5 ms·

It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. The US aren't the only people allowed to do proxy wars.

by pessimizer 4y ago

duxup 4y ago
> almost risk-free Wouldn’t the article indicate otherwise?
ajvs 4y ago
The risk is that China becomes a pariah to the West, which much of their economic system depends on.
- TexanFeller 4y ago
  The US depends on China to a level where I'd say they own us, not the other way around. They play a large part in making almost every product we use in the US, without trade with them we're screwed.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    Decoupling has already started and is accelerating. It’s possible to be mostly done within 8 years
    - b112 4y ago
      My pants were made in China, and now they are made in Mexico. Mexico is optimally aligned, with a shared historical/cultural ethos, and desire for NA stability, too. Also, it solves a problem; one cannot wage war without pants. Well, unless you are General Buck Naked... But my point is, manufacturing is returning to the West, which also has low cost production zones. And imagine, a revitalized Mexico, with the cartels broken, and a very strong middle class.
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        I think you need to read what decoupling means and how the term applies to trade with China unless you’re replying to the wrong comment.
        b112 4y ago
        You can't decouple without pants on. And I said made in, not assembled in.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make because it sounds like you disagree with my comment, but all of your points support my argument
        b112 4y ago
        I am agreeing with you, but for some reason you're disagreeing with my agreeing! I was merely providing additional data, my pants were made on China, now the label says Mexico! Same style/brand.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 4y ago
    US/China trade is a surprisingly small. Canada, Mexico, China, the EU are all roughly equivalent plus a long tail of every other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa... Where China has an oversized impact is our trade deficit and consumer goods which makes them seem vastly more important than they are. However, that’s also the most flexible with south east asia replacing Chinese manufacturing as Chinese workers become more expensive. Our trade deficit with China isn’t as bad as it seems because we export goods to countries China then imports from. Hong Kong for example is a 25.8B trade surplus and really should be included in Chinese trade numbers.
    - coffeebeqn 4y ago
      Long term China could be (already is being) replaced by countries like Vietnam and India as manufacturers. Possibly growing African countries like Nigeria as well. Chinese labor isn’t globally that cheap anymore but they do have the existing infrastructure
andy_ppp 4y ago
Bought fully into the Russian propaganda then… you’d do well to listen to pretty much any interview by Fiona Hill and you’d quickly realise there’s nothing the US wants less than borders starting to be changed by wars; there are so many disputed lines that it could lead to conflicts all over the world. China starting a proxy war with the US and Europe is going to be extremely bad for business.
- logifail 4y ago
  > there’s nothing the US wants less than borders starting to be changed by wars I think it's a major mistake to talk about any country as if it's one homogenous, unanimous entity. There are those in the US, and elsewhere, who stand to make a great deal of out of money from war.
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    Which part of the American government forced Putin to invade Ukraine? I presume you have some evidence of this because you sound so sure it was all planned?
    - macinjosh 4y ago
      1. NATO which is primarily funded by the US has been pushing up closer and closer against Russia’s border. 2. US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government. 3. Ukraine, being a US client state, refused to uphold the Minsk peace agreements. 4. Immediately prior to the invasion the US/Ukraine side of the proxy war escalated shelling of Russian leaning parts of Ukraine crossing known red lines. 5. Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. Which we all know is how democracies function /s
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        > US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government. Extreme corruption and mismanagement had a much larger influence on the ‘coup’. I’m not saying that the current gov is clean, but that’s what leads to regime change. Also the election you were referring to was a complete sham, which is common with most Russian supported governments > Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. This happened after the 1st invasion, and not prior to that
Zigurd 4y ago
Globalization is sponsored by the US, and the US could reverse that. Without US defense of oil shipping routes, China sucks oil through a long, thin straw from an unreliable partner. Just those two factors amount to material risk.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Don't forget that China has significant oil reserves too, they're just hardly tapping them because they know oil only becomes worth more over time.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  Iirc they are highly dependent on fertilizer imports as well
- yucky 4y ago
  The Russia/China border isn't a very thin straw though.
JasonFruit 4y ago
> It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. It's stupid and risky for either the US or China to escalate a war that threatens to become a global conflict between nuclear powers. I wish saner heads urging restraint would prevail.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  As opposed to what, just allowing the US to dominate you? Some people would rather destroy this planet than be subjugated by a foreign power. I don't blame them. At least they have the strength necessary to present such a credible threat. I wish my country did.
- papito 4y ago
  So, China and Russia can just point on a map and say "I want that, and I have nukes, so, you know, WWIII". If we are going to play this game, let's have it all out now, because that's no way to live. We all agreed a long time ago that this is not what nukes are for, and if someone wants to lay new rules, they should be ready for what's coming.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Of course they can. The only real defense against this is for everyone to have nukes. The only question now is whether NATO is going to escalate to global thermonuclear war over some foreign country. Seriously doubt they care that much.
lr4444lr 4y ago
Unlike Russia, China is a net importer of food. You really think they can withstand even a fraction of the sanctions or tariffs we've put on Russia?
coffeebeqn 4y ago
Risk free? They would start proxy World War III Plus they would push western unity to an all time high. The US foreign policy would be perfectly aligned across party lines against China.

