[jquery]

So what’s your big plan? Sounds like fatalism to me, and I’m not buying it. China is just the latest authoritarian government to look unstoppable from the outside just like the USSR once did. It does not have the internal agility necessary to thrive long term. Already China’s diplomatic “wolf warriors” are making fools of China on the international stage, and China is increasingly unable to pragmatically adjust. This ossification will continue under Xi.

[asdweasdawe]

I feel like different people have different views depending how close they are geographically or financially to China. I don't think the diplomatic "wolf warriors" has any effect on anything tangible. It's not like international stage laughing has slowed down China's geographical expansion so far.

I doubt it'll be the doom of the West anytime soon but it's not going to be pretty for countries near China in the next 20 years. For countries next to China, it's probably about how bad the terms can be, how much land/sea they can keep* and whether that comes later or sooner. The big plan is to help those countries develop and slow down China influence's expansion.

I do think as the population become more educated, more liberal values will take hold so maybe more Western education can help. However, Chinese government control is quite vast and they are flexible as well. China is also doing very well economically so it's easier to turn a blind eye to stuffs.

* One aspect that can delay this is the Freedom of navigation operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#FONOPs_i...

[dirtyid]

> “wolf warriors” are making fools of China on the international stag

Firm commitment to XJ / HK crackdown, wolf warrior diplomacy and counter sanctions are sensible strategy that's paying off tangibly counter to western reporting. PRC showing teeth on core-issues is setting norms to be treated as large player who can act with relative impunity on core-interests (like US), demonstrating unwavering commitment and mitigating cost to future actions (read: Taiwan). How many PRC elites have been extradited after PRC retaliated over Meng, how many (non-US) sanctions after PRC clapped back when EU thought it could sanction cost free? None. PRC is seeking level of impunity commiserate with status as #2 global power, and seeing how watered down / theatric diplomatic statements that followed US meetings with partners have been, it's working. Very few countries are credibly committed to PRC containment.

>unable to pragmatically adjust

There's a reason every major bloc is copying PRC's industrial policies. Because it's pragmatic and more agile.

[jollybean]

Russia looked unstoppable from the outside, but from the inside it was crumbling.

China is not crumbling. They don't have a controlled economy in the direct way that the Russians did, and as long as they have economic prosperity ... they'll do just fine.

I don't see them screwing that up.

It doesn't matter that much who's diplomats look like fools, it matters what the GDP is, how powerful the military is, how much control and leverage they have.

China probably will never do well on 'soft power' but they're going to probably do just fine with 'regular power' for the forseeable future.

[skissane]

China faces some big challenges moving in to the future.

One is the demographic challenge of a declining population. Most Western countries face a similar challenge of low births, but many of them significantly counteract it through mass immigration; China however doesn't have that and shows no signs of being open to introducing it.

Another is that many people will put up with an authoritarian system as long as they see it producing high-levels of economic growth, but it is unlikely that China can sustain those high levels forever, and people may prove less willing to put up with the lack of freedom in worse economic times.

Another is that while China is good at playing technological catch-up it still hasn't demonstrated much capacity to produce genuinely original technological innovations. And here there is the argument that open societies have an inherent advantage in producing those innovations over authoritarian societies such as China. If that is true, then that is going to give the US and its allies a permanent economic advantage over China.

These challenges are not going to be the immediate downfall of the CCP. But in another 30 or 40 years?

[jollybean]

China is beyond playing 'catch up'. They might not be making the world's best software or jet engines, but they are making their own innovations in a wide variety of areas.

I don't think they will ever become the export powerhouse like the US, but we will see them move up the chain.

A lot of the low-level R&D in products already comes from China.

Also - the Chinese will put up with authoritarian culture because 1) they look at it entirely differently 2) they've never known anything else and especially 3) the surveillance of the CCP is orwellian. They will never let any idea challenge their status. The Chinese population at large will never have the opportunity to explore any alternative but what is told to them. Within that bubble, most are 'fine with it'.

Frankly, so long as China tried to have some kind of independendent judiciary and weren't putting people in prison for their ethnicity ... or kind of following the Singapore model I think the 'Rest of the World' would have no problems. And of course, if they weren't grabbing chunks of international waters as their own.

[skissane]

> China is beyond playing 'catch up'. They might not be making the world's best software or jet engines, but they are making their own innovations in a wide variety of areas.

Can you point to some specific examples of significant technological innovations created in China in recent years? Or technology areas in which China is the world leader?

There are still a lot of areas in which China is playing "catch-up" – semiconductor manufacturing (Taiwan doesn't count), aviation (China wants to challenge the Airbus-Boeing duopoly with Comac, but Comac is still a fair way behind both), just to give a couple of examples. What is an example of an area in which China has the technological lead?

