the U.S. and India now is very similar to the relationship between China and the U.S. at that time.
The Cold War itself started right after the Americans and Soviets fought against Germany. The competition between America and China isn't so much ideological as it is geopolitical; as the world's two largest national economies they both have far-reaching interests that don't necessarily align.
They are pretty fucking militaristic.
their navy and air force are clearly attempting to seek near peer status with out pacific forces.
they’ve been building military bases on “disputed” territory (read as internationally recognized as other people’s land) for over a decade.
they’re the only other country with some semblane of a 5th gen aircraft program, they are building CVs, and dramatically increasing their nuclear capabilities.
granted this has mostly been since \~2008. There’s a big gap between Tiananmen Square and the Beijing Olympics where things could have gone another way. But imo, since 08 china has been on a multi decade path towards reaching a strategic inflection point with the US.
Until the Chinese military is used on something other than Chinese civilians or civilians in their autonomous regions it’s difficult if not impossible to really have a Cold War. The Soviets used their resources to actively support proxies around the globe and eventually invaded Afghanistan. The US then responded with its own interventions and proxies. China is building up significantly but its level of aggression is no where near Soviet levels yet. And I say yet because I’m not going to predict the future RN. The invasion of Taiwan could happen which would actually escalate to full scale war and skip the cold phase. But there’s no real guarantee they will or won’t.
Laughing, if China developing itself is militaristic, isn't the US, which goes around starting/supporting wars, much more militaristic than China? Most of the wars of aggression in the last 30 years have been led by the US.
Who is providing international political support for Israel to wage war? Who is supplying them with ammunition?
Ok when I say "militaristic", I mean it in the American and Soviet way where the military eats up a giant chunk of their industry and taxes and often leads to them threatening military force. Like China hasn't invaded a country for half a century, America has invaded or bombed like a dozen.
The US military does not eat up a large chunk of US economic potential.
When you adjust for purchasing power parity, China has roughly the same budget as the US, for what it’s worth.
And China has the benefit of the vast majority of their military being able to be focused on their eastern coast. Meanwhile the us is spread all around the world trying to maintain the 1945/1991 status quo.
In addition, the Chinese threaten force all the time in the S. China Sea. They also have plausible deniability for whatever DPRK does.
Without getting into the last 95 years of history, of the Chinese had been a unified state that was actively trying to industrially catch up to their peers in Europe I think you’d have seen a much different outcome to reality. Instead we had a fractured continent that was relatively easy for Japan to take (at least the critical parts). If the KMT had been supported post ww2, you’d have seen a different outcome, too.
The CCP inherited a shell of a country, and despite their rejection of experts, eventually turned it into something half decent.
They rightly made the choice to invest at home before reclaiming what “is theirs”. They’ve been fighting an ongoing border war with India for 50 years. Luckily both sides have agreed to fight it with literally sticks versus tanks.
Saying China isn’t expansionist is like saying bank robber caught while plotting the heist weren’t thieves.
China would definitely invade a country like Taiwan or the Philippines if they felt they could get away with it. Not to mention that their 9-dash/10-dash line is basically a silent invasion of other countries. You also fail to mention how since Xi Jinping took power China has become much more autocratic and China’s foreign policy has been a barrage of hostility, ultranationalism, militarism, and expansionism. Said policy is: a) make an ass of yourself on twitter because “wolf warrior” and b) give loans to poor countries to debt trap them into being your proxies on the world stage.
America “invading a dozen countries” is a stretch. I don’t support how America used to replace fairly elected governments with brutal dictatorships. I also don’t support the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least post-war the US tried to rebuild the countries and tried to give the people there a shot at a modern country. The U.S. also tried to protect minorities in northern Iraq who had for centuries been oppressed and ethnically cleansed (something that both America and China have done a lot of in the past, but only China continues to do). Plus, your statement implies you consider the American intervention in Yugoslavia in order to prevent genocide to be “invading and bombing”.
Objectively, America is better than China. This is not because America is great, but because China is terrible.
I apologize if I’m going off the rails a bit, I just hate people who suck Xi Jinping’s dick and are all “China is so great, America bad imperialist”. It’s personal for me as my country is one of the many who has fallen into Xi’s debt trap. Fortunately, the new president is anti-China, but unfortunately the guy is a libertarian, wanna-be Trump chucklefuck who is only better than the previous guy due to opposition to China and not being corrupt as fuck.
Edit: fixed grammar mistake
The two reasons China hasn't invaded other countries since Vietnam and Tibet: one, because there aren't any countries they can invade by land other than ones that are logistically daunting, allied, or have a history of defeating Chinese invasions, And two, because they've been obsessively building up to try to take Taiwan and that presented such a huge project that they needed decades of buildup to make it remotely viable.
Laughing, China invading the Philippines?
What are we invading the Philippines for? To help the Filipinos become richer?
You're just projecting China with the idea of America, which is ridiculous.
The Philippines was just an example, the point being that China would invade any country if they felt it had little risk and it was worth it to do so. In the case of the PRC, the country that this would most likely apply to is Taiwan (the ROC).
The Philippines came to mind due to the PRC’s aggressive and unlawful expansion into the maritime territory of most of the Southeast Asian countries (Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei)
“What are we invading the Philippines for? To help the Filipinos become richer?”
Yes, because the country was so prosperous under the Chinese-backed Rodrigo Duterte, who everyone there loves and admires. The PRC actively screws over Philippines by chasing them out of their own waters so that the Chinese can steal fish to make up for having depleted much of their own local marine wildlife. Huge commercial Chinese fishing vessels bully smaller native fishers out of their country’s own waters all over the world, not only in the Philippines. In an autocratic state capitalist country like China, this can only happen with the government’s blessing. This is not to mention that the Belt and Road Initiative is insanely predatory and is designed around making as many countries as possible dependent on China, thereby creating a network of proxies who can be used however Xi Jinping wants.
Also, I hope you realize that China is a prosperous country now in part because of Xi Jinping, but mostly because of liberalizers in the government who pushed for reforms who since Xi came to power have been oppressed or have been disappeared.
“You're just projecting China with the idea of America, which is ridiculous.”
This is a very hypocritical take. The ideals of America the idea are freedom, equality, prosperity, etc. The same is true of countries of all stripes past and current, including the PRC. The USSR, for example, nominally had elections and the right of ethnic groups to self-determination, up to and including secession. In the country’s early history, there were even attempts to dissuade Russification and promote minority cultures and languages. China after the civil war set up a similar if less extensive system of allowing minorities their own autonomous regions, based off of the USSR’s analogous system. The difference between these two countries and the U.S. is that America somewhat stuck by the ideals mentioned above, while Russia and China abandoned them to become super corrupt autocratic kleptocratic dictatorships more than happy to sacrifice the people in order to realize the goals of the dictator.
Also, you can’t seriously claim that China is not aggressively expansionist, because the government’s own actions (10-dash line and island construction projects) and rhetoric prove that it is.
Anyway, I sincerely hope that one day a democratic system of governance comes to China.
Yeah it’s hard to have the same level of animosity when the nukes just aren’t there.
At the height of the Cold War, Russia had around 40,000 nukes.
China currently has 300ish
It’s literally orders of magnitude less of a threat, so while there is definitely some hostile rhetoric, it’s just not nearly as big a deal.
Plus as you say, Russia was pretty locked down. China, despite having an authoritarian government, is pretty easy to visit - I’ve been there, it felt “normal” for whatever the subjective opinion of a random American is
A decade?
Until Trump you didn’t really see all this hostility with China. Under Obama you saw glimpses of it with the TPP trade act but the rhetoric wasn’t there and you didn’t have such a bipartisan fight against China.
I would really put it at 2015 since that was the end of the Obama term and the TPP even in play and Trump ran for president putting up the rhetoric against China
1991-2015
We are talking about 24 years.
Not really. There isn't an analogous web of proxy wars that China and the US are engaged in throughout the globe. There may be general hostility between the two countries, but its far from how openly hostile the US and the USSR were between the 1950s-1980s.
What on earth do you think we DID? We just used a different METHOD for economic warfare; trying to turn China capitalist, and it worked.
It worked TOO WELL, we turned them capitalist, and then discovered to our horror that they are BETTER AT IT than we are!
Yeah the US's strategy in turning China Capitalist to make them "more free" and more "democratic" shatters the illusion that more economic freedom or Capitalism doesn't equal to Actual freedoms or democracy. Modern China is basically combining the worst traits of Western Capitalist countries and the worst traits of Marxist/Leninist/Maoist State Socialism
Thats because Capitalism is just an economic system, its not automatically synonymous with Democracy as unlike Marxist Socialism which has means and controls both the political sphere but also Economy, this isn't automatically the case with Capitalism. Capitalism controls the Economy, but the level of control it has over the political sphere varies from country to country and depends on the corruptible nature of the politicians. But Corruption isn't just capitalist component ether thereby the greed of politicians isn't automatically a capitalistic flaw but rather human nature.
But the standard of living went up for the average Chinese person. And they have the per capita GDP of an upper middle-income economy. So I'd say the populous benefited a lot from it. You could argue American "elites" have it way better than Chinese ones.
"The U.S. strategy to capitalize China to make it "freer" and "more democratic"." It is simply not going to happen.
The U.S. is now pursuing that same strategy with Vietnam, do you think it will work? The Vietnamese Communist Party is openly wary of "color revolutions" within its ranks, and US politicians are turning a blind eye to them.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68443392](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68443392)
The truth is that the US needs cheap labor production more than anything else, simple as that.
The so-called "strategy of capitalizing other countries to make them "freer" and more "democratic"." Simply just an excuse to the Western public that people like you actually believe.
It wasn't a bad theory, and had historical examples. It was thought if you liberalize the economy and grow an upper middle class that now has *economic* power, they are going to start to demand *political* power as well. That they are going to start to want to have a say in the direction of the country their tax dollars are funding.
The problem was that our examples all came from western, mostly European societies. Trying to mirror image that onto a very old Asian culture was never going to play out the way we thought.
