China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
free_6ix9ine

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
Right, but that threat is greatly ameliorated by the fact that many advanced technologies are not in the US (and wish to do everything to skirt sanctions to do business with China) and also, China already had a long time to develop a firm technological base on which to grow.

That is inevitable; you cannot expect to surpass the US without them throwing everything including the kitchen sink at you. This just means that China's hot on their heels.

And they are not. They are mostly trying to maintain relations with China due to China's enormous and growing market. China is doing nothing to make them more hostile to China but the US is doing much to make them less hostile to China (although inadvertently).

Not really. They're far too weak, and far too scared to incur America's retaliation. That should be what China aims for in Asia, NOT trying to win allies by being gentle and harmless.

It's less what China's doing to de-escalate (as you really can only do this by giving up your own interests/resources so it's not easy at all), but more of what the US is doing to accidentally push them towards China. American mistakes make things so much easier for China; as a matter of fact, China may not have the power to pull the EU closer under a competent POTUS, which is why I much prefer Trump over Biden.

Ideally, but also don't be scared to flex your might where it can achieve victory. China's handling its relationships with its neighbors quite well as it defends its interests on all sides of its borders without erupting into violence while building the economy, technology, and military. (One great example is how China handled the 2017 Doklam standoff by moving massive war-fighting contingents to the India border causing India to unilaterally withdraw announcing that some understanding had been reached, which was news to the Chinese. No shots fired, resolved peacefully, but through Chinese strength.) America started a trade war with China and the EU at the same time and now it can't chew what it tried to bite off. So no slogan is absolute.
Click to expand...
manqiangrexue said:
Right, but that threat is greatly ameliorated by the fact that many advanced technologies are not in the US (and wish to do everything to skirt sanctions to do business with China) and also, China already had a long time to develop a firm technological base on which to grow.

That is inevitable; you cannot expect to surpass the US without them throwing everything including the kitchen sink at you. This just means that China's hot on their heels.

And they are not. They are mostly trying to maintain relations with China due to China's enormous and growing market. China is doing nothing to make them more hostile to China but the US is doing much to make them less hostile to China (although inadvertently).

Not really. They're far too weak, and far too scared to incur America's retaliation. That should be what China aims for in Asia, NOT trying to win allies by being gentle and harmless.

It's less what China's doing to de-escalate (as you really can only do this by giving up your own interests/resources so it's not easy at all), but more of what the US is doing to accidentally push them towards China. American mistakes make things so much easier for China; as a matter of fact, China may not have the power to pull the EU closer under a competent POTUS, which is why I much prefer Trump over Biden.

Ideally, but also don't be scared to flex your might where it can achieve victory. China's handling its relationships with its neighbors quite well as it defends its interests on all sides of its borders without erupting into violence while building the economy, technology, and military. (One great example is how China handled the 2017 Doklam standoff by moving massive war-fighting contingents to the India border causing India to unilaterally withdraw announcing that some understanding had been reached, which was news to the Chinese. No shots fired, resolved peacefully, but through Chinese strength.) America started a trade war with China and the EU at the same time and now it can't chew what it tried to bite off. So no slogan is absolute.
Click to expand...


Ya. we got the Indians to withdraw, but what does that accomplish? Now Modi is jumping in glee to join the American cold war idea. Why don't we sit down and negotiate lasting truce with India and solve this problem once and for all?

You think Modi would be so eager to join the cold War if we didn't have a border dispute with them?
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
Why so many people speak Spanish and English? The Spanish Empire and the Great Britain Empire have made sure of that. Christianity has spread throughout the world through a barrel of gun. International liberal orders were formed by the winners of the WW2 and enforced by the might of the US military, financial and technology.

Soviet Union had a vision and many allies, where is that vision now. It crumbled so quickly and so rapidly that most youngsters today probably don't know how influential and powerful of that ideology of thought was. Don't overthink the unity of the Western powers and their allies.
 
free_6ix9ine

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
KYli said:
Why so many people speak Spanish and English? The Spanish Empire and the Great Britain Empire have made sure of that. Christianity has spread throughout the world through a barrel of gun. International liberal orders were formed by the winners of the WW2 and enforced by the might of the US military, financial and technology.