[jollybean]

5G, consumer finance and marketplaces, AI for many applications including traffic automation, high speed rail etc..

In some areas, they may not be so far ahead in key tech, but they are further ahead in operationalising it.

California can't build a single fast train, while China is laying down more rail than anyone in history in a very short period of time.

Soon they will start building commercial aircraft and wipe out Boeing and Airbus in everything but domestic markets.

The only two areas I think they will have difficult is with chips, and jet engines.

For most other things, the 'product' and 'operation' is just as much or more important than the 'key research'.

It doesn't matter if the US researchers 'published the paper' if China can take it to market to the 'rest of the world' 10x more quickly.

[skissane]

> California can't build a single fast train, while China is laying down more rail than anyone in history in a very short period of time.

The US has had high-speed rail since the 1960s (Metroliner service, now the Acela Express), in the same decade that the technology was introduced in Japan and France. The failure of the technology to see further adoption in the US is due to politics, economics, competition from alternative transport modes, etc, not due to any purely technological issues. China's lead in implementation of high-speed rail is due to a political decision to invest in deploying it, not because China has any significant lead in the underlying technology.

> Soon they will start building commercial aircraft and wipe out Boeing and Airbus in everything but domestic markets.

Comac hasn't wiped Airbus and Boeing out yet. That is surely their aim but time will tell whether they actually manage to achieve it. Their main customer base is Chinese airlines, who will follow the CCP’s instructions in buying local. Comac will likely have some success in Africa and parts of Asia, but is unlikely to challenge Airbus and Boeing's lock on major first-world air carriers. The US is unlikely to allow US airlines to buy from Comac, and will encourage allied governments to apply the same policy.

[throwaway2048]

its dangerous to assume that somehow the natural state of people is to "not put up with the lack of freedom".

That was the entire lie peddled with respect to opening trade with china from the west to begin with, and look at the results.

[adventured]

It doesn't sound like fatalism at all. Recognizing and accepting reality - things as they actually are - isn't the same thing as being fatalistic. As opposed to being wildly delusional about the context for example, which is the guiding philosophy of the do-something-to-stop-China cohort. You can't stop China as they imagine it and thinking that it's possible is quite irrational.

Doing a conservative extrapolation on China's economy and understanding how much larger they're going to be than eg the EU given another, say, 20 years, is not fatalism either. It's obvious that China is already exceeding Russia militarily, and the trend is extreme (not subtle), so the gap will get a lot bigger in the next 10-20 years accordingly. That too is not fatalism. Accepting the bounds and facts of reality is not fatalism, rather, it's a necessary first requirement to then be able to generate a practical, rational course of action.

Who said I have a big plan. Why should it be big? What difference would a big plan make against China, it would never (should never) get off the drawing board. The Pentagon has lots of big plans; ask them about their big plans for the Middle East in the 1990s, or their big plans for Vietnam in the 1960s, or Russia in the 1990s.

Pretending things are not as they are, is how you get big disastrous plans of the sort the Pentagon is good at coming up with. That's how Iraq happens, that's how Syria happens. A superpower with a big plan to contain another superpower a world away - gee, that doesn't have an obvious outcome does it. So the US burns its treasure to contain China, while China doesn't burn its treasure to contain the US, the outcome to that is straight-forward (and again, also not fatalism; we don't have to behave that way). The US will expend most of its effort punching itself in the face, while China focuses on extending regional dominance. China doesn't have to go anywhere, it's their backyard; the US has to expend great resources just to be there.

It is not the job of the US to change or contain China, it's highly questionable whether we could contain China much at all, and it's not at all necessary in order for our people to prosper. Similarly, China doesn't have to contain the US for their people to prosper (as witnessed by the past 30 years). Just like we don't need to invade Venezuela, Iran, Myanmar or North Korea so that our people can prosper. The US is in desperate need of a priority adjustment: we need to start improving the lives of our people, or else.

I have a modest plan, which is all that is in reach of the US to achieve in the next few decades. The US is going bankrupt at the Federal level, it has to monetize ever greater sums of its own junk paper to continue normal government function (ie it has to steal from the wealth of its population to keep the lights on). Social spending obligations will continue soaring for decades yet, as such the US faces a dramatic reckoning of having to choose between playing global military superpower and the welfare of its own people. It can no longer do both. The cap on what the US can do in Asia is quite clear. Just start from: "not much," and you'll be in the right neighborhood. Just ask North Korea about their nukes. Maybe the US will sail a few boats off of China's coast, through the Straight, very exciting stuff.

A modest plan that the US can actually put into action that is focused on its own people, not on the absurd notion of a superpower from North America pretending it can afford to contain or control a superpower in Asia.