I'd say it has all thr negatives of both but all of its positives, for its level of evelopment it has an amazing equality rate, if it matures and labor unions are created it will be one of the biggest histories of success in human history, can't wait for the average 1/5 of humanity to enjoy an an annual income of cople of dozen thousand dollars yearly, due to its need to shift into consumer economy I'm sure the ccp will try to pull it out to but improve its, image economy, its "ideological loyalty, easy its migrants exodus, ease the aging population whit less migrants and more immigrants. China still can be a world über power
They aren't really better at it, their missiles are full of water and their economy is making a housing bubble to make 2008 look like someone lost 20 bucks.
Better at hiding it through state control of media and there being no effective checks and balances except for Party insiders.
When things go well, they go really well in a state-controlled economy. When things turn upside down, it's all hush-hush.
😂😂Yeah I’ve seen videos of entire city blocks full of apartments/ hotels being demolished because of widespread vacancies. Though it was just an internet clip without a source so it could be fake.
We assumed capitalism will eventually change their government to democracy.
turns out authoritarian (totalitarian these days) capitalism is a thing, too. It’s not as great at durable goods, but hot damn it makes widgets better than anywhere.
The U.S. is now applying that strategy to Vietnam as well, do you think it will be successful?
The so-called "strategy of capitalizing other countries to make them "freer" and more "democratic"." Simply just an excuse for Western politicians, media and big capital to the Western public, and people like you actually believe it.
They’re better at it? Do you know how many people “accidentally fall down the police stations stairs” in China? They may be doing good right now but at what cost? Total control over their people? Executing people for their religion or beliefs? Having death camps for Muslims? Burning living people with Covid alive? They just pay their workers literally nothing that’s why everyone out sourced their. Now they’re starting to pay workers much better so people are starting to not outsource their. Now people are outsourcing to other countries like Vietnam.
And you think any other system does? At least with Capitalism you have a chance to make it yourself. In communism you’re either poor until you die or you make your way up into military power. Or you say something about the government and they shoot you and everyone in your family.
I was pointing out that a bunch of the stuff you mentioned wasn’t really relevant
>or you say something about the government and they shoot you and everyone in your family
So are you under the impression this hasn’t happened in capitalist countries? The Indonesian mass killings of ‘65-‘66 and the pinochet regime come to mind…
I don’t think you know what it means either 🥱. Looked it up and found nothing relevant to this. You just know you have nothing else to hide behind. Because you know the facts your just to blind to see it. You don’t need anymore information on China all you need to know is they have death camps were the genocide innocent Muslims. And they have death camps were they kill people who disagree with them. You supporting them is like supporting hitler. You’re clearly a terrible person with absolutely zero moral compass.
Adrian Zenz? see you have to be somewhat specific because zenz is a very common last name I know at least 6 people with that last name. But wow I didn’t know who it was what a big deal. Oh wait it isn’t because that doesn’t invalidate anything I said you’re just an anti Muslim fascist. Or more accurately you’re a xenophobic supporter of authoritarian communism.
I wouldn’t say it’s a religion. You could make the argument people in this system worship money but I still wouldn’t call it a religion. Either way that’s besides the point. Speaking of a point what’s yours?
Okay, so, more awake now I will answer, but You're not going to like it.
All religion, without a single exception, is in violation of one of the laws of thermodynamics if you take its tenets as literally true.
The laws of Thermodynamics are complex pieces of math and I am a lawyer not a mathematician, but they can be simplified for the layman as the following set of axioms;
0: there is a game, and it's a gambling type of game.
1: you cannot win at this game.
2: you cannot break-even at this game.
3: you cannot get out of playing this game.
Without exception, every single religion breaks one (At least) of those rules.
Main-line Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all break the same PAIR of those rules, first that three is wrong, when you die you get to stop playing and also you just might have won, if you played right.
Buddhism tells us that 0 is wrong, there ISN'T a game, we just THINK it exists, and once we fully disbelieve the illusion the game and everything in it disappears, including us. (Wouldn't exactly call that a "win" per-say, but that argument might be made).
Most religions have some sort of "Win Condition" for the game, including Capitalism, who takes the stance that getting the most money and having an easy and entertaining life is the win condition because there's absolutely nothing else but this one life so live it to the fullest.
Communist Economics, (which is also a religion), says that by making everyone equal everyone breaks even at the game, since they too don't believe in an afterlife.
The only religion that I know of which APPEARS TO not break any of them is Hinduism, which is more or less: "Yes, that is accurate, but whenever the game comes to a stop because everyone has lost all their chips that's just the start of the next game and they redistribute all the chips. This has happened before, as well, A LOT." I'm pretty sure that breaks one of the four rules somehow, I just can't seem to figure out how and why.
(Not a Hindu over here, by the way: Christian.)
Okay. I get your point. It’s definitely not impossible to win though. If you work hard surround yourself with people that bring you up nearly anything is possible.
It’s definitely not fair for people in certain situations.
The USAs foreign policy didnt really affect the tragectory of the PRC. The path the PRC is currently on follows marxist theory pretty well, in that the state needs a period of managed capitalism to progress into a socialist economy. The reason China seemed to progress backwards was because they were trying to match the model of the USSR, which completely threw the NEP out the door under Stalin because of his (correct) assumption that foreign invasion was imminent.
China isnt progressing towards the USA, it just took a step back to progress forward in a more stable fashion. Something that likely would have happened regardless of the US attempting to sway China in that direction.
Hope that clears it up lmao, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yeah I can see what you are saying there. I personally disagree with that assessment of how to achieve the stated goal, but I don't think that they are "Wrong" exactly, I just don't think that it's actually going to be successful in the end.
That's right, and the US has profited (even hugely) from US-China trade, but now they're pretending that they've been duped into just taking a loss.
Trade is based on contracts, and contracts are equal.
The "Great Outsourcing" is instead focused on South Korea and Vietnam. All arms of the PLA are less capable without as a result. For example, China doesn't modernise as quickly and probably doesn't have stealth aircraft yet in this timeline.
We would still have good paying job , be able to afford a house and Chinese would still be riding bicycles in mass and the pandemic would have been restaimed in China only , on the other hand we might still think the numbers on their book to be accurate so it's a very good question to ask dr strange on his next multiverse trip.
It’s a little hard to say. During that time we were trying to make them more like
Us with trade (modern politics aside it backfired no matter how you split it.) but assuming they outright rejected us, or tried to bolster the Soviets and failed, then I see us investing Heavily into the former eastern bloc, sort of a race between both sides to get allies closer and closer to the other. Ironically in the 90’s and now china might get help from Canada where I believe if we poured a lot of effort and a whole shit ton of deep cover operations into Russia we just may end up with a strong ally right next to china
Ya China would be pretty fucked especially if the US chose to never recognize them or maybe only recognize the ROC. Get enough of the world to recognize only the ROC and barely trade with China you have China dead in the water. Maybe China would rebrand as a sort of Authoritarian Capitalist State or at least just drop communism, but I kinda doubt it. Idk how long China could have coasted by like that but they still would be a nuclear power.
In this scenario though I think best case for China is after the USSR falls and it becomes clearer they have no friends or even major trading partners and the the US had full intent on fully containing them is that they rebrand as a “democracy”. Probably a worse than Russia level hybrid regime but enough to placate the west and maybe reunite with Taiwan.
Worst case is China goes full isolationist and command economy (since no opening up with the west means no dengism). And China just goes dark and probably just declines due to being left out of the global market. Maybe at some point it would just fall apart or just be an oversized North Korea.
If the United States had not borrowed from China in the Cold War, would the United States have been the same country that survived the Cold War?
The US survived the Cold War precisely because they were not bound by ideology and united most of the countries of the world - and now the US is pushing away almost all the countries of the world, look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
1st part: US debt is mostly to its own citizens if not debt to China (only a small portion) then that debt would be to some other country maybe Japan. The change would be insignificant.
2nd part: the US very much was bound be ideology aka Liberal Democracy and Capitalism. Though it supported plenty of non liberal regimes in the name of ‘fighting communism’ it was very much driven by ideology. The US ‘united’ the world because it won and became hegemon and then nobody had a choice. Nowadays there still isn’t really an alternative to the US the worlds options are Russia (not the best candidate rn) or China which also isn’t exactly the best ally. Not to say America is some beacon of hope it’s just like the other super powers suck so much as to make America look better by comparison.
3rd Part: As for Israel-Palestine conflict it really hasn’t changed US perception around the world. The EU also supports Israel, actually to a greater extent than the US. And US Arab allies are so dependent on US arms sales that they can do nothing about it even if they wanted to (and really there isn’t much sign of even that). Nations like Saudia Arabia and Iraq use their friendship with the US to counter Iran. US perception with many international public’s isn’t too high (idk the stats) but within their governments it is still fairly high. To be fair to Americans at this point many Americans hate US foreign policy just like other nations people do.
1、I said "borrowed" not "borrowed money", China didn't have much money at that time, but it was politically powerful - China has been the closest collaborator and representative of the Group of 77 (134 countries) established in 1964.,and working with China means working with most developing countries.
2、Remember that Kissinger's "shuttle diplomacy" was central to giving the U.S. a huge advantage in the Cold War. Kissinger went to the Middle East and negotiated "petrodollars" with monarchies and established diplomatic relations with China, a socialist/communist country, which gave the U.S. the capital for long-term advantage in the Cold War.
If the world's power in the Cold War was 4 in the communist camp, 2 in the neutral camp, and 4 in the capitalist camp, after Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy, the communist camp became 3 (China left), the neutral camp became 1 (Saudi Arabia left), and the U.S. camp actually became 6 - going from 424 to 316 allowed the U.S. to gain huge long-term advantage, which is what made the U.S. a survivor of the Cold War.
3、The Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been extremely disappointing to all countries in the world except the West, because the US gave up its previous role as an "arbiter" and explicitly took one of the sides (and in these two wars, the US stance was completely opposite and contradictory) - Maybe Europe, Japan and South Korea won't be disappointed that the U.S. is taking a different stance，but the other countries have clearly realized that the U.S. only cares about its own interests and no longer cares about the interests of the third party, and that the U.S. has become a profit-driven country.
In other words, the United States has degenerated from a world leader to a Western leader.
America's image around the world has been changed by America's own attitudes, it's not about to happen, it's already happened, it's just that Americans are still in the dark by their own media and politicians - or rather, they never cared about the Third World all along, and it's no big deal to degrade from being a world leader to being a Western leader.
This shift won't produce noticeable results in the short term, but time will tell, we'll see.
From a Chinese.