Soviet Union had a vision and many allies, where is that vision now. It crumbled so quickly and so rapidly that most youngsters today probably don't know how influential and powerful of that ideology of thought was. Don't overthink the unity of the Western powers and their allies.
Click to expand...

I wasn't alive when the Soviet Union collapsed, but I do know it was their bad economic system that done them in. Not because they had too much allies. I'm the one overthinking the unity of the west?

Do you think Germany likes be played as a pawn of America against Russia? Do you think Canada likes having their prime minister emasculated by Trump? Do you think Mexico likes being called a source of rapists and crime? Do you think Korea liked being browbeat by Trump on defense spending? I could go on and on. But has any of these countries really turned on America? The answer is no. If that isn't unity, then I don't know what is.
 
free_6ix9ine

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
Mt1701d said:
I am not really sure where to put this but think this thread could be a good place. The article is an interesting read.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...


I've done a lot of reading into this topic:

1) Will this make RMB more acceptable globally? Maybe because it makes transactions easier and faster and cheaper.

2) Will that make RMB overtake the dollar. Probably not. There is behaviorial economics behind why USD is king at least in the forserable future. People think other people want dollars so they follow the herd causing dollar prices to always increase making dollars even more desirable. it's a feedback loop.

Only way for USD to collapse is if there is some internal turmoil that caused people to lose trust in the federal Reserve and the political system of the US. Ie constitutional crisis, civil war etc.
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
free_6ix9ine said:
I wasn't alive when the Soviet Union collapsed, but I do know it was their bad economic system that done them in. Not because they had too much allies. I'm the one overthinking the unity of the west?

Do you think Germany likes be played as a pawn of America against Russia? Do you think Canada likes having their prime minister emasculated by Trump? Do you think Mexico likes being called a source of rapists and crime? Do you think Korea liked being browbeat by Trump on defense spending? I could go on and on. But has any of these countries really turned on America? The answer is no. If that isn't unity, then I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Their allies abandoned them quickly. Their vision collapsed overnight. Both their allies and vision didn't save them from ruin. What good is an ally when it abandoned you in time of need.

Are these countries going to cut off trades with China? Are these nations going to go to War with China when called upon. If not, China has little to be afraid of.

free_6ix9ine said:
Ya. we got the Indians to withdraw, but what does that accomplish? Now Modi is jumping in glee to join the American cold war idea. Why don't we sit down and negotiate lasting truce with India and solve this problem once and for all?

You think Modi would be so eager to join the cold War if we didn't have a border dispute with them?
Click to expand...

China and India have been negotiating a peaceful settlement for their borders for decades already. China has successfully negotiated peaceful settlement of its land borders dispute with all it neighbors except India. On the contrary, India still has land disputes with all its neighbors. It is pretty obvious who is the problem.

India broke the Wuhan consensus by building roads to the dispute area. Employing its favor salami strategy. You expected China to appease the Indians and negotiate in position of weakness. If India wanted to join the US to contain, let it be. Appeasement only invites more aggression.
 
G

go4sdff

New Member
Registered Member
free_6ix9ine said:
I don't understand your argument. Japan and SK are not afraid that America will invade them or something, they are afraid that the US will abandon them to be taken over by a hostile China. That hostility is the exact barrier which prevents a mutual defense pact between China and Japan and SK.

Instead of being belingrent about SCS, diaoyu, THAAD, uhygurs, which is creating the exact type of hostility between China and neighbors that is preventing any sort of defense pact.

We should be very strong and continue to be even stronger. But not be belingrent towards smaller countries but instead focus on countering the US.
Click to expand...

I would like to recommend this video. two lectures are from Singapore and USA individually. I really like the clash of their opinions, specially the host if from Austria, which has a trouble in maintaining its relationship with China recently.

