4 ms·

None. Which is kind of the point. Unlike US, Chinese government doesn't even pretend to be about anything else than it's own benefit. When US took over Afghani

None. Which is kind of the point. Unlike US, Chinese government doesn't even pretend to be about anything else than it's own benefit. When US took over Afghanistan, it tried to set up local government modeled on western democracies. That totally failed. I don't know what China would have done. But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't try to build anything of the sort. Their most recent conflict is a nice counter point. Spratly Islands in South Chinese sea. It's an obvious land grab in an area that is vital for commercial shipping, important for food production and very good starting point if you needed to pressure Vietnam, Philippines or Taiwan. The only justification is some old map. International arbitration has ruled against them, and they don't really care. In the meantime they are ramming foreign fishing boats, building military facilities (airports, depots, etc.) and generally acting like they own the area. In summary, their approach is pragmatic, with obvious material benefit and no pretense of lofty goals. Also very low on casualties, at least for now. It is, in many ways, call back to days of gunboat diplomacy.

XorNot 2y ago
China isn't the global military hegemon. They see themselves as inheritors of the position, but they're not it currently and they are the beneficiaries of the fact the US is - i.e. the US Navy is the size it is because that provides guarantees against piracy, which is an expense the Chinese have not had to pay to enjoy the trade boone a shipping economy to the US benefits from. It's a mistake to compare the US and China's decisions like-for-like, because they're two countries with very different strategic situations and thus opportunities (i.e. China benefits from the US's middle east involvement via a number of means, namely though that stable oil prices are of a huge benefit because oil is a fungible commodity - there's no such thing as "having your own supply" unless you're literally at war and under a command economy - and at that point you're paying for that in a large number of other ways).
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  > It's a mistake to compare the US and China's decisions like-for-like, because they're two countries with very different strategic situations and thus opportunities China is making a huge push into EVs because they don't want to be subject to the whims of Middle Eastern instability (and do not produce any significant amount of oil on their own). America, in contrast, has much more interest in oil since they produce a lot of it on their own, and their EV uptake is slower, with lots of resistance from conservatives (who want to see oil persevere as a strategic commodity due to financial self interest). China could really be in a much better place a decade or two from now given their constraints. We still have a lot of advantages, but they are quickly eroding due to pigheaded politics.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
They really don’t have a choice but to control the South China Sea. Taiwan, Japan, Korea, otherwise block them from open ocean access. If a war occurred, they are easily blockaded, a disaster for them economically, except maybe if they can control the South China Sea. Afghanistan and Iraq were stupid quagmires that the USA shouldn’t have involved themselves in, but 9-11 happened and somehow this was the way to deal with it? China’s national security problems are really 100% internal, so they need to garrison the PLA all throughout the country ready to act on say Beijing rather than Kabul. They have an impressive body count, just not of foreigners.

XorNot 2y ago

China isn't the global military hegemon. They see themselves as inheritors of the position, but they're not it currently and they are the beneficiaries of the fact the US is - i.e. the US Navy is the size it is because that provides guarantees against piracy, which is an expense the Chinese have not had to pay to enjoy the trade boone a shipping economy to the US benefits from. It's a mistake to compare the US and China's decisions like-for-like, because they're two countries with very different strategic situations and thus opportunities (i.e. China benefits from the US's middle east involvement via a number of means, namely though that stable oil prices are of a huge benefit because oil is a fungible commodity - there's no such thing as "having your own supply" unless you're literally at war and under a command economy - and at that point you're paying for that in a large number of other ways).

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> It's a mistake to compare the US and China's decisions like-for-like, because they're two countries with very different strategic situations and thus opportunities China is making a huge push into EVs because they don't want to be subject to the whims of Middle Eastern instability (and do not produce any significant amount of oil on their own). America, in contrast, has much more interest in oil since they produce a lot of it on their own, and their EV uptake is slower, with lots of resistance from conservatives (who want to see oil persevere as a strategic commodity due to financial self interest). China could really be in a much better place a decade or two from now given their constraints. We still have a lot of advantages, but they are quickly eroding due to pigheaded politics.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

They really don’t have a choice but to control the South China Sea. Taiwan, Japan, Korea, otherwise block them from open ocean access. If a war occurred, they are easily blockaded, a disaster for them economically, except maybe if they can control the South China Sea. Afghanistan and Iraq were stupid quagmires that the USA shouldn’t have involved themselves in, but 9-11 happened and somehow this was the way to deal with it? China’s national security problems are really 100% internal, so they need to garrison the PLA all throughout the country ready to act on say Beijing rather than Kabul. They have an impressive body count, just not of foreigners.