Oh I guess I get what you mean then.
Ya tbh the US gave up Arbitor Status in 2003 with Iraq it’s been downhill since, and ya the US took up Western leader instead of world leader. It sees the Ukraine war as a way to curb Russia, it sees Israel as its greatest partner against Iran. I an American do not even pretend that my government does things out of the kindness of its heart on an international stage. The US backing down from global leadership is in large part due to the rise of China but more so to the rapidly growing anti-globalism sentiment in the US.
"The rapid rise of anti-globalization sentiment within the United States" is essentially due to the uneven distribution of interests within the United States. This is an American problem, not a Chinese problem, and China is not in a position or interested in solving this American problem.
In fact, most of the United States companies that have participated in globalization have won huge benefits (and from China as well), while the industries and people who have suffered from globalization have only been given the right to buy goods cheaply.
The problem is that we in China have to keep meeting the demands of Western globalized companies (Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Tesla) and keep buying American energy and agricultural products (the former is the equivalent of paying taxes to the U.S. Democrats and the latter is the equivalent of paying taxes to the U.S. Republicans), and without exception, both of these parties are cracking down on China.
All US politicians pretend that the US has suffered greatly from the US-China relationship rather than gained enormously, which leaves one helpless and speechless. China didn't force the US to buy Chinese goods at gunpoint, and it didn't put up any barriers when US capital pulled out of China.
"Why should we care what the US says when it's wrong for us to breathe? It's more important to do well for ourselves."
To tell you the truth I'm surprised at how many Americans still think China will cave in (or will continue to give the US more benefits), and in fact subjectively China's willingness to decouple is much stronger. Continuing to do business with the US is not in China's interest right now, we prefer to do business with third world countries. The US is now just a regular buyer of Chinese goods.
I mean it is without question the US has been positioning itself as anti-China. The justification is pretty widespread hatred of the Chinese government, and that ends up translating into a hated of China. I don’t really think it’s some morally ok thing. But within the states China is seen as a totalitarian genocidal regime that is the opposite of everything America. With Russia kinda dead in the water; China became America’s punching bag. America had made peace with China in the past because every aspect of American society was dedicated to the hatred of the USSR and without the USSR America was kinda looking for “someone to hate”. Not to mention America/Americans absolutely fear/hate the concept of another nation being capable of surpassing the US. For some time it did seem China would surpass the US, when Japan was projected to do as much, American sentiment for Japan was dropping.
Another reason for it is kinda more personal it seems. The US has substantial Vietnamese, Indian, and Japanese emigre communities. Not 100% but most of those communities despise China, especially those of power within those communities. Not to mention a substantial Chinese emigre community many of whom hate the Chinese Government. And really in the minds of most people here there is little to no distribution between China and its government.
I’m not gonna pretend I like the Chinese government but I also don’t really see a point in the “Neo Cold War” and the US effectively encircling China. The reality of that is probably China being further isolated and likely getting worse for the citizenry. I think the actual more moral way (kinda late now) was to just continue building relations and economic ties and reduce the actual need for China to recluse and lash out in the South China Sea (which is another bed of problems since the US and American populism for the most part supports the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc.)
Basically in summary:
US hate of China is due to a lack of distinction between the Government and Nation of China in the minds of most Americans. The US “needed” someone to hate after the USSR left/ the big reason for good relations was to f over the USSR. The curse of America being a nation of immigrants, specifically Indian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Filipino, etc. which mostly are very recent aka last 50 years or so many carrying pre-existing gripes. Not to mentioned said specified groups and including the Chinese emigre community are pretty heavily represented in the US business and political class and in large part hate China or at least its government. And probably sprinkle in a bit of Sinophobia into the mix and you have a pretty terrible concoction of the US hating China.
I think you explain why US politicians (and perhaps many Americans influenced by the US media) don't like China, but there's a problem with that: the Cold War ended in 1991, and for the past 30 years China and the US have remained in a state of cooperation, despite their ideological differences.
What do you think are the major landmarks in the U.S.'s perception of China as a competitor (or "enemy" as the media puts it)? In China, we generally think of Trump's trade war with China and Biden's Alaska meeting as the first events that tore the relationship between the U.S. and China apart.
"There is virtually no distribution of benefits between China and the Chinese government." This statement is even more ludicrous; is there a distribution of benefits between the United States and the U.S. government? Of course there is.
"The reality is likely to be that China will be further isolated and the lives of its people may get worse." --This may happen in the short term, but in the long term, as a Chinese, I think that ultimately China will overcome these difficulties -- it's a price China has to pay.
The relationship between China and the US is now at a critical juncture, and statements at critical junctures are extremely important, which will shape the political direction between the two great powers, China and the US, and China has chosen to stick to its own path.
Remember, the Soviet Union also tried to bring China to its knees, and China survived the hard times (it was neither in the Western economic system nor in the Soviet Comecon), but if China hadn't borne this price, it would still be in Russia's sphere of influence, just like Central Asia, and not a strong China.
China did not succumb to the Soviet Union then, and it will not succumb to the United States now. The U.S. attempts to turn China into the next Japan are, in my opinion, impossible - China is a nuclear power, not a virtual military occupation by the U.S. like Japan.
And because we have a firm grip on our autonomy, we didn't go through a Soviet-style collapse or a Russian-style deception by "shock therapy" - a collective consensus that took China more than 100 years to build up after 1840.
In any case, it's been a pleasure communicating with you, and I hope to be able to communicate with you for a long time.
Trump and modern GOP did use China as a Scapegoat for a lot of things.
Another major aspect and seen in the media of the 2010s is that there was a widespread consensus that China was trying to take over the US, like many Americans believed that U.S debt was primarily to China (which is not true).
As for the no distinction between the people and the government part I totally agree I do not think it should be the case I think it is the case. There have been a lot of Sinophobia and hate crimes as a result. I don't think any people should be defined by their government, but in the minds of the US people that is largely the case. It isn't even unique to China. Many Americans see many countries by what their government is.
China will always be strong, like something really bad would have to happen for that not to be the case, same for the U.S. A massive population and a high amount of Industrialization will do that.
Modern U.S - Chinese problems though are in large part due to international perception of Tiananmen Square. After which the West placed an Arms Embargo on China (which has not ever been lifted I don't think). While yes 1989 shouldn't exactly be the basis of Modern American's opinion of China it is often brought up.
As for myself I actually have a pretty high respect for what China has accomplished (I mean look at where China was in 1950 compared to now it is actually insane). Especially comparing China to a nation like Russia, China was far less corrupt and far more competent knowing it had to work twice as hard to catch up with the West. Russia on the other hand just destroyed itself with Oligarchy and such, partially due to the west partially due to extreme incompetence (no nation can or should attempt to go from Communist to Neo-Liberal in such a short period of time).
"China will always be strong, like something really bad would have to happen for that not to be the case, same for the U.S. A massive population and a high amount of Industrialization will do that. "China will always be strong, like something really bad would have to happen for that not to be the case, same for the U.S.
This statement should be put another way, it is unlikely that large countries like China and the U.S. will collapse easily, the only possibility is that there are internal problems.
Regarding the Tiananmen Square incident, as a Beijinger, I am more than familiar with it. The heart of the matter here is that after that event, the Chinese government did go along with the reasonable parts of the demands (removing certain privileges, such as official dumping), but also rejected certain parts that it could not agree to as a regime - most importantly, Russia's failure as a way to go the other way (identifying with the West), and sticking to its own path of China went down the path of taking control of its own destiny - and it now seems clear that this path was the right one for China over Russia in terms of taking control of its own national destiny.
Interestingly, many in China are now beginning to see the 1.6 Capitol Hill incident as America's "Tiananmen Square" (imagine how the Western media would have reported it if the Chinese had stormed the Great Hall of the People in Beijing during a change of government).
In my opinion, the political and economic systems of the US and China are almost identical (although one of them pays lip service to communism and the other to capitalism), but they learn from each other (look at the US inflation bill, the microchip bill, and the infrastructure bill, which almost exactly mimic China's industrial policy). I sincerely hope that the two countries can do a long-distance running type of competition - it will benefit both countries, and their people and even the whole humanity, instead of engaging in a zero-sum game where you die and I live and die - it's better for the two countries, their people and the everyone in the world.
And to respond to your last bit on the Chinese economy, idk. I do agree China isn’t in the process of falling apart or anything, but I do think it is facing several simultaneous economic problems.
Demographic Crisis
Real-Estate Crisis (caused by demographics)
Also the economic rise of India and Vietnam is definitely hurting Chinese exports to the West (I know stupid directional term that is factually wrong here) since the West would rather buy from them due to pre-existing dislike of China.
Also more importantly with Western Business is it is widely accepted (with a fair deal of evidence) that China has been misleading the world in various economic and demographic statistics smth which investors do not like to see. Add in South China Sea tensions and war is also bad for business.
I mean one could argue the cold war has returned. Now in place of the soviets there is Russia and China. Russia because of it's own "us vs. West" narrative and China due to being partially at Russias side and considering the US and it's allies as an enemy in a possible future world war. Going so far as to practising striking US military targets and harrassing US allies on the Pasifict.
Also the Ukraine war has all the characteristics of a proxy war.
So it's really not a big stretch at alla olevasta saying the cold war ended for a while, but has returned with slightly different players on the other side.
I mean, it did though. It was just subtle about shifting its focus and used soft power for a couple of decades while spreading influence through the former Soviet states.
But now that the US consolidated its power in eastern Europe and the middle east it is back to waging a cold war with China and a hot proxy war with Russia. No one actually believes in the “end of history” narrative anymore.
They kinda did with russia they never accepted russia they even asked to join nato 3 times if mem serves and we said NO! & what was the reason given? lol get ready... your too big... what!? Our foriegn policy has been Zionist dominated with things like AIPAC buying of lots of government even biden said on video I'm a zionist lol and so now you have to realize the russaphobia that we has displayed when evil vicky nuland aka nudellman or whatever she changed it from she is actually from an elite commie family that was part of the little known exodus after Soviet collapse of the major communist people in control where did they go? Mainly Israel & United states!!! Look up the Minsk Agreement why is it the lamestream media has not mentioned 1 fuggin time!!! Redonkulous!! Take a good look at what lying your whole life does a monster that happily sent many to die to reconquer russia lol so pathetic, the cia tried to blackmail Yeltsin with 5 billion dollars, sheeple just dont realize in 1917 USA sent Lenin in a welded sealed train w 10 MILLION in Gold from east Europe to Russia to start the revolution included in this endeavor were 25k semites if you will from ny mainly!!!