 
ZeEa5KPul

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
I find after reading the appeasing opinions expressed in this thread that I almost wish I believed in a deity so I could thank it again and again that the CCP sees things my and @manqiangrexue's way rather than it be run by a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows.
free_6ix9ine said:
Ya. we got the Indians to withdraw, but what does that accomplish? Now Modi is jumping in glee to join the American cold war idea. Why don't we sit down and negotiate lasting truce with India and solve this problem once and for all?
Click to expand...
It accomplishes plenty:
  1. It showed India that trying to throw its weight around anywhere in Asia, even in South Asia where it thinks it should be the hegemon, is futile since it will always meet an immovable wall of Chinese power.
  2. It showed states like Bhutan and Nepal who the real power in South Asia is. This has emboldened Nepal to move closer to China. Bhutan, unfortunately, is much more of a captive state incapable of pursuing an independent foreign policy.
  3. It showed India that partnering with America will come with severe costs and that America is incapable of protecting it from what it sees as Chinese territorial encroachment.
  4. It showed America that partnering with India will entangle it in a series of problems it has no hope of resolving in its would-be ally's favour.
The current "standoff" is accomplishing similar things and reinforcing those lessons.
free_6ix9ine said:
You think Modi would be so eager to join the cold War if we didn't have a border dispute with them?
Click to expand...
He isn't eager to join the Cold War. India's primary concern with China isn't a few square kilometres of barren mountain, it's that India wants to be the hegemon of South Asia and China is standing in its way. Modi would be far more eager to join America, and America would be far happier to have him, if India were strong enough to resolve these boundary disputes even along status quo lines. If these disputes are resolved in any way other than India's total capitulation then it would be a signal of China's weakness and both India and America would smell blood in the water.

Keeping these disputes open is a chronic wound China can aggravate whenever it suits it. China is also strong enough to dictate the pace and scope of any conflict, so why should it concede by resolving it?
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
free_6ix9ine said:
Ya. we got the Indians to withdraw, but what does that accomplish? Now Modi is jumping in glee to join the American cold war idea. Why don't we sit down and negotiate lasting truce with India and solve this problem once and for all?

You think Modi would be so eager to join the cold War if we didn't have a border dispute with them?
Click to expand...
That's your response to all I've written? You've ignored so much and focused on so little! @ZeEa5KPul has answered but additionally, you cannot sit down and negotiate with India because India has not ascribed to China's role as a leader in Asia. Anything you negotiate with them will give them a false sense that their strength against China has earned them these negotiations and thus they will demand favorable terms. They will see your kindness as weakness. Only when they have a full understanding of China's overwhelming position of power and come to China asking humbly for negotiations, can China show them China's generosity and possibly offer to take them under China's wing. The foundation of any leadership is strength. You might think you're being kind, not intimidating and forging friendships by being reasonable but others only see a country too weak to uphold its interests and too weak to challenge an aggressive America, thus too weak to be the new leader.
 
free_6ix9ine

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
I find after reading the appeasing opinions expressed in this thread that I almost wish I believed in a deity so I could thank it again and again that the CCP sees things my and @manqiangrexue's way rather than it be run by a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows.

It accomplishes plenty:
  1. It showed India that trying to throw its weight around anywhere in Asia, even in South Asia where it thinks it should be the hegemon, is futile since it will always meet an immovable wall of Chinese power.
  2. It showed states like Bhutan and Nepal who the real power in South Asia is. This has emboldened Nepal to move closer to China. Bhutan, unfortunately, is much more of a captive state incapable of pursuing an independent foreign policy.
  3. It showed India that partnering with America will come with severe costs and that America is incapable of protecting it from what it sees as Chinese territorial encroachment.
  4. It showed America that partnering with India will entangle it in a series of problems it has no hope of resolving in its would-be ally's favour.
The current "standoff" is accomplishing similar things and reinforcing those lessons.

He isn't eager to join the Cold War. India's primary concern with China isn't a few square kilometres of barren mountain, it's that India wants to be the hegemon of South Asia and China is standing in its way. Modi would be far more eager to join America, and America would be far happier to have him, if India were strong enough to resolve these boundary disputes even along status quo lines. If these disputes are resolved in any way other than India's total capitulation then it would be a signal of China's weakness and both India and America would smell blood in the water.

Keeping these disputes open is a chronic wound China can aggravate whenever it suits it. China is also strong enough to dictate the pace and scope of any conflict, so why should it concede by resolving it?
Click to expand...

It's not called being a coward it's called you shouldn't fight multiple wars at the same time. Do you want to fight India + US + whoever else has a bone to pick with China. Or would you rather challenge the US one on one? I don't know but the answer seems pretty clear to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top