Try them in absentia.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Why is it fallacious to suggest that ASEAN might develop closer ties rather than bandwagoning with a growing power? Balance of power theory allows for both outcomes, it really just comes down to the way the analysis is framed.
I get your point about having to take into account the costs versus the benefits of any strategic direction. That's more or less the definition of rationality - but it's an assumption that states always behave rationally and assumptions can be wrong. That's why mainstream schools of thought based on similar assumptions have largely been thrown out the window in the last 20 years, at least in European circles. But I'm not going to take away from your analysis as neorealism is still a very, very valid analytical tool, though a bit dated.
And while "properly" applying the balance of power concept would do well to borrow from neorealism, a "proper" analysis could just as easily borrow neoliberal assumptions and conclude that a tight, regional economic and military partnership results in the greatest benefit for any individual state. After all, like your rationality argument, that's based on a similarly valid assumption. In this case, 'thorough' would be a better word to use rather than 'proper', which implies there is a narrowly-defined correct way to use the theory.
This brings us to your point about how American scholars approach the field - which in general is rather bland. There is a divide in IR academia between European scholars, whose ideas and theories have been very diverse, compared to American scholars whose analytical tools are still left over from the Cold War and are riddled with assumptions, simplifications, and biases. I was taught at an European institution and I devoted most of my studies to concepts of European origin so that might be my personal bias coming through when I say that.
Either way, things are changing so rapidly in the SEA region that a coin toss might be the most appropriate tool for analysis. I would be more comfortable examining the situation through the lens of regional security, as I'm more familiar with security studies, but to analyse the current situation with any degree of accuracy is a daunting task. Judging by the style of your analysis, you might find Regional Security Complex Theory (from Buzan and Wæver) to be quite interesting.
I don’t undersand why non of Asian nations can come up together to create a pan asian defense pact. Why is it only anglo or western idea to team up and act collectively against their rival. Just look at how many defense pact US, UK, AUS are involved in. It feels like Asian nations are so divided among themselves that nobody trust each other. China or even India have barely made any alliance efforts in its close sphere of influence in its entire history. Seems like alliance is a remote concept in asian culture. Did Sun Tzu has a chapter on this at all in art of war?
Because that what lead to WW1. Remember the blank check assurance from Germany to Austria-Hungary that leads the later to attack Serbia. Which then lead to Russia declaring war to Germany and everybody declared war on everybody. This grouping of powers can easily manipulated to have a armed confrontation. A simple false flag attack in any of the members of these grouping can easily escalate into a full scale war. It happened several times last century, it will happen again.
I thought the alliances were something from the Romans, and alliances were basically a part of Western civilization.
That is why I assume that the Western people are stuck on these alliances, because they cannot imagine a world operating in a different way.
That is why they cannot understand what China is doing.
China is building bridges literally and figuratively everywhere around the world.
But no alliances. Under no circumstances would China like to copy some Western alliance structure. What for?
AUKUS is really just a joke.
It is an one country alliance with two slaves.
When Master Joseph runs, they all run, such as Afghanistaniland.
bajingan
Senior Member
You absolutely right on the spot @horseI thought the alliances were something from the Romans, and alliances were basically a part of Western civilization.
That is why I assume that the Western people are stuck on these alliances, because they cannot imagine a world operating in a different way.
That is why they cannot understand what China is doing.
China is building bridges literally and figuratively everywhere around the world.
But no alliances. Under no circumstances would China like to copy some Western alliance structure. What for?
AUKUS is really just a joke.
It is an one country alliance with two slaves.
When Master Joseph runs, they all run, such as Afghanistaniland.
Even former australian pm thinks the same as you
We Chinese tried the whole alliance thing back during the Warring State period, turns out it's a rubbish strategy because alliance could always be destroyed from within by exploiting the differences in alliance member's interests and cause them to infight, as China is doing right now in front of our eyes.I thought the alliances were something from the Romans, and alliances were basically a part of Western civilization.
That is why I assume that the Western people are stuck on these alliances, because they cannot imagine a world operating in a different way.
That is why they cannot understand what China is doing.
China is building bridges literally and figuratively everywhere around the world.
But no alliances. Under no circumstances would China like to copy some Western alliance structure. What for?
AUKUS is really just a joke.
It is an one country alliance with two slaves.
When Master Joseph runs, they all run, such as Afghanistaniland.
People who push for alliances are known as 纵横家 because of Warring State, 纵横术 is considered a solved problem in China and all of its strengths and weaknesses and details on how to defeat it has been carefully recorded down by historians for the benefit of future generations.
Last edited:
There are no global south nations worth plundering. So now they are plundering their farthest allies started with Taiwan, now its going to AUS and UK. When the imperial core is in peril/debt the periphery will need to be taxed heavier.
From what I gathered the Code of Conduct seems to be progressing nicely, that should bring some stability in the South China Sea region.
Pretty sure Singapore and Vietnam have informed the US what those plans involve and that their south china sea trolling will not be acceptable in the future.
Anglo geostrategy and puritanical virtue signalling relies on a purposeful exhibited lack of self awareness- like anglo americans pretending the US doesn't spy on other nations even after the Snowden Revelations.