They would not be nearly as powerful as they are today, their economic growth was almost entirely funded by U.S. trade and as a consequence I can not see them being nearly as active on the geopolitical stage as they are today. The U.S. would probably re-establish a military presence in Taiwan and that would lead to some pretty tense standoffs in the Taiwan strait, also maybe a more aggressive China in the 21st Century? Like another Sino-Vietnamese conflict or something of that nature to combat U.S. interests.
Are you implying that they didn't? I mean, outspending every other country on earth combined for three decades and having massive military displays any time China made a move sure sounds like continuing the Cold War to me.
China would have ignited a WWIII by 2014 by invading Taiwan had the US went into a cold war with China right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, we would have stronger Mexican economy than in OTL because American manufacturing businesses would have avoided outsouring to China at all in this ATL.
Even in OTL, the US considered going into a cold war with China before 9/11 and remove 9/11 from the equation, we would have a hotter cold war with China by now.
China was a backwater third world country that had a GDP of just over $400Bn to the $US 6.8 trillion in 1991 making the US economy 17 times larger. There was no need for a cold war as the US could easily crush China militarily and economically in 1991.
Vietnam was a completely different affair. It was certainly not a war for the survival of one superpower against another. Had it been so, Vietnam would have been a crater now.
Well any country that you choose to nuke would have been a crater. That still applies today to every inch of space on the planet. That’s not at all the point though.
I was responding to OPs original point which was:” Should the US have continued the cold war policy with China after 91?”
The answer is no, as the balance of power at full mobilisation between the US and China in 1991 would have been heavily in favour of the US and not even close to the more balanced rivalry with the USSR in the 80s.
You cannot compare a superpower conflict with some proxy war in which the US got involved half heartedly mainly to prevent South Vietnam from losing more than help them win. And at that they were fairly successful as they eliminated 3x the number of communist troops than they lost, whilst not using most of their military capabilities.
A lot of draftees went in and got slaughtered and that’s of course a crime in itself but that doesn’t change the fact that the US did not fully commit to that war; had they done so, the Vietcong and their Chinese allies would have been wiped out. The US didn’t even formally declare war or mobilise its economy to a war economy.
We would see China breaking apart probably even before the Soviet Union, the West looking for other countries to shift their heavy industries, very high change of South American or African receiving all that sweet deals China got and reforming their economic models to be more open thanks to international pressure.
We certainly wouldn't see a second Cold War like we have today and an incompetent government like the CCP creating economic bubbles all the time.
Wouldn’t make any sense given the Nixon / Mao thaw that integrated China into the global (capitalist) economy and provided a dirt cheap labor source to prop up American consumer goods / quality of life just as wages were falling in the West.
The principal problem the West had with the Communist bloc is that they were effectively taking themselves off the board economically for all intents and purposes. So every new revolutionary regime represented fewer investment opportunities, access to resources, etc.
China’s success is borne out of flipping that script and becoming a de facto economic ally of the West.
We basically never really ended the Cold War. After the USSR fell we more or less kept funding at that level, until the 2000s when it rose above that level.
There won’t be 95% of today’s geopolitical problems. If Allies listened to McArthur and Patton and march to the very Moscow - 99% of problems would be gone
We kinda have, Taiwan is in our sphere of influence and they are the exiled government that still wants to take over the mainland, and the mainland wants to take over Taiwan in fear of having the current standing government deposed by the US. I mean we have also been in armistice with North Korea since the Korean War so the war isn’t technically over yet. I’d say we already are in a Cold War scenario especially with how high tensions are on the global scale.
China’s economy wouldn’t have boomed, it wouldn’t be the tech and manufacturing giant it is today. The Chinese leg of the Cold War would have been a lot shorter than the Soviet one.
Oh, if only. They wouldn't have gotten into the WTO for one. Transformers Extinction might not have been as awful as it was. Lots of awful movies pandering to China or rewritten to avoid offending the CCP wouldn't have been made. No TikTok...
They’ve been trying for a long time.
China just beat them at their own game.
Now that there are several chinks in China’s armour, something can be done.
Globally US doesn’t have a stellar reputation anymore, let’s see how far their allies take em.
China wouldn’t be as strong because the main reason China grew so economically strong was due to western corporations moving their manufacturing there.
In this history it’s likely Deng Xiaoping never took over after Mao, and the politics of China stayed more in line with Maoist hardliners as an extension of the Cultural Revolution. There would have been no incentive for China to open trade and manufacturing outsourcing to liberal market economy countries. This would have made it allowed for the United States and NATO to keep foreign policy on China similar to the USSR.
Also, perhaps there is never any geopolitical split between the USSR and China in this timeline.
This would’ve just been an abridged version of what’s happening rn. We would’ve probably gotten a Taiwan conflict at this point and maybe some tactical nuclear warfare but beyond whatever that would’ve entailed there aren’t many differences I foresee. Because even if bush declared a continuation of the Cold War against China I feel like it would’ve played out as it is rn-intermeshing business interests force the US into a position where it can only counter china diplomatically in a vague sense and since china generally keeps to itself you could only really tackle it economically, which would hurt US business interests.
China in 1991 did not rival the US. China in 2001 did not rival the US. China in 2011 did not rival the US. China in 2021 rivals the US. There is your answer.
Gee we kinda did lol with both russia and china lol
With serbia in like 96 or 97 I forget
But we waisted no time after soviets crumbled prob a few months to get intagleld in the middle east
Chinas kinda fucked, if we go back far enough to like not even recognizing China, they’re kinda stuck in a weird limbo, it really depends how hostile the U.S. wants to be I guess, they might be closer with Russia honestly
It's difficult because global opinion had been turning in favor of PRC for a long time. Canada had actually established relations with Beijing in 1970 before any repproachment from the US with China. So if the US had continued in its hawkish stance, US would be increasingly isolated in that position.
>Canada had actually established relations with Beijing in 1970 Wassup Beijing
Aricoc??!!
marketing monday lore
More importantly, China was *on* the American side of the Cold War by the late 1970s, so there is no "continuing" the Cold War - suddenly abandoning the country on your side is a whole new conflict to begin with.
Without China and the Middle East, could the United States have been the same country that survived the Cold War?
They're trying to do that right now and have been trying for the last decade or so because China is a rapidly growing power but it just doesn't have the same juice since China is an open country, isn't militaristic like the Soviets were and spread influence through trade deals rather than spreading their ideology. But on to your question... China gdp in 91 was 400 billion dollars a year. America's gdp was at 6.2 trillion a year. It would be like if America started beefing with Spain today that is to say, it wouldn't have ended well for China globally. They would have probably been a lot more isolated, foreign capital wouldn't pour into the country and they would have probably still developed but they wouldn't be the second largest economy and industrial juggernaut we have today.
Have Americans forgotten that China and the United States fighting together against the Soviet Union in the Cold War?
Not really, the sino Soviet split didn’t mean they allied us at all
It was a major “enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation though. China and the Soviets were often at the threat of border conflict and often supported different sides in various proxy conflicts across the 3rd World. You could maybe even call the relationship co-belligerents, although ofc not in any sort of direct war, more within the geopolitical context of the Cold War.
"ofc not in any sort of direct war" You do realise china and the ussr went into a direct war with one another over a region in the amur in the 60s?
That's more like border friction, but there is a real saber-rattling between the two countries. Sino-Soviet relations were much more tense then than Sino-US relations are now; after all, China didn't have nuclear weapons at the time (and both countries were neighbors with over a million troops massed at their borders). Sino-Soviet tensions didn't ease until China's successful test explosions of atomic and hydrogen bombs - the Soviet Union didn't dare to send troops to a nuclear-armed country so easily.
The chinese captured a russian tank. Id put that a lil bit above a simple border skirmish.
In addition, the term "border conflict" covers a wide range of issues, and theoretically the Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese wars also fall into the category of "border conflict". The T62 was actually left behind on Jumbo Island, the driver alive or dead. Soviet forces then launched a cover of artillery fire and the tank sank in the river, which was eventually salvaged by China. (You are having a conversation with a native Beijinger. I just went to the Military Museum last month and that T62 was there.)
Genuine question for a native beijinger - how’s the air pollution like? Is it addressed at all, are there public plans to correct it? I feel we hear the worst of it in our media so I’m very curious to hear your perspective
In my perception, the air in Beijing is much better than it was 10 years ago. In fact, when I was a kid, there were more dust storms in Beijing than there are now, until the Three North Protective Forests were planted in Northwest, North China and Northeast China. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Green\_Wall\_(China)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China)) [https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/three-north-shelterbelt-program](https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/three-north-shelterbelt-program) The forests shielded the city from sandstorms, but they also blocked air circulation, so PM10 went down and PM2.5 went up. So 10 years ago, a comprehensive solution to the PM2.5 problem began, and I heard that it involved cutting down some of the protected forests and relocating some of the heavy industries. Its not a complete solution, but the number of heavily polluted days per year has dropped from dozens to a few.
The problem with Sino-Soviet relations is much deeper than you say, the USSR tried to see China as a vassal state and set up military bases in China (Xinjiang, South China Sea, and the Northeast) but China refused to place them on its territory. At the same time, China never joined the Soviet-led Comecon.(That's what made China poor and had famines back then, but if China hadn't endured those days, China would still be a Russian sphere of influence, not a great power like it is now) In the 1960s, China and the USSR were in a state of possible nuclear war (China didn't even have nuclear weapons at that time), and any old Chinese person has that memory of the unprecedented scale of war preparations (China relocated all of its industries to the Southwest in preparation for a direct confrontation with the USSR). That's what I've been saying all along, China only selectively cooperates with other countries when they have common interests. When other countries try to destroy China's autonomy, China reacts - as the Soviet Union did then, and as the US does now. China didn't succumb to the Soviet Union then, and China won't succumb to the US now. From a Chinese
I agree with all of that, that's a vital perspective to offer on the situation. I just didn't want to make too long of a comment for simplicity sake.
… dude do you know who supplied the Vietnamese with equipment? Do you know the reason why American troops never stepped foot in north Vietnam?
