China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?
- Thread starter MrCrazyBoyRavi
- Start date
- Status
No i'm not tidalwave.
Sure, whatever you say
I live in France, any admin can compare my IP with that of Tidalwave or other, i have only one account, besides I don't even speak English well (I help myself with google translation and deepl)
Sadly, many here can't support an opinion which does not go in their direction
There is no new cold war because there is no ideology war. China doesn't want to impose ideology to other nations or it has any intention to interfere with other countries internal affair. The so called new cold war is just cooked up by a bunch of old white men who are nostalgic of the past glory.
Whatever happened between the US and China is struggles of great powers. The US and the west want to maintain the liberal international order that is dictated and dominated by them. On the other hand, China wanted to break the stranglehold that the West has imposed to the world since the imperial days.
The premise is China needs to appease all other nations so it could focus on the US and counter any alliance that the US could form. The premise is appeasement would bring peace and allies. The fact is appeasement has allowed India to practice salami-slice strategy in the border. Appeasement has allowed ASEAN especially Vietnam and Philippines to gobble up most of SCS islands and push China out of SCS. The truth is weakness invited more aggression.
I asked again. What other nations can offer China except lip service. It is delusional to think Japan and SK could maintain independent if push comes to shove.
Whatever happened between the US and China is struggles of great powers. The US and the west want to maintain the liberal international order that is dictated and dominated by them. On the other hand, China wanted to break the stranglehold that the West has imposed to the world since the imperial days.
The premise is China needs to appease all other nations so it could focus on the US and counter any alliance that the US could form. The premise is appeasement would bring peace and allies. The fact is appeasement has allowed India to practice salami-slice strategy in the border. Appeasement has allowed ASEAN especially Vietnam and Philippines to gobble up most of SCS islands and push China out of SCS. The truth is weakness invited more aggression.
I asked again. What other nations can offer China except lip service. It is delusional to think Japan and SK could maintain independent if push comes to shove.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Goodness gracious, moving the goalpost twice now... kinda desperate, eh? Did I say it's impossible? No. I said, "for now" it is your imagination. I even said it would be difficult. Take a look at my answer below and see how you tried to take it in a different direction twice to try to escape the reality that you imagined a US action and then imagined a Chinese inaction. You can try to move it again but it's not intelligent to try the same tactic 3 times after it was defeated twice, is it?
"That would indeed be a difficult situation since that requires China to initiate violence, but for now, this is your imagination, as is the rest of your post."
China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?
It absolutely refutes what you are saying. You emphasized the difference between transactional and leadership while I said that leadership is just an uncounted extension of the transactional international relations. You were essentially saying that I lack sophistication because when I was talking about favors because you assumed immediately that favors meant transactional but I was always talking about a leadership (or at least tentative friendship) type of relationship. It is because of your lack of sophistication and inability to understand the true leadership type of relation that caused you to erroneously make that assumption. Otherwise, you would not have even mentioned the two types.
Yes, your misunderstanding of the English words you used for your central argument.
Y'all come back real soon now, ya hear?
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Saying the same thing over and over again quoting yourself doesn't make your argument more valid, though. How are you going to "win more allies?" You want to hold the status quo, but they want to advance on you if you are not advancing on them, so what do you do? Give away your interests? Even if China is willing to do that, (which it's not) what do you do when they take what you give and then these countries ask for continuous tribute from China in order to maintain them as "allies?"
China already shows quite a lot of restraint (likely as much as you said it should) and is happy to maintain a status quo if the other side doesn't make it apparent that they would take advantage of the opportunity. In the Galwan Incident, it would be easy for a PLA general to tell India that its fighters are pathetic and died running away, unable to inflict any casualties on the PLA, and if they want to escalate, it will end with China taking everything from them north of Nepal and east of Bangladesh. Instead, China kindly tells them that it will not compare casualties and wishes to meet India halfway. I cannot imagine a more forgiving approach.
Here, I quote myself too, which was an an unanswered response to your self-quote:
"What do you do when you give these countries what they want, they smell blood, then come ask for more and more, threatening poor relations whenever you stop giving? Is this the behavior of a rising power to be blackmailed into concessions by small countries to temporarily curry favor? Your own post doesn't even agree with itself. How do you "not give up our demands" while also "stop making claims in the SCS/Diaoyu?"
China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?
Last edited:
escobar
Brigadier
China is doing that. Can we just stop saying this thing? Great power do that, China include.
The issue is not about appeasement
True
China never goes out of its way to prop up a regime. If the faction that China supported got overthrow, China doesn't have a problem working with the oppositions. Give me an example of China participated in regime change in recent decades.
The issue is appeasement. In HK for the last two decades, China has appeased to the HKers. China has stayed out of many HK issues. China has taken steps to grant more rights to HKers. All these appeasement isn't enough and the oppositions asked for more. The oppositions think HK is so valuation to China that China would do anything to preserve it. That's why the oppositions are foolish enough to confront China and ask for a total independent when it should have known that isn't possible.
Another example, China has built many mosques in Xinjiang. China has allowed schools in Xinjiang to be taught in Uighur language. China has allocated extra resources to Xinjiang. In the end, it isn't enough. They wanted more and revolt.
Same thing with SCS, China doesn't want to antagonize SEA nations so it doesn't enforce its maritime rights. Vietnam and Philippines view it as a sign of weakness. For a few decades, Vietnam and Philippines and to a lesser extent Malaysia have gobbled up many SCS territories. China fishermen were constantly attacked and killed. You take a step back and they take a step forward. Many members here think taking a step back is a good idea as long as it could temporary win some goodwill. My examples say otherwise.
- Status