[knowledge102]

The Kissinger move was more to diminish the power of the Soviet Union, by straying China away from them.

You're right, war is less likely among nations with strongly linked economies. The important thing to note is that, at the same time, the survival self-interest of a county to dominant the other does not go away.

Which means that economic interdependence only helps avoid war so long as war itself doesn't provide more benefits.

China loved the idea that was popular in the the US of "peaceful" rising China, it meant people ignored the long term strategic threats militarily.

China has risen economically, and now they are aiming to have a military more powerful than the U.S.. They are also growing their influence in South America and Africa to get new markets, resources, and ultimately get rid of the dependence on the US market.

So, the dependence helped deter war in the short-term, but the economic gains let China position them better to serve the self-interest of being dominant.

[mirimir]

Yes, I totally agree.

There was already conflict between China and the Soviet Union. But yes, that increased as China gradually introduced capitalism, with decreasing emphasis on central planning.

And that intervention did indeed finally jump start economic development and modern industrialization in China. After the catastrophic Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. But that didn't include national-level democracy and Western-style individual rights and freedoms. Likely contrary to Kissenger's expectations.

So yes, China might become the dominant world power. And that might roll back some global consequences of the European Enlightenment. Who would have thought?