[xgk]

An alternative explanation might involve both of:

1. Stopping technology transfer worked exceedingly well for the west weakening the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

2. A distinct lack of (non-violent) alternatives for the West preventing China becoming the world's leading technological superpower (and hence also strongest military).

I doubt this will be successful in the long run, because China is not burdened by the Soviet Union's extremely inefficient way of organising its economy. Not to mention that China is the worlds biggest market.

[cjbgkagh]

I think the same, this is disadvantageous long run, but I'm not in power and the people in power appear to be complete morons with little understanding of history or nuance.

I'm pretty sure we're rapidly heading into a West vs China military conflict. I think part of the reason we've held rates higher for longer is that it hurts China more than the West as a way to undermine the Chinese economy. Coupled with the sanctions the West is getting ready for a 'timing attack'. But if the West is wrong and loses that war then we're effed. I would prefer a graceful stepping down from world hegemon and taking our seat at a multipolar world where we can focus on getting our own house in order. But obviously those in charge have other incentives.

[082349872349872]

Don't say that sort of thing too loudly; JFK quoted a chengyu (骑虎难下) in support of a similar notion, in 1961 (and for his pains got cancelled in 1963): https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-k...

[chaostheory]

It will work in the long run due to China’s terrible demographics, which are worse than Japan’s; and Xi’s extreme mishandling of China’s economy and foreign relations which are both intertwined.

All that’s needed is a military containment of China.

[xgk]

> China’s terrible demographics

Are China's demographics appreciatively different from other industrialised countries? Questionable. Not to mention that it's unclear why an aging society is a problem at least for the next 100 years or so (e.g. most violent crime is perpetrated by the under-30s). It's also easy, at least for a dictatorship, to increase the birth rate (e.g. restrict access to all birth control, give massive preferences to families with children, like housing, salary, "bachelor tax" etc).

> military containment of China.

That is expensive. One frequently cited explanation for the collapse of the Soviet Union was that its poor economy could not support its oversized army, which it needed to keep the Soviet Bloc at heel (not to mention all the revolutions and secession movements it fostered elsewhere).

Also, does anyone actually believe that China is expansionist? Compare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Peo...

The strategic problem of China's rise is more that other countries will eventually switch allegiance away from the West.

[AtlasBarfed]

"Are China's demographics appreciatively different from other industrialised countries?"

Yes. Also, it is very likely that China has been covering up the true extent of the demographic problems. And not necessarily to hide it from its geopolitical rivals, but to hide it from its own leadership fearing purges and punishment. Like ... there's a 100 million people "missing".

"it's also easy, at least for a dictatorship, to increase the birth rate"

No it's not, because those changes take a while to implement, and even if the birth rate skyrockets, you don't get usable workers for 20 years.

Plus, China's economy is urbanized, and its economy is built around cheap labor that is worked to the bone (996). To make urban areas viable for raising kids, you need to decrease hours worked and increase wages.

And, people need to feel optimistic about the world and the future.

So lets say a massive sweeping change was implemented to make having children quite a bit more appealing. It would probably take about 5-10 years for the policy changes to trickle through the various layers of state control (China is kind of feudal in nature), monetary incentives will likely be greatly reduced by corruption.

Then 20 years later, you start to get a blip upward. Because the issue is, the people that will have the kids are ALREADY THE SMALLEST GENERATION EVER from one child policy. So to move the needle, they need to have ... like ... 8 kids each.

One child policy forced families to pick a gender as well. You won't believe this, but culturally people preferred boys. So the smallest generation ever, which would be 50-50ish, is more like 40-60 or 45-55 (maybe not that stark, but ... kinda is) then ... well, your expansion is limited by the wombs.

https://zeihan.com/new-chinese-demographic-data-population-c...

So, keep in mind Zeihan is a bit of a clickbait artist. He sells himself and makes bold claims. But if he is right about those new vs old/fake numbers, that is some bad stuff.

The solution to falling birth rates is immigration. And while China does see a lot of immigration, it does have a large rural/urban divide, so it might be able to "immigrate" people from the rural classes (who as I understand it are currently treated as a lower class of people).

[coupdejarnac]

Nice propaganda. Meanwhile China is building islands in the South China sea and provoking violent encounters with fishermen and coast guards, causing nearly everybody in SEA to build stronger military ties with the USA.

The only ones to switch allegiance to China will be the ones who have been bought off.

