4 ms·

Why not?

sudosysgen 4y ago
Because the West in general is ideologically cohesive and generally follows a country which, alone, is a sole superpower. China is never going to be able to outproduce the ~billion people in the west economically, and will never be able to have an overwhelming military edge over NATO sufficient to set up and for at least a decade enforce its own version of the liberal international order. The US was able to do so because, once the USSR fell, it was able to do things like invade Iraq and Afghanistan and play a hand in destroying Syria and Libya. Unless China gets such overwhelming advantage militarily, it's not going to be able to overpower NATO outside of Asia, and as a result won't be able to dictate an international order.
- int_19h 4y ago
  "Never" is a very long time. I could imagine similar arguments being made 100 years ago against the notion of China becoming a global superpower.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  I think if Chinese people were to throw off their slave shackles and liberalize, then Chinese hegemony would be permissible/possible. I don't see any reason that's not possible, Taiwan is exactly an example of an ethnically Chinese society doing just that. America was ceding power to China through making it's supply chain vulnerable. If it were not for Xi's disastrous reign, that likely would have continued. America was losing, China snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Another fallacy is that there is a strategy to out-compete via producing more. Russian and Chinese strategy is to corrupt and destroy institutions such that the west produces less and becomes another low trust society. Given recent political happenings, I would say this is an effective strategy that is showing both success and results. It's not hard to imagine an America where every single American is paying rent to a Chinese landlord. That is winning a war without firing a single gun. Military might is only one form of power. Economic and social power are not null.

Why not?

Because the West in general is ideologically cohesive and generally follows a country which, alone, is a sole superpower. China is never going to be able to outproduce the ~billion people in the west economically, and will never be able to have an overwhelming military edge over NATO sufficient to set up and for at least a decade enforce its own version of the liberal international order. The US was able to do so because, once the USSR fell, it was able to do things like invade Iraq and Afghanistan and play a hand in destroying Syria and Libya. Unless China gets such overwhelming advantage militarily, it's not going to be able to overpower NATO outside of Asia, and as a result won't be able to dictate an international order.

int_19h 4y ago
"Never" is a very long time. I could imagine similar arguments being made 100 years ago against the notion of China becoming a global superpower.
hayst4ck 4y ago
I think if Chinese people were to throw off their slave shackles and liberalize, then Chinese hegemony would be permissible/possible. I don't see any reason that's not possible, Taiwan is exactly an example of an ethnically Chinese society doing just that. America was ceding power to China through making it's supply chain vulnerable. If it were not for Xi's disastrous reign, that likely would have continued. America was losing, China snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Another fallacy is that there is a strategy to out-compete via producing more. Russian and Chinese strategy is to corrupt and destroy institutions such that the west produces less and becomes another low trust society. Given recent political happenings, I would say this is an effective strategy that is showing both success and results. It's not hard to imagine an America where every single American is paying rent to a Chinese landlord. That is winning a war without firing a single gun. Military might is only one form of power. Economic and social power are not null.