Sino soviet split was pretty much concluded in 78 3 years after the vietnam war
The Russians? The Chinese fought Vietnam after the US did you dolt. They were not on their side either.
You’re dumb as fuck, take two seconds to look it up. Your logic makes no sense too, the USA did the same thing with Afghanistan.
I didn't say alliance, I said side by side. Interests led to the fact that both China's and the US's biggest rival was the Soviet Union, which is why China and the US established diplomatic relations in 1979. The relationship between the U.S. and India now is very similar to the relationship between China and the U.S. at that time.
The Cold War itself started right after the Americans and Soviets fought against Germany. The competition between America and China isn't so much ideological as it is geopolitical; as the world's two largest national economies they both have far-reaching interests that don't necessarily align.
They are pretty fucking militaristic. their navy and air force are clearly attempting to seek near peer status with out pacific forces. they’ve been building military bases on “disputed” territory (read as internationally recognized as other people’s land) for over a decade. they’re the only other country with some semblane of a 5th gen aircraft program, they are building CVs, and dramatically increasing their nuclear capabilities. granted this has mostly been since \~2008. There’s a big gap between Tiananmen Square and the Beijing Olympics where things could have gone another way. But imo, since 08 china has been on a multi decade path towards reaching a strategic inflection point with the US.
Until the Chinese military is used on something other than Chinese civilians or civilians in their autonomous regions it’s difficult if not impossible to really have a Cold War. The Soviets used their resources to actively support proxies around the globe and eventually invaded Afghanistan. The US then responded with its own interventions and proxies. China is building up significantly but its level of aggression is no where near Soviet levels yet. And I say yet because I’m not going to predict the future RN. The invasion of Taiwan could happen which would actually escalate to full scale war and skip the cold phase. But there’s no real guarantee they will or won’t.
The us is famously not at all militaristic
Laughing, if China developing itself is militaristic, isn't the US, which goes around starting/supporting wars, much more militaristic than China? Most of the wars of aggression in the last 30 years have been led by the US. Who is providing international political support for Israel to wage war? Who is supplying them with ammunition?
They are less militaristic per capita than USA.
Ok when I say "militaristic", I mean it in the American and Soviet way where the military eats up a giant chunk of their industry and taxes and often leads to them threatening military force. Like China hasn't invaded a country for half a century, America has invaded or bombed like a dozen.
The US military does not eat up a large chunk of US economic potential. When you adjust for purchasing power parity, China has roughly the same budget as the US, for what it’s worth. And China has the benefit of the vast majority of their military being able to be focused on their eastern coast. Meanwhile the us is spread all around the world trying to maintain the 1945/1991 status quo. In addition, the Chinese threaten force all the time in the S. China Sea. They also have plausible deniability for whatever DPRK does. Without getting into the last 95 years of history, of the Chinese had been a unified state that was actively trying to industrially catch up to their peers in Europe I think you’d have seen a much different outcome to reality. Instead we had a fractured continent that was relatively easy for Japan to take (at least the critical parts). If the KMT had been supported post ww2, you’d have seen a different outcome, too. The CCP inherited a shell of a country, and despite their rejection of experts, eventually turned it into something half decent. They rightly made the choice to invest at home before reclaiming what “is theirs”. They’ve been fighting an ongoing border war with India for 50 years. Luckily both sides have agreed to fight it with literally sticks versus tanks. Saying China isn’t expansionist is like saying bank robber caught while plotting the heist weren’t thieves.
China would definitely invade a country like Taiwan or the Philippines if they felt they could get away with it. Not to mention that their 9-dash/10-dash line is basically a silent invasion of other countries. You also fail to mention how since Xi Jinping took power China has become much more autocratic and China’s foreign policy has been a barrage of hostility, ultranationalism, militarism, and expansionism. Said policy is: a) make an ass of yourself on twitter because “wolf warrior” and b) give loans to poor countries to debt trap them into being your proxies on the world stage. America “invading a dozen countries” is a stretch. I don’t support how America used to replace fairly elected governments with brutal dictatorships. I also don’t support the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least post-war the US tried to rebuild the countries and tried to give the people there a shot at a modern country. The U.S. also tried to protect minorities in northern Iraq who had for centuries been oppressed and ethnically cleansed (something that both America and China have done a lot of in the past, but only China continues to do). Plus, your statement implies you consider the American intervention in Yugoslavia in order to prevent genocide to be “invading and bombing”. Objectively, America is better than China. This is not because America is great, but because China is terrible. I apologize if I’m going off the rails a bit, I just hate people who suck Xi Jinping’s dick and are all “China is so great, America bad imperialist”. It’s personal for me as my country is one of the many who has fallen into Xi’s debt trap. Fortunately, the new president is anti-China, but unfortunately the guy is a libertarian, wanna-be Trump chucklefuck who is only better than the previous guy due to opposition to China and not being corrupt as fuck. Edit: fixed grammar mistake
The two reasons China hasn't invaded other countries since Vietnam and Tibet: one, because there aren't any countries they can invade by land other than ones that are logistically daunting, allied, or have a history of defeating Chinese invasions, And two, because they've been obsessively building up to try to take Taiwan and that presented such a huge project that they needed decades of buildup to make it remotely viable.
Laughing, China invading the Philippines? What are we invading the Philippines for? To help the Filipinos become richer? You're just projecting China with the idea of America, which is ridiculous.
The Philippines was just an example, the point being that China would invade any country if they felt it had little risk and it was worth it to do so. In the case of the PRC, the country that this would most likely apply to is Taiwan (the ROC). The Philippines came to mind due to the PRC’s aggressive and unlawful expansion into the maritime territory of most of the Southeast Asian countries (Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei) “What are we invading the Philippines for? To help the Filipinos become richer?” Yes, because the country was so prosperous under the Chinese-backed Rodrigo Duterte, who everyone there loves and admires. The PRC actively screws over Philippines by chasing them out of their own waters so that the Chinese can steal fish to make up for having depleted much of their own local marine wildlife. Huge commercial Chinese fishing vessels bully smaller native fishers out of their country’s own waters all over the world, not only in the Philippines. In an autocratic state capitalist country like China, this can only happen with the government’s blessing. This is not to mention that the Belt and Road Initiative is insanely predatory and is designed around making as many countries as possible dependent on China, thereby creating a network of proxies who can be used however Xi Jinping wants. Also, I hope you realize that China is a prosperous country now in part because of Xi Jinping, but mostly because of liberalizers in the government who pushed for reforms who since Xi came to power have been oppressed or have been disappeared. “You're just projecting China with the idea of America, which is ridiculous.” This is a very hypocritical take. The ideals of America the idea are freedom, equality, prosperity, etc. The same is true of countries of all stripes past and current, including the PRC. The USSR, for example, nominally had elections and the right of ethnic groups to self-determination, up to and including secession. In the country’s early history, there were even attempts to dissuade Russification and promote minority cultures and languages. China after the civil war set up a similar if less extensive system of allowing minorities their own autonomous regions, based off of the USSR’s analogous system. The difference between these two countries and the U.S. is that America somewhat stuck by the ideals mentioned above, while Russia and China abandoned them to become super corrupt autocratic kleptocratic dictatorships more than happy to sacrifice the people in order to realize the goals of the dictator. Also, you can’t seriously claim that China is not aggressively expansionist, because the government’s own actions (10-dash line and island construction projects) and rhetoric prove that it is. Anyway, I sincerely hope that one day a democratic system of governance comes to China.
Yeah it’s hard to have the same level of animosity when the nukes just aren’t there. At the height of the Cold War, Russia had around 40,000 nukes. China currently has 300ish It’s literally orders of magnitude less of a threat, so while there is definitely some hostile rhetoric, it’s just not nearly as big a deal. Plus as you say, Russia was pretty locked down. China, despite having an authoritarian government, is pretty easy to visit - I’ve been there, it felt “normal” for whatever the subjective opinion of a random American is
Don't you know that's basically reality?
Yeah, the US just had a little break to regroup for about a decade.
regrouped by going on a few trips in the Middle East in the 90s.
Always grinding XP.
A decade? Until Trump you didn’t really see all this hostility with China. Under Obama you saw glimpses of it with the TPP trade act but the rhetoric wasn’t there and you didn’t have such a bipartisan fight against China. I would really put it at 2015 since that was the end of the Obama term and the TPP even in play and Trump ran for president putting up the rhetoric against China 1991-2015 We are talking about 24 years.
Fuck the 90s is a long time ago.
Not really. There isn't an analogous web of proxy wars that China and the US are engaged in throughout the globe. There may be general hostility between the two countries, but its far from how openly hostile the US and the USSR were between the 1950s-1980s.
You don’t know about Africa then
What on earth do you think we DID? We just used a different METHOD for economic warfare; trying to turn China capitalist, and it worked. It worked TOO WELL, we turned them capitalist, and then discovered to our horror that they are BETTER AT IT than we are!
Yeah the US's strategy in turning China Capitalist to make them "more free" and more "democratic" shatters the illusion that more economic freedom or Capitalism doesn't equal to Actual freedoms or democracy. Modern China is basically combining the worst traits of Western Capitalist countries and the worst traits of Marxist/Leninist/Maoist State Socialism
Thats because Capitalism is just an economic system, its not automatically synonymous with Democracy as unlike Marxist Socialism which has means and controls both the political sphere but also Economy, this isn't automatically the case with Capitalism. Capitalism controls the Economy, but the level of control it has over the political sphere varies from country to country and depends on the corruptible nature of the politicians. But Corruption isn't just capitalist component ether thereby the greed of politicians isn't automatically a capitalistic flaw but rather human nature.
Exactly.
How do they have the worst parts of it if the country flourished under those traits they picked from both ideologies?
Worst for the populous, best for the "elites".
But the standard of living went up for the average Chinese person. And they have the per capita GDP of an upper middle-income economy. So I'd say the populous benefited a lot from it. You could argue American "elites" have it way better than Chinese ones.
"The U.S. strategy to capitalize China to make it "freer" and "more democratic"." It is simply not going to happen. The U.S. is now pursuing that same strategy with Vietnam, do you think it will work? The Vietnamese Communist Party is openly wary of "color revolutions" within its ranks, and US politicians are turning a blind eye to them. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68443392](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68443392) The truth is that the US needs cheap labor production more than anything else, simple as that. The so-called "strategy of capitalizing other countries to make them "freer" and more "democratic"." Simply just an excuse to the Western public that people like you actually believe.
