[fnordpiglet]

IMO, which isn’t worth a lot, it’ll go on as long as Trump refuses to eat crow. China hunkered down under extreme duress during COVID and emerged stable. We barely managed to survive much milder restrictions. And that was a global natural disaster of no one’s choosing. In this situation it’s all artificial, but it stokes the nationalism of literally every other country than America. The imperialism and condescension at work, the pure malice towards our allies and partners, it all works against America. China will never bend and nor do they need to or should they. In fact at this point it’s probably a point of national pride to maximize the embarrassment of Trump, and national strategy to push him into a corner hoping he lashes out more and further isolates America from its partners. This is an opportunity for China to break out of the corner America and its partners put it into and flip the roles. Once done, and Trump is neutered and America reduced, China will have a clear path to ascendancy as the primary global super power.

I’m actually not sure this is all bad. A flatter more multipolar world is probably better for everyone, including America. But I think it’ll be a tough time in our history and the people who voted for Trump will be the ones who bear the most pain for his delusional misunderstanding of the way the world actually is vs what he wishes it were.

But if I were to put $5 down, I’d wager this lasts until the GOP political fortunes have been decimated through their hubris and magical thinking and Trump is personally hung out to dry for his strategic blunder in launching a 195 front war.

[sanderjd]

It definitely isn't better for America or the world. We had a "flatter more multipolar world" during the "long 19th century". Pax Americana is certainly subject to a lot of valid criticism, but it was an even bigger mess before that.

[fnordpiglet]

Except I think as long as the “new world order” built around globalized trade networks of interdependence and agreements with dispute arbitration that China and the EU are leaning into was the framework Pax America built and was built to withstand unilateralism. Global organizations built around mutual benefit are ultimately going to win the day here, and it’ll be without American leadership - which will solidify the power of those organizations independently and through multiple power players rather than one. This is probably better than the prior order, and distinctly different than the pre-WW2 order.

[sanderjd]

Maybe! I struggle to see why you would feel confident in this outcome.

[fnordpiglet]

Mostly because everyone has benefited so much from the world order as it exists that no one really wants to lose it other than some fringe wackos. China definitely is a huge winner in the current world construction, Europe as well. The only losers are those that actively fight it - Russia, North Korea, and Iran. I think very few countries really see global domination through conquest as a legitimate goal, and the domination through trade alliances is more enriching, stabilizing, and easier to maintain. China especially I think has little desire beyond Taiwan and the south China seas as trade dominance allows them all the wealth of empire without the administrative headache of managing the internal affairs of conquest states. It’s better to have nations in debt to you than to own their problems.

[ethbr1]

> beyond Taiwan and the south China seas

That's a pretty big caveat.

To frame the question another way -- which does China want more, an international rules based order or Taiwan and nine dashes of maritime territory?

[fnordpiglet]

I think sadly we are at a damage control point. They probably assume they can have both. They probably can.

[sanderjd]

I feel like relying on this thesis that people won't overthrow the world order because everyone has benefited so much is an odd choice at this particular moment.

[krapp]

We had a flatter more multipolar world primarily run by the Church and imperialist absolute monarchies. There is no reason to assume a world not dominated by American imperialism but primarily made up of modern democracies and republics must revert to a 19th century status quo.

[sanderjd]

There's also no reason that whatever it does look like would be better than that, or even that the "modern democracies" we currently have would actually survive.

[krapp]

I disagree. The biggest destabilizing force in the world right now is the US. The loss of American superpower status will make the world and its democracies more stable practically by definition.

You might argue that absent American military hegemony, Russia and China become belligerent. But the US isn't really doing much about either, so that's a moot point. All the world really loses is America's interference in their affairs, which I think the world can do without.

[sanderjd]

This is essentially a "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done" type of argument.

It's very easy, indeed common, for the "something" to be worse than the status quo.

[ethersteeds]

I've also read that China's leadership really learned from the experience of the tarrifs during the first Trump admin. They made strategic changes that they wouldn't be vulnerable to that again. They spent the last 4+ years preparing, unlike the US which got maybe a quarter to stockpile and prepare. The asymmetry is huge.