[FooBarWidget]

Meanwhile, Vietnam upgrades ties with China, Singapore performed joint military training with China, the Malaysian minister blasts the west for having a too one-sided and hysterical view of China, and both Indonesia and Philippines report that Vietnam is actually the worst offender in the South China Sea issues (indeed, Vietnam already built islands 30 years before China). And when AUKUS was founded, were Malaysia and Indonesia happy that the west came to their aid to fight the evil CCP? No, they were alarmed. Just whose side is being propagandized?

[chaostheory]

Despite all of the ceremony, Vietnam still hates China with good reason too. China keeps invading it including taking the islands in the South China Sea that Vietnam laid claim to. I believe the PLA actually attacked and killed Vietnamese troops stationed on those islands.

I’m also confident that the Philippines will now claim that China is the worst offender in the South China Sea.

As for any country involved in the 9 point line including Malaysia, anyone would have to be delusional to think that they support China stealing their territory

[FooBarWidget]

The point isn't that there are no animosities between SCS countries. It's that representing the situation as "evil China invades other countries" is one-sided, misleading, and ultimately harmful for peace. Having border disputes doesn't mean that countries must have bad relations, nor that they cannot be solved through peaceful means. Insisting on the notion that the existance of border conflicts must point to irredeemably evil intentions stands in the way of peacemaking because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course, the powers that be want such a self-fulfilling prophecy, even if it's at the expense of south-east Asia, which is why they keep perpetuating this view.

[chaostheory]

Countries like the US have not seen as large of a drop in birth rates like China. Many countries in the West have also successfully used immigration to blunt the impact of falling birth rates.

Countries like China are unable to take advantage of immigration. If increasing birth rates were easy for authoritarian countries like China, they wouldn’t be in this mess in the 1st place. This is a terrible argument. This situation is made worse with many mainlanders are trying to leave China.

The US and its allies like Japan and Australia have already implemented containment of China in the island chains. Pretty sure that thr Philippines and Vietnam are on board as well. This wouldn’t have happened if Wolf Warrior diplomacy weren’t a thing. All anyone has to do is cut off imports from the Middle East to cripple China. (No, Russian imports aren't enough. Most of their pipelines were destined for the EU. )Even India can cut off Middle East energy exports on its own because China doesn’t have a long range navy.

The BRICS coalition has also largely been a failure because no one can agree on what currency to use.

If either the Hu or Jiang faction were still in power, none of this would have happened because unlike Xi neither faction was delusional.

[gggmaster]

Then why not cut imports now. Time will only make them more resistant.

[chaostheory]

In case you haven’t noticed, we’re not formally at war yet. The US historically doesn’t make the first move since we’re a democratic republic and most constituents do not like war; it would also alienate most of our nominal allies. The best the US can do right now is containment and being ready to cut the supply lines from the Middle East.

[pphysch]

Washington can't even military contain the Houthis, or Iranians, or Russians.

[chaostheory]

1. Russia should have overwhelmed Ukraine years ago. Yet It’s still stuck. The EU is also finally mobilizing militarily. Also, this really isn’t our problem anymore. The EU can’t even give us good trade deals. They’re too busy passing one protectionist law after another. What’s the point when until now they were unwilling to pay their fair share into defense?

2. Iran isn’t doing anything but proxy wars here and there. Mostly in places where we will eventually retreat from.

3. Washington doesn’t need to contain any of them. Globalism is no longer a US interest. We are tired of subsidizing world trade and world security for little to no gain. All we get plenty of is criticism. Only countries that need energy imports from the Middle East are worried about the Houthis. Unlike many other countries, the US does not need energy imports or food imports. This is everyone else’s problem now.

[pphysch]

1. This is factually incorrect and ahistorical. Russia obviously had no intention of "overwhelming" a massive country with half a million NATO-trained soldiers in 2022 with only 200K Russian soldiers. Even if the AFU wasn't a massive military, 200K soldiers is not enough to occupy that entire country.

2. I guess this is a way to dodge the Houthis question, who are actively striking US-aligned ships. What happened to "Operation Prosperity Guardian"?

3. And yet Washington does want to contain China? This sounds like "I can't lose because I'm not even trying".

[cjbgkagh]

> All that’s needed is a military containment of China.

I know the 'demographics is destiny' is the Washington Consensus but it should be understood that these are the same people wrecking our economy over and over again and starting forever wars we end up losing.