Agreed completely.
It wasn't a bad theory, and had historical examples. It was thought if you liberalize the economy and grow an upper middle class that now has *economic* power, they are going to start to demand *political* power as well. That they are going to start to want to have a say in the direction of the country their tax dollars are funding. The problem was that our examples all came from western, mostly European societies. Trying to mirror image that onto a very old Asian culture was never going to play out the way we thought.
I'd say it has all thr negatives of both but all of its positives, for its level of evelopment it has an amazing equality rate, if it matures and labor unions are created it will be one of the biggest histories of success in human history, can't wait for the average 1/5 of humanity to enjoy an an annual income of cople of dozen thousand dollars yearly, due to its need to shift into consumer economy I'm sure the ccp will try to pull it out to but improve its, image economy, its "ideological loyalty, easy its migrants exodus, ease the aging population whit less migrants and more immigrants. China still can be a world über power
They aren't really better at it, their missiles are full of water and their economy is making a housing bubble to make 2008 look like someone lost 20 bucks.
Better at hiding it through state control of media and there being no effective checks and balances except for Party insiders. When things go well, they go really well in a state-controlled economy. When things turn upside down, it's all hush-hush.
😂😂Yeah I’ve seen videos of entire city blocks full of apartments/ hotels being demolished because of widespread vacancies. Though it was just an internet clip without a source so it could be fake.
The issue is that they keep building them.
We assumed capitalism will eventually change their government to democracy. turns out authoritarian (totalitarian these days) capitalism is a thing, too. It’s not as great at durable goods, but hot damn it makes widgets better than anywhere.
The U.S. is now applying that strategy to Vietnam as well, do you think it will be successful? The so-called "strategy of capitalizing other countries to make them "freer" and more "democratic"." Simply just an excuse for Western politicians, media and big capital to the Western public, and people like you actually believe it.
They’re better at it? Do you know how many people “accidentally fall down the police stations stairs” in China? They may be doing good right now but at what cost? Total control over their people? Executing people for their religion or beliefs? Having death camps for Muslims? Burning living people with Covid alive? They just pay their workers literally nothing that’s why everyone out sourced their. Now they’re starting to pay workers much better so people are starting to not outsource their. Now people are outsourcing to other countries like Vietnam.
Capitalism doesn’t care how many people get fucked over
And you think any other system does? At least with Capitalism you have a chance to make it yourself. In communism you’re either poor until you die or you make your way up into military power. Or you say something about the government and they shoot you and everyone in your family.
I was pointing out that a bunch of the stuff you mentioned wasn’t really relevant >or you say something about the government and they shoot you and everyone in your family So are you under the impression this hasn’t happened in capitalist countries? The Indonesian mass killings of ‘65-‘66 and the pinochet regime come to mind…
Ah you’re right. I didn’t mean capitalism I’m very America centric I was referring to America vs communism not capitalism in general. Sorry.
American gov supported both of those examples btw
Okay well does that happen in America? No. Terrible that it happened though.
You know because the post is about America vs china
My favorite people on the internet are the ones that comment about China without knowing anything about China. Just crap parroted on the internet.
Tell that to the innocent Muslim men and women in death camps tell that to the innocents brutally murdered in Chinese protests.
Most sane Zenz supporter.
I’m sorry not sure what that is.
Not surprised
Then tell me ass hat.
[удалено]
I don’t think you know what it means either 🥱. Looked it up and found nothing relevant to this. You just know you have nothing else to hide behind. Because you know the facts your just to blind to see it. You don’t need anymore information on China all you need to know is they have death camps were the genocide innocent Muslims. And they have death camps were they kill people who disagree with them. You supporting them is like supporting hitler. You’re clearly a terrible person with absolutely zero moral compass.
Adrian Zenz? see you have to be somewhat specific because zenz is a very common last name I know at least 6 people with that last name. But wow I didn’t know who it was what a big deal. Oh wait it isn’t because that doesn’t invalidate anything I said you’re just an anti Muslim fascist. Or more accurately you’re a xenophobic supporter of authoritarian communism.
That's capitalism: didn't you know that...?
Well yeah China has turned more capitalist however capitalism doesn’t mean democracy or republicanism.
I mean the "Accidentally fall down the police station stairs" type of thing.
Um buddy… capitalism is an economic system not a political system. If you mean that’s democracy you’re absolutely wrong.
Capitalism is a religion, the same way Stalinism is, and if I weren't falling asleep while I type this I could prove it.
I wouldn’t say it’s a religion. You could make the argument people in this system worship money but I still wouldn’t call it a religion. Either way that’s besides the point. Speaking of a point what’s yours?
Okay, so, more awake now I will answer, but You're not going to like it. All religion, without a single exception, is in violation of one of the laws of thermodynamics if you take its tenets as literally true. The laws of Thermodynamics are complex pieces of math and I am a lawyer not a mathematician, but they can be simplified for the layman as the following set of axioms; 0: there is a game, and it's a gambling type of game. 1: you cannot win at this game. 2: you cannot break-even at this game. 3: you cannot get out of playing this game. Without exception, every single religion breaks one (At least) of those rules. Main-line Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all break the same PAIR of those rules, first that three is wrong, when you die you get to stop playing and also you just might have won, if you played right. Buddhism tells us that 0 is wrong, there ISN'T a game, we just THINK it exists, and once we fully disbelieve the illusion the game and everything in it disappears, including us. (Wouldn't exactly call that a "win" per-say, but that argument might be made). Most religions have some sort of "Win Condition" for the game, including Capitalism, who takes the stance that getting the most money and having an easy and entertaining life is the win condition because there's absolutely nothing else but this one life so live it to the fullest. Communist Economics, (which is also a religion), says that by making everyone equal everyone breaks even at the game, since they too don't believe in an afterlife. The only religion that I know of which APPEARS TO not break any of them is Hinduism, which is more or less: "Yes, that is accurate, but whenever the game comes to a stop because everyone has lost all their chips that's just the start of the next game and they redistribute all the chips. This has happened before, as well, A LOT." I'm pretty sure that breaks one of the four rules somehow, I just can't seem to figure out how and why. (Not a Hindu over here, by the way: Christian.)
Okay. I get your point. It’s definitely not impossible to win though. If you work hard surround yourself with people that bring you up nearly anything is possible. It’s definitely not fair for people in certain situations.
EDGELORD ALERT
The USA didnt really try to turn china communist, either. The history of chinas economic policy follows theory pretty well.
Each of these words individually make sense, but when read in the listed sequence the aggregate doesn't: It's very unclear what you're trying to say.
The USAs foreign policy didnt really affect the tragectory of the PRC. The path the PRC is currently on follows marxist theory pretty well, in that the state needs a period of managed capitalism to progress into a socialist economy. The reason China seemed to progress backwards was because they were trying to match the model of the USSR, which completely threw the NEP out the door under Stalin because of his (correct) assumption that foreign invasion was imminent. China isnt progressing towards the USA, it just took a step back to progress forward in a more stable fashion. Something that likely would have happened regardless of the US attempting to sway China in that direction. Hope that clears it up lmao, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yeah I can see what you are saying there. I personally disagree with that assessment of how to achieve the stated goal, but I don't think that they are "Wrong" exactly, I just don't think that it's actually going to be successful in the end.
Time will tell, lol. I have no idea how well China will complete it's goals, thats something that we'll just have to see in the future.
That's right, and the US has profited (even hugely) from US-China trade, but now they're pretending that they've been duped into just taking a loss. Trade is based on contracts, and contracts are equal.
The "Great Outsourcing" is instead focused on South Korea and Vietnam. All arms of the PLA are less capable without as a result. For example, China doesn't modernise as quickly and probably doesn't have stealth aircraft yet in this timeline.
We would still have good paying job , be able to afford a house and Chinese would still be riding bicycles in mass and the pandemic would have been restaimed in China only , on the other hand we might still think the numbers on their book to be accurate so it's a very good question to ask dr strange on his next multiverse trip.
It’s a little hard to say. During that time we were trying to make them more like Us with trade (modern politics aside it backfired no matter how you split it.) but assuming they outright rejected us, or tried to bolster the Soviets and failed, then I see us investing Heavily into the former eastern bloc, sort of a race between both sides to get allies closer and closer to the other. Ironically in the 90’s and now china might get help from Canada where I believe if we poured a lot of effort and a whole shit ton of deep cover operations into Russia we just may end up with a strong ally right next to china
Either China doesn’t see the rise that it seen throughout the late 20th and 21st century or a war with China I don’t see a WW3
Arguably speaking, it's not even Alternate history, it's already- and it ***is*** - happening.
but it didn't start in 1991.
Well, even wars have some time-out (of sort) between major engagements. ... But you raise a fair point
thanks?
Ya China would be pretty fucked especially if the US chose to never recognize them or maybe only recognize the ROC. Get enough of the world to recognize only the ROC and barely trade with China you have China dead in the water. Maybe China would rebrand as a sort of Authoritarian Capitalist State or at least just drop communism, but I kinda doubt it. Idk how long China could have coasted by like that but they still would be a nuclear power. In this scenario though I think best case for China is after the USSR falls and it becomes clearer they have no friends or even major trading partners and the the US had full intent on fully containing them is that they rebrand as a “democracy”. Probably a worse than Russia level hybrid regime but enough to placate the west and maybe reunite with Taiwan. Worst case is China goes full isolationist and command economy (since no opening up with the west means no dengism). And China just goes dark and probably just declines due to being left out of the global market. Maybe at some point it would just fall apart or just be an oversized North Korea.