It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. The US aren't the only people allowed to do proxy wars.

duxup 4y ago

> almost risk-free Wouldn’t the article indicate otherwise?

ajvs 4y ago

The risk is that China becomes a pariah to the West, which much of their economic system depends on.

TexanFeller 4y ago
The US depends on China to a level where I'd say they own us, not the other way around. They play a large part in making almost every product we use in the US, without trade with them we're screwed.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Decoupling has already started and is accelerating. It’s possible to be mostly done within 8 years
  - b112 4y ago
    My pants were made in China, and now they are made in Mexico. Mexico is optimally aligned, with a shared historical/cultural ethos, and desire for NA stability, too. Also, it solves a problem; one cannot wage war without pants. Well, unless you are General Buck Naked... But my point is, manufacturing is returning to the West, which also has low cost production zones. And imagine, a revitalized Mexico, with the cartels broken, and a very strong middle class.
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      I think you need to read what decoupling means and how the term applies to trade with China unless you’re replying to the wrong comment.
      - b112 4y ago
        You can't decouple without pants on. And I said made in, not assembled in.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make because it sounds like you disagree with my comment, but all of your points support my argument
        b112 4y ago
        I am agreeing with you, but for some reason you're disagreeing with my agreeing! I was merely providing additional data, my pants were made on China, now the label says Mexico! Same style/brand.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 4y ago
  US/China trade is a surprisingly small. Canada, Mexico, China, the EU are all roughly equivalent plus a long tail of every other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa... Where China has an oversized impact is our trade deficit and consumer goods which makes them seem vastly more important than they are. However, that’s also the most flexible with south east asia replacing Chinese manufacturing as Chinese workers become more expensive. Our trade deficit with China isn’t as bad as it seems because we export goods to countries China then imports from. Hong Kong for example is a 25.8B trade surplus and really should be included in Chinese trade numbers.
  - coffeebeqn 4y ago
    Long term China could be (already is being) replaced by countries like Vietnam and India as manufacturers. Possibly growing African countries like Nigeria as well. Chinese labor isn’t globally that cheap anymore but they do have the existing infrastructure

andy_ppp 4y ago

Bought fully into the Russian propaganda then… you’d do well to listen to pretty much any interview by Fiona Hill and you’d quickly realise there’s nothing the US wants less than borders starting to be changed by wars; there are so many disputed lines that it could lead to conflicts all over the world. China starting a proxy war with the US and Europe is going to be extremely bad for business.

logifail 4y ago
> there’s nothing the US wants less than borders starting to be changed by wars I think it's a major mistake to talk about any country as if it's one homogenous, unanimous entity. There are those in the US, and elsewhere, who stand to make a great deal of out of money from war.
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  Which part of the American government forced Putin to invade Ukraine? I presume you have some evidence of this because you sound so sure it was all planned?
  - macinjosh 4y ago
    1. NATO which is primarily funded by the US has been pushing up closer and closer against Russia’s border. 2. US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government. 3. Ukraine, being a US client state, refused to uphold the Minsk peace agreements. 4. Immediately prior to the invasion the US/Ukraine side of the proxy war escalated shelling of Russian leaning parts of Ukraine crossing known red lines. 5. Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. Which we all know is how democracies function /s
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      > US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government. Extreme corruption and mismanagement had a much larger influence on the ‘coup’. I’m not saying that the current gov is clean, but that’s what leads to regime change. Also the election you were referring to was a complete sham, which is common with most Russian supported governments > Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. This happened after the 1st invasion, and not prior to that

Zigurd 4y ago

Globalization is sponsored by the US, and the US could reverse that. Without US defense of oil shipping routes, China sucks oil through a long, thin straw from an unreliable partner. Just those two factors amount to material risk.

wkat4242 4y ago
Don't forget that China has significant oil reserves too, they're just hardly tapping them because they know oil only becomes worth more over time.
throwaway6734 4y ago
Iirc they are highly dependent on fertilizer imports as well
yucky 4y ago
The Russia/China border isn't a very thin straw though.

JasonFruit 4y ago

> It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. It's stupid and risky for either the US or China to escalate a war that threatens to become a global conflict between nuclear powers. I wish saner heads urging restraint would prevail.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 4y ago
As opposed to what, just allowing the US to dominate you? Some people would rather destroy this planet than be subjugated by a foreign power. I don't blame them. At least they have the strength necessary to present such a credible threat. I wish my country did.
papito 4y ago
So, China and Russia can just point on a map and say "I want that, and I have nukes, so, you know, WWIII". If we are going to play this game, let's have it all out now, because that's no way to live. We all agreed a long time ago that this is not what nukes are for, and if someone wants to lay new rules, they should be ready for what's coming.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Of course they can. The only real defense against this is for everyone to have nukes. The only question now is whether NATO is going to escalate to global thermonuclear war over some foreign country. Seriously doubt they care that much.

lr4444lr 4y ago

Unlike Russia, China is a net importer of food. You really think they can withstand even a fraction of the sanctions or tariffs we've put on Russia?

coffeebeqn 4y ago

Risk free? They would start proxy World War III Plus they would push western unity to an all time high. The US foreign policy would be perfectly aligned across party lines against China.