4 ms·

It's not about whether it's worth it or not, but whether it's a part of the conversation. Arguably it is.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Why? I don't see the connection between the US training troops in African countries and China's infrastructure plan unless you're saying the infrastructure plan should be opposed militarily if necessary.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense. Ie, you can't describe why the US and others are making certain choices without referencing it. Of course, "related to" and "justifies" are not synonyms.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nkozyra 5y ago
    The connection is "influence in China" and "contemporary colonialism" which is a broad enough topic for a large series of articles. But I agree that this stands on its own as a topic and Belt and Road would feel shoehorned in within an article this short.
  - mushbino 5y ago
    By that rational, it would be more relevant to mention the history of western colonialism and regime change both past and present to paint a more comprehensive picture. Including China doesn't really add much.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense What connection? That both are trying to gain more influence in Africa? Is the journalistic connection also obvious with something like the Gates Foundation, which is also trying to gain more influence in Africa?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Litost 5y ago
  Is there an argument, if you zoom far enough out, they are both strategic powerplays one military, one economic, but both with the same aim to increase influence? Especially relevant if you follow the arguments in here about the US being on the decline and China on the ascendency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 It's hard to see how the US's more divisive approach can beat China's more inclusive one. I assume the reasons for this, as mentioned above, tie into the different setups, America with a huge military/industrial complex and China with a much better infrastructure track record (e.g. compare the high speed rail networks in both countries). Gross simplifications obviously, but maybe the argument still holds? Disclaimer, not read the WSJ article due to paywall.

Why? I don't see the connection between the US training troops in African countries and China's infrastructure plan unless you're saying the infrastructure plan should be opposed militarily if necessary.

dalbasal 5y ago
The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense. Ie, you can't describe why the US and others are making certain choices without referencing it. Of course, "related to" and "justifies" are not synonyms.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nkozyra 5y ago
  The connection is "influence in China" and "contemporary colonialism" which is a broad enough topic for a large series of articles. But I agree that this stands on its own as a topic and Belt and Road would feel shoehorned in within an article this short.
- mushbino 5y ago
  By that rational, it would be more relevant to mention the history of western colonialism and regime change both past and present to paint a more comprehensive picture. Including China doesn't really add much.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense What connection? That both are trying to gain more influence in Africa? Is the journalistic connection also obvious with something like the Gates Foundation, which is also trying to gain more influence in Africa?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Litost 5y ago
Is there an argument, if you zoom far enough out, they are both strategic powerplays one military, one economic, but both with the same aim to increase influence? Especially relevant if you follow the arguments in here about the US being on the decline and China on the ascendency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 It's hard to see how the US's more divisive approach can beat China's more inclusive one. I assume the reasons for this, as mentioned above, tie into the different setups, America with a huge military/industrial complex and China with a much better infrastructure track record (e.g. compare the high speed rail networks in both countries). Gross simplifications obviously, but maybe the argument still holds? Disclaimer, not read the WSJ article due to paywall.