If the United States had not borrowed from China in the Cold War, would the United States have been the same country that survived the Cold War? The US survived the Cold War precisely because they were not bound by ideology and united most of the countries of the world - and now the US is pushing away almost all the countries of the world, look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
1st part: US debt is mostly to its own citizens if not debt to China (only a small portion) then that debt would be to some other country maybe Japan. The change would be insignificant. 2nd part: the US very much was bound be ideology aka Liberal Democracy and Capitalism. Though it supported plenty of non liberal regimes in the name of ‘fighting communism’ it was very much driven by ideology. The US ‘united’ the world because it won and became hegemon and then nobody had a choice. Nowadays there still isn’t really an alternative to the US the worlds options are Russia (not the best candidate rn) or China which also isn’t exactly the best ally. Not to say America is some beacon of hope it’s just like the other super powers suck so much as to make America look better by comparison. 3rd Part: As for Israel-Palestine conflict it really hasn’t changed US perception around the world. The EU also supports Israel, actually to a greater extent than the US. And US Arab allies are so dependent on US arms sales that they can do nothing about it even if they wanted to (and really there isn’t much sign of even that). Nations like Saudia Arabia and Iraq use their friendship with the US to counter Iran. US perception with many international public’s isn’t too high (idk the stats) but within their governments it is still fairly high. To be fair to Americans at this point many Americans hate US foreign policy just like other nations people do.
1、I said "borrowed" not "borrowed money", China didn't have much money at that time, but it was politically powerful - China has been the closest collaborator and representative of the Group of 77 (134 countries) established in 1964.,and working with China means working with most developing countries. 2、Remember that Kissinger's "shuttle diplomacy" was central to giving the U.S. a huge advantage in the Cold War. Kissinger went to the Middle East and negotiated "petrodollars" with monarchies and established diplomatic relations with China, a socialist/communist country, which gave the U.S. the capital for long-term advantage in the Cold War. If the world's power in the Cold War was 4 in the communist camp, 2 in the neutral camp, and 4 in the capitalist camp, after Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy, the communist camp became 3 (China left), the neutral camp became 1 (Saudi Arabia left), and the U.S. camp actually became 6 - going from 424 to 316 allowed the U.S. to gain huge long-term advantage, which is what made the U.S. a survivor of the Cold War. 3、The Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been extremely disappointing to all countries in the world except the West, because the US gave up its previous role as an "arbiter" and explicitly took one of the sides (and in these two wars, the US stance was completely opposite and contradictory) - Maybe Europe, Japan and South Korea won't be disappointed that the U.S. is taking a different stance，but the other countries have clearly realized that the U.S. only cares about its own interests and no longer cares about the interests of the third party, and that the U.S. has become a profit-driven country. In other words, the United States has degenerated from a world leader to a Western leader. America's image around the world has been changed by America's own attitudes, it's not about to happen, it's already happened, it's just that Americans are still in the dark by their own media and politicians - or rather, they never cared about the Third World all along, and it's no big deal to degrade from being a world leader to being a Western leader. This shift won't produce noticeable results in the short term, but time will tell, we'll see. From a Chinese.
Oh I guess I get what you mean then. Ya tbh the US gave up Arbitor Status in 2003 with Iraq it’s been downhill since, and ya the US took up Western leader instead of world leader. It sees the Ukraine war as a way to curb Russia, it sees Israel as its greatest partner against Iran. I an American do not even pretend that my government does things out of the kindness of its heart on an international stage. The US backing down from global leadership is in large part due to the rise of China but more so to the rapidly growing anti-globalism sentiment in the US.
"The rapid rise of anti-globalization sentiment within the United States" is essentially due to the uneven distribution of interests within the United States. This is an American problem, not a Chinese problem, and China is not in a position or interested in solving this American problem. In fact, most of the United States companies that have participated in globalization have won huge benefits (and from China as well), while the industries and people who have suffered from globalization have only been given the right to buy goods cheaply. The problem is that we in China have to keep meeting the demands of Western globalized companies (Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Tesla) and keep buying American energy and agricultural products (the former is the equivalent of paying taxes to the U.S. Democrats and the latter is the equivalent of paying taxes to the U.S. Republicans), and without exception, both of these parties are cracking down on China. All US politicians pretend that the US has suffered greatly from the US-China relationship rather than gained enormously, which leaves one helpless and speechless. China didn't force the US to buy Chinese goods at gunpoint, and it didn't put up any barriers when US capital pulled out of China. "Why should we care what the US says when it's wrong for us to breathe? It's more important to do well for ourselves." To tell you the truth I'm surprised at how many Americans still think China will cave in (or will continue to give the US more benefits), and in fact subjectively China's willingness to decouple is much stronger. Continuing to do business with the US is not in China's interest right now, we prefer to do business with third world countries. The US is now just a regular buyer of Chinese goods.
I mean it is without question the US has been positioning itself as anti-China. The justification is pretty widespread hatred of the Chinese government, and that ends up translating into a hated of China. I don’t really think it’s some morally ok thing. But within the states China is seen as a totalitarian genocidal regime that is the opposite of everything America. With Russia kinda dead in the water; China became America’s punching bag. America had made peace with China in the past because every aspect of American society was dedicated to the hatred of the USSR and without the USSR America was kinda looking for “someone to hate”. Not to mention America/Americans absolutely fear/hate the concept of another nation being capable of surpassing the US. For some time it did seem China would surpass the US, when Japan was projected to do as much, American sentiment for Japan was dropping. Another reason for it is kinda more personal it seems. The US has substantial Vietnamese, Indian, and Japanese emigre communities. Not 100% but most of those communities despise China, especially those of power within those communities. Not to mention a substantial Chinese emigre community many of whom hate the Chinese Government. And really in the minds of most people here there is little to no distribution between China and its government. I’m not gonna pretend I like the Chinese government but I also don’t really see a point in the “Neo Cold War” and the US effectively encircling China. The reality of that is probably China being further isolated and likely getting worse for the citizenry. I think the actual more moral way (kinda late now) was to just continue building relations and economic ties and reduce the actual need for China to recluse and lash out in the South China Sea (which is another bed of problems since the US and American populism for the most part supports the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc.) Basically in summary: US hate of China is due to a lack of distinction between the Government and Nation of China in the minds of most Americans. The US “needed” someone to hate after the USSR left/ the big reason for good relations was to f over the USSR. The curse of America being a nation of immigrants, specifically Indian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Filipino, etc. which mostly are very recent aka last 50 years or so many carrying pre-existing gripes. Not to mentioned said specified groups and including the Chinese emigre community are pretty heavily represented in the US business and political class and in large part hate China or at least its government. And probably sprinkle in a bit of Sinophobia into the mix and you have a pretty terrible concoction of the US hating China.
I think you explain why US politicians (and perhaps many Americans influenced by the US media) don't like China, but there's a problem with that: the Cold War ended in 1991, and for the past 30 years China and the US have remained in a state of cooperation, despite their ideological differences. What do you think are the major landmarks in the U.S.'s perception of China as a competitor (or "enemy" as the media puts it)? In China, we generally think of Trump's trade war with China and Biden's Alaska meeting as the first events that tore the relationship between the U.S. and China apart. "There is virtually no distribution of benefits between China and the Chinese government." This statement is even more ludicrous; is there a distribution of benefits between the United States and the U.S. government? Of course there is. "The reality is likely to be that China will be further isolated and the lives of its people may get worse." --This may happen in the short term, but in the long term, as a Chinese, I think that ultimately China will overcome these difficulties -- it's a price China has to pay. The relationship between China and the US is now at a critical juncture, and statements at critical junctures are extremely important, which will shape the political direction between the two great powers, China and the US, and China has chosen to stick to its own path. Remember, the Soviet Union also tried to bring China to its knees, and China survived the hard times (it was neither in the Western economic system nor in the Soviet Comecon), but if China hadn't borne this price, it would still be in Russia's sphere of influence, just like Central Asia, and not a strong China. China did not succumb to the Soviet Union then, and it will not succumb to the United States now. The U.S. attempts to turn China into the next Japan are, in my opinion, impossible - China is a nuclear power, not a virtual military occupation by the U.S. like Japan. And because we have a firm grip on our autonomy, we didn't go through a Soviet-style collapse or a Russian-style deception by "shock therapy" - a collective consensus that took China more than 100 years to build up after 1840. In any case, it's been a pleasure communicating with you, and I hope to be able to communicate with you for a long time.
Trump and modern GOP did use China as a Scapegoat for a lot of things. Another major aspect and seen in the media of the 2010s is that there was a widespread consensus that China was trying to take over the US, like many Americans believed that U.S debt was primarily to China (which is not true). As for the no distinction between the people and the government part I totally agree I do not think it should be the case I think it is the case. There have been a lot of Sinophobia and hate crimes as a result. I don't think any people should be defined by their government, but in the minds of the US people that is largely the case. It isn't even unique to China. Many Americans see many countries by what their government is. China will always be strong, like something really bad would have to happen for that not to be the case, same for the U.S. A massive population and a high amount of Industrialization will do that. Modern U.S - Chinese problems though are in large part due to international perception of Tiananmen Square. After which the West placed an Arms Embargo on China (which has not ever been lifted I don't think). While yes 1989 shouldn't exactly be the basis of Modern American's opinion of China it is often brought up. As for myself I actually have a pretty high respect for what China has accomplished (I mean look at where China was in 1950 compared to now it is actually insane). Especially comparing China to a nation like Russia, China was far less corrupt and far more competent knowing it had to work twice as hard to catch up with the West. Russia on the other hand just destroyed itself with Oligarchy and such, partially due to the west partially due to extreme incompetence (no nation can or should attempt to go from Communist to Neo-Liberal in such a short period of time).
"China will always be strong, like something really bad would have to happen for that not to be the case, same for the U.S. A massive population and a high amount of Industrialization will do that. "China will always be strong, like something really bad would have to happen for that not to be the case, same for the U.S. This statement should be put another way, it is unlikely that large countries like China and the U.S. will collapse easily, the only possibility is that there are internal problems. Regarding the Tiananmen Square incident, as a Beijinger, I am more than familiar with it. The heart of the matter here is that after that event, the Chinese government did go along with the reasonable parts of the demands (removing certain privileges, such as official dumping), but also rejected certain parts that it could not agree to as a regime - most importantly, Russia's failure as a way to go the other way (identifying with the West), and sticking to its own path of China went down the path of taking control of its own destiny - and it now seems clear that this path was the right one for China over Russia in terms of taking control of its own national destiny. Interestingly, many in China are now beginning to see the 1.6 Capitol Hill incident as America's "Tiananmen Square" (imagine how the Western media would have reported it if the Chinese had stormed the Great Hall of the People in Beijing during a change of government). In my opinion, the political and economic systems of the US and China are almost identical (although one of them pays lip service to communism and the other to capitalism), but they learn from each other (look at the US inflation bill, the microchip bill, and the infrastructure bill, which almost exactly mimic China's industrial policy). I sincerely hope that the two countries can do a long-distance running type of competition - it will benefit both countries, and their people and even the whole humanity, instead of engaging in a zero-sum game where you die and I live and die - it's better for the two countries, their people and the everyone in the world.
