[memetherapy]

Because there is little to no benefit to the EU or USA to challenging the CCP, be it because of their treatment of a few billionaires or millions of Uighers. Unlike the Soviet Union China doesn't represent an existential threat to the USA or EU, largely as a matter of geography. The promotion of human rights, liberal democracy, the rule of law etc. has always been fairly low on the priority list of most western states in actuality and has usually played second fiddle to national interests.

[starfallg]

>Unlike the Soviet Union China doesn't represent an existential threat to the USA or EU, largely as a matter of geography.

That is categorically untrue. The model of government and economic success of China is the biggest existential threat to western hegemony, much bigger than the USSR. China is well in the process of building a strong military with greater capabilities than Russia and once this is complete, the world order will undoubtedly change unless something is done about it now.

The only reason we don't see more noise on this is because a lot of people depend on trade with China for their wealth, which was never the case during the cold war with the USSR.

The state department was fully aware of the Chinese threat, hence why the TPP was proposed as a measure of containment. Too bad that play was ruined and replaced with ineffective populist measures that sound good on AM radio and internet forums, but are actually counterproductive in practice.

[memetherapy]

Well China is obviously a bigger threat than the USSR now because the USSR hasn't existed for about 30 years. And while China may threaten western, or rather US hegemony it isn't an existential threat to the USA or EU in that China is unlikely to try to invade and / or nuke Western Europe or USA in the same way the USSR did at various points. I'm not saying that China isn't a threat to the USA's position of hegemonic super power but that's a very different claim.

[tlear]

USSR controlled half of Europe and had enough ground forces on hand to bust through Germany and be in France in a week(without nukes being involved).

PRC is nowhere close. It is a threat to Japan, India, Russia, Vietnam etc to US and Europe not so much

[arcticfox]

I don't understand that perspective - large ground armies haven't been relevant to superpower conflicts since pre-Cold War.

Force projection, like the US has been able to do for 30 years, is relevant and when China ramps up in that regard there's no telling how things will change.

IMO China doesn't even need to bother much with military advancement to become a massive threat to Western democracies though, as they can simply continue to build their economic engine and leverage it whenever necessary. They are already doing so to great effect against multinational corporations.

[shadowprofile77]

1.The main reason land armies are no longer relevant to superpower conflicts is due to the nuclear peace. This is hopefully a long term situation but if the genie of normalizing nuclear weapons use comes out of the bottle, or if a method of using nukes that are "optimized" for manageable long term damage is developed, I can nearly guarantee you that large powers will again start having conflicts more often. If this happens, big armies will definitely become important again. Smart warfare, drones, guided weapons and all sorts of shiny systems for technologically sophisticated killing are fine as far as they go (especially for small localized police actions) but only large military forces and equipment ultimately allow any one major country to seriously fight another major country.

2. Also, as a quick note to the comment above yours, China is an economic and possibly to some extent resource threat to Russia, but the obvious target of simply overtaking a huge chunk of Russian territory through Siberia (which in purely conventional military terms I think China could easily pull off) wouldn't happen, because Russia despite all its modern systemic weaknesses, crumbling demographics and terrible military administration still has the single largest nuclear arsenal on Earth, which takes us back to point one above.

3. China is a strong power with a vast population that dwarfs that of the U.S and an economy that's getting very close to rivalling it in both sophistication and raw wealth production, but it's also strangely isolated in its power. The U.S on the other hand has strong affinities with much of western and central Europe, several other asian nations with large populations and also a much better relationship with the second most populous country on Earth, right next door to China. Russia would never readily take China's side in a global conflict even if it dislikes the western hegemony and all of these things combined along with others leave china in a state of extreme vulnerability if we were to start talking about a real, serious multinational conflict between it and the U.S.

China's biggest strength is the economic dependence it has created in so much of the world, especially for manufacturing, but if a war were to break out between it and the west, this would in any case become a moot point, removing the one major incentive that any other country not directly next to it would have for trying to stay on China's good side.