Sure, China will ossify, somewhat, under Xi. That's unavoidable in a dictatorship. They still have slack to fill out yet, easy gains. They still have a couple hundred million people living on ~$5-$7 or less per day. A quarter of their population is still living a third-world lifestyle. Lifting those people up to the economic level of Bulgaria will add trillions to their economy; things like that are easy wins for China. Technological advancement is not difficult for China, with or without Xi, so they'll continue to make rapid progress in military, tech, space, aerospace, biotech, etc. Momentum often carries large systems a great distance even after they stop functioning well (just ask the US). China isn't done building out its national infrastructure either, they have decades left of that yet. They still have exceptionally inefficient farming, which can be boosted to first-tier levels. They still have a lot of nuclear & renewable energy to build out. There are another two billion new consumers to be born in the next 30 years, to be fulfilled by China's manufacturing. The China economic engine isn't going to stop because of Xi, he's restricting and damaging their max potential. China is still a boulder rolling down a hill as far as Asia is concerned.

[adventured]

- Gradually reduce trade dependency on China. That includes diversifying away from Taiwan on tech manufacturing as quickly as possible and diversifying away from China on rare earth metals. The US has to get a lot more serious about this, the big globalist faux-US corporations will need punched in the face to get them in line (ie more stick than carrot; they've already been given a lot of carrots, it didn't work). This one is a lot easier than sparring with China, yet the US is failing at it. Which tells you how any Big Plans(TM) will go.

- Invest far more heavily in domestic R&D, science, technology, tech manufacturing, and manufacturing in general. That will be necessary just to attempt to keep up with China in the coming decades. The US talks a lot about doing this and its follow-through is often mediocre. Cut the corp tax rate for domestic manufacturing to 15%. Reduce burden and regulation everywhere we reasonably can, make it easier to manufacture in the US (which doesn't mean getting rid of all regulations).

- Reform US immigration. Mirror the approach Canada, Australia and most smart, affluent nations follow. Make it very easy for high-skill labor to come to the US and gain citizenship. This is a huge advantage over China, one they can never possess, we need to maximize on it. This is an easy win (if the US were still high-functioning).

- Double annual US infrastructure spending for at least the next 20 years. That should include: build five regional high-speed rail systems (Federal project, use Federal power to move roadblocks out of the way, including enviro laws, be as vicious as necessary); build several new nuclear power plants per year, should be federal projects treated with national security importance; bolster and rebuild the US grid, we're nowhere near ready for an all-electric vehicle future; build a lot more wind power, including off-shore, it's our best bet for easy gains on renewables. Debt is cheap (we're buying our own paper), and we're going to financial hell no matter what we do now, so we might as well fix our eroding infrastructure and improve the quality of life for future generations while we're at it. The US talks about doing these things, and never really does them. The joke of an infrastructure bill in DC won't do much, like putting a band-aid on terminal cancer.

- Stop trading with China on badly unequal terms. Block foreign investment into China by US citizens & corporations, and block investment into the US by China. Block all real-estate purchases by Chinese citizens and corporations. Block all business acquisitions by Chinese companies across the board. Increase blocks on technology transfer.

- Reduce US military adventurism toward zero. Close at least 3/4 of all US military bases around the globe. Abandon the Middle East militarily, including entirely pulling out of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, et al. Those days are permanently over. Reduce a lot of the US military presence in Europe, cut it in half. Redirect a portion of that to Asia Pacific; some of it doesn't get redirected, as we can't afford all of it, some of it has to go away.

- Start focusing on treating our own people a lot better (reduce the prison population, get rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, legalize most drugs, decriminalize all drugs). Attempt to regain some of the moral stature that has been burned up by various DC stupidity across decades. This matters if you plan to appeal to the rest of the world in a forever confrontation with China. We have to represent positive, humanist qualities that the CCP doesn't and can't. Otherwise what's the point.

- This goes with the last item. Refocus US military spending on improving the lives of Americans, not blowing up the Middle East or foreign adventurism in Europe or Asia. It doesn't matter what the subject is, whether it's healthcare or infrastructure, our money is better spent there than on sprawling our military around the globe. Redirecting $300 billion per year from military spending to healthcare, education and infrastructure would be a good start. Our healthcare system has failed, it's time to start using Federal power to squeeze costs out of the system and implement universal coverage. There's no reason we can't reduce healthcare costs by 15-25% over time given how out-of-line our expenses are, which helps pays for expanding Medicaid up the ladder to achieve universal coverage. Biden should be abusing executive orders like crazy in this direction.

- Continue to gather as many allies in Asia as possible and get them pointed in the same direction as a cooperative. Pull NATO's interests into Asia a bit more. The US is already doing some of this (eg with Vietnam, India and other traditional allies in the region), but it's not easy, China has lots of carrots to offer as well as sticks. The US has already peaked in Asia, China's influence in Asia will get far larger yet. The US can only slightly slow down China's gains in Asia, not stop the process. The goal should be to make China's adventurism very expensive, that's the best that can be realistically accomplished.