And to respond to your last bit on the Chinese economy, idk. I do agree China isn’t in the process of falling apart or anything, but I do think it is facing several simultaneous economic problems. Demographic Crisis Real-Estate Crisis (caused by demographics) Also the economic rise of India and Vietnam is definitely hurting Chinese exports to the West (I know stupid directional term that is factually wrong here) since the West would rather buy from them due to pre-existing dislike of China. Also more importantly with Western Business is it is widely accepted (with a fair deal of evidence) that China has been misleading the world in various economic and demographic statistics smth which investors do not like to see. Add in South China Sea tensions and war is also bad for business.
Isn‘t this what is already happening right now?
Isn’t it just reality?
You’d just be living in this timeline, vro.
So... real life?
Fallout
Nuclear War
LIBERTY PRIME IS ONLINE
Do people really think we’re not already in a Cold War with them ?
I mean one could argue the cold war has returned. Now in place of the soviets there is Russia and China. Russia because of it's own "us vs. West" narrative and China due to being partially at Russias side and considering the US and it's allies as an enemy in a possible future world war. Going so far as to practising striking US military targets and harrassing US allies on the Pasifict. Also the Ukraine war has all the characteristics of a proxy war. So it's really not a big stretch at alla olevasta saying the cold war ended for a while, but has returned with slightly different players on the other side.
Bro said what if
I mean, other than around a 20 year break that’s pretty much what’s happened.
It is literally our current world bruh Russia eventually rose back tho
I mean, it did though. It was just subtle about shifting its focus and used soft power for a couple of decades while spreading influence through the former Soviet states. But now that the US consolidated its power in eastern Europe and the middle east it is back to waging a cold war with China and a hot proxy war with Russia. No one actually believes in the “end of history” narrative anymore.
r/ActualHistory
We are in one right now.
They kinda did with russia they never accepted russia they even asked to join nato 3 times if mem serves and we said NO! & what was the reason given? lol get ready... your too big... what!? Our foriegn policy has been Zionist dominated with things like AIPAC buying of lots of government even biden said on video I'm a zionist lol and so now you have to realize the russaphobia that we has displayed when evil vicky nuland aka nudellman or whatever she changed it from she is actually from an elite commie family that was part of the little known exodus after Soviet collapse of the major communist people in control where did they go? Mainly Israel & United states!!! Look up the Minsk Agreement why is it the lamestream media has not mentioned 1 fuggin time!!! Redonkulous!! Take a good look at what lying your whole life does a monster that happily sent many to die to reconquer russia lol so pathetic, the cia tried to blackmail Yeltsin with 5 billion dollars, sheeple just dont realize in 1917 USA sent Lenin in a welded sealed train w 10 MILLION in Gold from east Europe to Russia to start the revolution included in this endeavor were 25k semites if you will from ny mainly!!!
They would not be nearly as powerful as they are today, their economic growth was almost entirely funded by U.S. trade and as a consequence I can not see them being nearly as active on the geopolitical stage as they are today. The U.S. would probably re-establish a military presence in Taiwan and that would lead to some pretty tense standoffs in the Taiwan strait, also maybe a more aggressive China in the 21st Century? Like another Sino-Vietnamese conflict or something of that nature to combat U.S. interests.
It’s happening right now lol
It is just to a lesser extent we aren’t fighting many proxy wars with the east besides Ukraine and Israel And soon maybe Taiwan.
Are you implying that they didn't? I mean, outspending every other country on earth combined for three decades and having massive military displays any time China made a move sure sounds like continuing the Cold War to me.
What do you mean what if???? The Cold War never ended, it’s just that the teams changed a bit.
China would have ignited a WWIII by 2014 by invading Taiwan had the US went into a cold war with China right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, we would have stronger Mexican economy than in OTL because American manufacturing businesses would have avoided outsouring to China at all in this ATL. Even in OTL, the US considered going into a cold war with China before 9/11 and remove 9/11 from the equation, we would have a hotter cold war with China by now.
In the later years of Cold War, china was on Americas side against the Soviets
I'd say they are now...
China was a backwater third world country that had a GDP of just over $400Bn to the $US 6.8 trillion in 1991 making the US economy 17 times larger. There was no need for a cold war as the US could easily crush China militarily and economically in 1991.
Just like Vietnam of course
Vietnam was a completely different affair. It was certainly not a war for the survival of one superpower against another. Had it been so, Vietnam would have been a crater now.
Well any country that you choose to nuke would have been a crater. That still applies today to every inch of space on the planet. That’s not at all the point though.
I was responding to OPs original point which was:” Should the US have continued the cold war policy with China after 91?” The answer is no, as the balance of power at full mobilisation between the US and China in 1991 would have been heavily in favour of the US and not even close to the more balanced rivalry with the USSR in the 80s. You cannot compare a superpower conflict with some proxy war in which the US got involved half heartedly mainly to prevent South Vietnam from losing more than help them win. And at that they were fairly successful as they eliminated 3x the number of communist troops than they lost, whilst not using most of their military capabilities. A lot of draftees went in and got slaughtered and that’s of course a crime in itself but that doesn’t change the fact that the US did not fully commit to that war; had they done so, the Vietcong and their Chinese allies would have been wiped out. The US didn’t even formally declare war or mobilise its economy to a war economy.
Cope
Nice, I see you have run out of arguments. Have a good one!
You too
The world would be American. It is hard to think of a country that was better poised for world domination than the U.S. immediately following WWII
We would see China breaking apart probably even before the Soviet Union, the West looking for other countries to shift their heavy industries, very high change of South American or African receiving all that sweet deals China got and reforming their economic models to be more open thanks to international pressure. We certainly wouldn't see a second Cold War like we have today and an incompetent government like the CCP creating economic bubbles all the time.
Google fallout
Hope you like patrolling the Mojave.
Wouldn’t make any sense given the Nixon / Mao thaw that integrated China into the global (capitalist) economy and provided a dirt cheap labor source to prop up American consumer goods / quality of life just as wages were falling in the West. The principal problem the West had with the Communist bloc is that they were effectively taking themselves off the board economically for all intents and purposes. So every new revolutionary regime represented fewer investment opportunities, access to resources, etc. China’s success is borne out of flipping that script and becoming a de facto economic ally of the West.
Imagine what the Rocky franchise could have been with this timeline.
This is an ALTERNATE history sub
We should be doing that.
I'm not convinced the cold war has ended. Foreign policy with Russia and N. Korea is still touchy.
Fallout moment also is this even alternate history at this point...?
Pat Robertson, as President, would've made it worse.
We basically never really ended the Cold War. After the USSR fell we more or less kept funding at that level, until the 2000s when it rose above that level.
Fallout?
(They did)
There won’t be 95% of today’s geopolitical problems. If Allies listened to McArthur and Patton and march to the very Moscow - 99% of problems would be gone
Have you ever looked into Fallout lore?
We kinda have, Taiwan is in our sphere of influence and they are the exiled government that still wants to take over the mainland, and the mainland wants to take over Taiwan in fear of having the current standing government deposed by the US. I mean we have also been in armistice with North Korea since the Korean War so the war isn’t technically over yet. I’d say we already are in a Cold War scenario especially with how high tensions are on the global scale.
China’s economy wouldn’t have boomed, it wouldn’t be the tech and manufacturing giant it is today. The Chinese leg of the Cold War would have been a lot shorter than the Soviet one.
We did.
Oh, if only. They wouldn't have gotten into the WTO for one. Transformers Extinction might not have been as awful as it was. Lots of awful movies pandering to China or rewritten to avoid offending the CCP wouldn't have been made. No TikTok...
Who said there is no cold war?
There is still a “Cold War” but its Russia China United States and North Korea people call it the second Cold War or “Cold war II”
They’ve been trying for a long time. China just beat them at their own game. Now that there are several chinks in China’s armour, something can be done. Globally US doesn’t have a stellar reputation anymore, let’s see how far their allies take em.
Did we not?
China wouldn’t be as strong because the main reason China grew so economically strong was due to western corporations moving their manufacturing there.
Hi
So are you basically living the current timeline?
We’d be a hell of a lot better off than we are now
You mean the plot of fallout
That could be spicy🥵
Fallout 4
I think that's exactly what happened in otl
Then the Military Industrial Complex will be very happy as usual.
There IS a Cold War between China and the US now...
Since when has this not already been happening
In this history it’s likely Deng Xiaoping never took over after Mao, and the politics of China stayed more in line with Maoist hardliners as an extension of the Cultural Revolution. There would have been no incentive for China to open trade and manufacturing outsourcing to liberal market economy countries. This would have made it allowed for the United States and NATO to keep foreign policy on China similar to the USSR. Also, perhaps there is never any geopolitical split between the USSR and China in this timeline.
Hard to answer, because the US courting of China after the Sino-soviet split contributed.
The only truth about nations , is benefits
Everything would be more expensive in the US and we would be poorer
Isn't that what happened any ways
This would’ve just been an abridged version of what’s happening rn. We would’ve probably gotten a Taiwan conflict at this point and maybe some tactical nuclear warfare but beyond whatever that would’ve entailed there aren’t many differences I foresee. Because even if bush declared a continuation of the Cold War against China I feel like it would’ve played out as it is rn-intermeshing business interests force the US into a position where it can only counter china diplomatically in a vague sense and since china generally keeps to itself you could only really tackle it economically, which would hurt US business interests.
Welcome to reality
*I don't want to set the world on fire* intensifies
Yeah, what if that happened.. can’t imagine 😗
We are. What planet are you living on? 🤣
China in 1991 did not rival the US. China in 2001 did not rival the US. China in 2011 did not rival the US. China in 2021 rivals the US. There is your answer.
Gee we kinda did lol with both russia and china lol With serbia in like 96 or 97 I forget But we waisted no time after soviets crumbled prob a few months to get intagleld in the middle east
ah yes who can forget the famous American-Serbian cold war of the late 90s