[jitl]

If you want to look at an objective numeric metric for this, why not foreign military bases? US has 128+, China had ~2. To project global military power China will need similar order of magnitude presence. I use that number as a check against sometimes breathless and sensational journalism about the topic.

It’s harder for me to come up with a simpler metric for “Belt and Road” / IMF style control-through-capital.

But, I think it will happen. After visiting China and seeing how much consistent progress both in infrastructure from the government and in daily life from the economy, my impression is US government makes 2 steps forward 1 step back in the same time it takes China to take 100 steps forward.

[fakedang]

I was of the same viewpoint as you - just look at the militaries!

Except in today's world, being a military power is increasingly less relevant after a certain point, while economic supremacy is increasingly gaining prominence. While the West is content with self-platitudes for their "democracy", China has been building strong relationships with a number of countries looking to implement the "China-model", a capitalist but largely regressive nation that relies on surveillance and stringent media control. China is already licensing out their technology to a number of interested countries, some of which include Western countries looking to emulate Chinese autocracy themselves. On the other hand, countries are looking at the incoming US govt with pretty much strong uncertainty as to what their relationship with America will be like.

Not to mention, as automated warfare becomes increasingly more relevant, guess where these countries are buying their drones from? Hint hint, it's not the US with their overpriced toys.

[kayewiggin]

> China has been building strong relationships with a number of countries

Number of irrelevant countries. US's allies are Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, etc. 80% of the world's wealth. and 95% of the world's top technologies.

> guess where these countries are buying their drones from

Soon, not China. China Is Cutting Off Drone Supplies Critical to Ukraine War Effort [1]. China is reportedly making drones for Russia instead, according to multiple intelligence officials.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-09/china-is-...

[brabel]

Where do you get 80% of world's wealth?

According to the World Economic Forum[1], the USA plus the whole EU make up 29% of the world's GDP-PPP, while the BRICS countries come up at 37.3%.

You also included Japan, Australia, South Korea, Canada and Taiwan, but I find it hard to believe they would make up a very significant part of the difference.

[1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/brics-summit-geopoli....

[fakedang]

On the former point, all the wealthy countries are in team USA, although team USA seems intent on shooting itself on the foot multiple times.

Team China is not as tight as team USA, but has a number of strings it can pull with its members. These are countries that, while not prosperous themselves, provide the raw material for most of the West's industries. A lot of critical resources are often only found in these countries. Not to mention, they have often aligned against USA gang in most cases, at the UN, while also aligning with China. Look at how many countries have signed public declarations stating that the Uighur camps in China don't exist/don't repress Uighurs.

On the second point, the article only states that China is cutting Ukrainian drone supplies to supply Russia instead - that's exactly the danger the West should be worried about. China also supplies an increasing number of armaments to partner countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria and Egypt. Needless to say, China is currently the world's largest exporter of military UAVs.

[bpodgursky]

The US does not have 128 foreign military bases. It has ~50 nominal bases [1]. Most of them are just the US sharing an airfield with a friendly country; it's a refueling stop that would not be hard for China to replicate.

The US does have several large overseas bases but 90% of this list is are indefensible logistics hubs and not a meaningful projection of force.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_inst...

[daveguy]

Calling any US military base an "indefensible logistics hub" reveals that the extent of your research was probably just that Wikipedia listicle.

[bpodgursky]

Believe whatever you want.

Most of these bases are co-located with NATO or other allies for good reason, the US doesn't have to do everything itself wrt air defense, locating an airlift wing with a fighter wing.

But then it's a lower bar than people imagine, for China to buy similar friendship.

[daveguy]

You literally called the logistics hubs of the US military -- the bases that move more of the most powerful weapons and military personnel in the world -- indefensible. So you either don't know what indefensible means, or you are a piss poor propagandist.

[bpodgursky]

Yes, it is very easy for a logistic hub that only has an airlift wing to be indefensible in a war against a peer adversary if for example there are no THAAD or Patriot batteries there. It's hub, not a hardened facility.

Many of the US military bases are communication centers or barracks on training bases. They serve important roles but are not "defensible" in many contexts.

Who am I even propagandizing for in this context?

[sangnoir]

Yes or No: Can the US singlehandedly defend all those bases without the help of host country? If the answer is "Yes", then China has a long way to go to achieve that capability. If answer is "No", then the bar is much lower, and gp's point is that China can "buy" similar arrangements without too much effort. More directly, is the bottleneck on funding, personnel/matiriel, or diplomacy?

China is building up a lot of soft power with infrastructure projects all over the world - most of them are aimed at improving trade - ports, rail lines and the like. In the next decade or 2, they can reasonably make requests to place a few PLA/PLAA personnel and equipment on bases in strategic places, bases they may have been built using Chinese money.

[daveguy]

Fair enough. But could any country attack all of those bases at once? As long as the US doesn't do anything as colossally stupid as leaving NATO it shouldn't be a problem with support. Ultimately NATO participation resides with Congress which is beholden to the people. NATO is overwhelmingly approved of by the US people -- it is a defense pact.

If a country or coalition decided to attack all of those bases at once it would give the US the high ground to respond. Nazis tried a blitzkrieg and that didn't turn out well. As someone squarely against the bullshit of Trump, I would not be happy if he was in power at the time. But I do not doubt for a second that the US population in general would respond as readily as they did after 9/11 (but hopefully not as readily as in Iraq).

We just saw how the "dipshit in power" aspect works with Netanyahu in Gaza -- a disproportionate and tragic response. The only caveat is Trump is an extremely stupid dipshit, so I genuinely hope it doesn't turn out that way and everyone keeps their powder dry until Trump is out of office.

China's buildup of soft power is good for them, and I commend them for it. Fortunately, I believe soft power is a defensive power at its core, and I don't think it translates to offensive power. To confuse the two would be a mistake.

Thank you for the opportunity to get a lot off my chest this New Year's Eve. I hope it wasn't too offensive, because I believe you responded intelligently and in good faith, and thank you for that.

[thenthenthen]

I used to live 500m from one of the logistics hubs in EU. It’s 100% security by obscurity.