- Invest more heavily into accelerating the development of regional rivals to China, including India and Vietnam. Our interests align on this matter. The more they can do for themselves, the less we have to do in the region, the better. For the same reason it was in the US interest for France, Britain and West Germany to reboot quickly after WW2 (less need for the US presence in Europe), it's in our interests for India, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc to develop even faster.

You'll notice my plan isn't focused primarily on confronting China in Asia. That's because that shouldn't be our focus at all. No more than it should be the focus of Germany, Britain or France. The primary focus should be on improving the US, not worrying about containing China. We can't contain China.

The CCP isn't going anywhere, and we can't dictate human rights within China. Trying to deny reality isn't useful in such a context. You can't stop them from doing whatever they want to Hong Kong, you can't force them to adopt some other system of government, you can't stop genocide within their borders if they're intent on it, just as you can't force them to accept freedom of expression/religion/press/speech. The US & Co. can't even accomplish such aims in weak nations like Myanmar, North Korea or Cuba.

The US as a superpower has long been living beyond its means. Those days are coming to an end one way or another, just look at the credit card bill. We'll be well served to focus on the quality of life of our people for a change.

[baybal2]

> It doesn't sound like fatalism at all. Recognizing and accepting reality - things as they actually are - isn't the same thing as being fatalistic. As opposed to being wildly delusional about the context for example, which is the guiding philosophy of the do-something-to-stop-China cohort. You can't stop China as they imagine it and thinking that it's possible is quite irrational.

Accepting reality? Years of life in China will make anybody lose touch with one, especially living in the most Potemkin town of them all.

> It's why whenever people talk about ganging up on China, they're always extremely vague about it. That's because it's entirely bunk. Do something! What? Something! Do a thing! Which thing? The thing! It's identical to bumper stickers that (used to) say: Save Tibet, it's largely empty virtue signaling or wishful thinking. It's not realistic.

First, the West has a giant arsenal of means not simply "to do something", but outright destroy China as a state. The West remains the preeminent political, military, economic power of the world by a giant extend, way more than China, Russia, Iran + 10 other rouge states combined. You don't "contain" your enemy, you defeat him, this is how the West needs to start thinking.

— It's a giant power, the West only needs to use it. The West has a way more means than China has to do anything to the West. The direct military attack being only one of many things possible on the list. It's just the Western unwillingness to admit that it can do something, because admitting to it will be be followed by a compulsion of doing so.

West's internal problems are a malaise of heart, while its problem with China is a malaise of mind. The material problems can be fixed, but what's being kept created by your own mind cannot: the Western fixation on impotent "realpolitik China strategy" is one of this kind, and its fixation on China's economic strength is another.

China as a state entity existing in a physical world is much a lesser threat, and danger than the China which exists in the heads of Western elites, and all kinds of wormtongue "strategy advisers", Kissingers, and co.

I'm fully agreeing on the point that the West can't win without a dramatic change happening inside their heads first. For the West to defeat China, first it will need to defeat itself, and own weaknesses, all what holds it back.

Foreign policy making wormridden by "political strategists," pathological addiction to backstabbing of critical allies, refusal to look at politics from classic military dimension;

Elite culture dominated by defeatist people selling wholesale "China model" koolaid like Tim Cook, and Sundarajan Pichai, universal hostility to useful business, and industry by political backstabbers, useful idiots, and wanton saboteurs-profiteers;

The giant Trump electorate, you will have to find a way to live along with these people, but that doesn't mean surrendering to them! Propaganda of inaction, and isolationism exactly of this kind led to US staying out of WW2 until it was tool late;

[pasabagi]

The USSR and China aren't really comparable. At its height, the USSR had an economy about 60% of the size of the US's. The idea of the USSR as a threat to the USA (or even core US allies) was basically american paranoia in the post-Stalin era. What's more, a lot of the institutional dysfunction of the USSR was the legacy of Stalinism - it's hard to have a healthy society when everybody is used to being terrified of the man in charge.

China is already much bigger in terms of relative economy than the USSR ever was. Frankly, I doubt that they are an 'opponent' to the US in the sense that China hawks would have it, but they are way more credible as a 'superpower' than the USSR ever was. The USSR just had a lot of soft power with people in the global south because ex-colonies are typically not that keen on the world order established by their colonizers.

[riffraff]

> Already China’s diplomatic “wolf warriors” are making fools of China on the international stage

What do you mean by this?

[emptysongglass]

It's to describe the habit of Chinese diplomats and other mouthpieces of the CCP to threaten and verbally assault other nations when China is criticised.