China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?
- Thread starter MrCrazyBoyRavi
- Start date
- Status
In the contrary, China defeated Vietnam in two naval battles and won both times and took over some islands. So your so called weakness is not the decisive reason why China didn't take more drastic action to protect its interests in SCS in the 80s and 90s.
That's what you see but not what I see. Being more assertive doesn't constitute making threat. These countries need to get used to the fact that China has its own interests and would actively defend its interests.
I was talking about the cold war ideology war and interfere with internal affair. When the US tried to interfere with internal affair by regime change and meddling in elections. It is totally different magnitude scenario compare with what you provided here. If that is what you can come up with, it is just too ridiculous.
Taiwan issue, HK issue, and Xinjiang issue are all part of the US and China issue. The US has dared China to response in all these places. Many people have claimed that China couldn't do a thing in HK because the all powerful US would not allow it. Then we all know what happened. Same thing with Taiwan, the US is causing a lot of troubles. The US tried to provoke China. But so what, in the end of the day, Taiwan is just 200 miles off the mainland China. Keep daring China to do something, you might get what you wish for. Back to your question, the US has more cards to play as the world most powerful nation but it doesn't mean China couldn't response like China did in HK. It just means China would let the US play its cards first til the US has no cards to play then China strikes back.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Who are you talking to? You're talking to me; why are you talking to me about what other members are saying to you? Everything you say is so incoherent LOL. It has nothing to do with your point and everything to do with hard power how far you're willing to be pushed before going to war.
Not really; I said all countries respect power and China needs to build power. I never talked about anybody loving China much less gotten "emotional" over lack thereof. I don't even think it makes sense to ask non-Chinese to love China. Your English is terrible; not only do you use words you don't understand, you don't know what other people are saying.
First of all, I don't care about the stories that little people make up. Secondly, who said that? Link it. I'm curious at what you think you read.
I have no idea what you're talking about. America keeps begging to get the deal again and again and when it was apparent that they could not get the comprehensive deal they wanted, they had to chop it up into phases. Every time the talks broke down and restarted, it was an American initiative.
Your illusion is that you know anything at all. When you think the largest country in the world lives in a bubble, it's time to check yourself, but that is only for people with common sense. China's image improves every day while you give unwanted IR advice on forums. Fat coach potatoes talking about how professional athletes need to improve their game LOL
So funny, your reading comprehension failed you again. Are you using Google translate to read and respond?
Actually, Trump thinks that Venezuela was a part of the US. That aside, training an enemy all the same.
And it ends with no guys. You cannot make any arguments with what is actually happening so you always try to imagine scenarios.
We are talking about real events and you shift to imaginary... too pathetic...
escobar
Brigadier
Which prove my point that China take the islands they could not all the islands they wanted.
These countries already know that, but they also have their interests that are contrary China interests and they will actively defend. For effective deterrence China need to declare clear red lines and only making real threat when a country is crossing them. This will avoid China making threat when there is no need like all the Huawei thing. Making threat when what you need is competition and coperation is silly
True that China is not interfering like US but for those countries it is a form of interference.
escobar
Brigadier
Funny, so don't answer when i'am debating with another member.
Curious at what you think i read? lol
Another illusion, You have not read the agreement
Lol, learn IR history
Who are we? Who are you talking to? You're talking to me; why are you talking to me about what i'm discussing with another member?
Too hypocrite
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
No, that shows how bad you are at IR. If you only react from red lines, you will always be on the defensive. If you only defend your red lines, then you will always only get the bare minimum, if even that. You need to always push forward and test what you can do and how much resistance you will encounter to get the most out of every situation. China's good at IR, so it knows that, but people who don't understand IR like you will make terrible suggestions like this.
No, I can answer, but you need to debate my answer with me. Just because I answered your response to someone else does not mean I need to reply as if I were him. It's still what I wrote vs what you wrote. Basic debate.
You did not answer that question of who is currently accusing China of genocide. I'm also curious as to why it seems that your English is getting worse and worse as you post...
Bolton says Trump "pleaded" with Xi to buy US agriculture to help his re-election. My facts are illusions and your equivocal statements aren't, right? LOL You have not seen the trade data.
IR history shows China transforming from one of the poorest and most backwards countries in the world to the only one rich and technologically advanced enough to challenge the "lone" superpower due to China masterfully navigating IR against a hostile and powerful West. This is unparalleled excellence at IR. And you: bad at IR, bad at English, coach potato criticizing a professional athlete. LOL Learn to read charts.
The entire forum is "we." Common sense; everything here is based on non-fiction. So many events are happening now but instead, you need to make things up in order to try to make your argument, which proves how pointless it is and how badly you need to stretch to try to support them. And you did start this "what if the US did X with Taiwan, then China would do Y" trash with me, as well.
Last edited:
escobar
Brigadier
Like China on taiwan, right? After all China say taiwan is a core issue. So you just admit China is on the defensive there.
You like so much doing cherry picking. You have issue understanding that IR policy is a skillful management of whole package of deterrence, competition, cooperation, PR, etc..
US Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, 2020
You are in the superficial. Who could really escalate more? Which side really show it can play more card?
IR history shows China transforming from one of the poorest and most backwards countries in the world to the only one rich and technologically advanced enough to challenge the "lone" superpower due to China masterfully navigating IR against a hostile and powerful West. This is unparalleled excellence at IR. And you: bad at IR, bad at English, coach potato criticizing a professional athlete. LOL Learn to read charts.
You really have issue understanding. China having a great IR policy in the past does not mean it is doing great currently.
Lol, Go back read how the debate evolve
Last edited:
Obama's Syria red line policy failure is clear demonstration that being ambivalent sometime is a good thing. China doesn't want to end up like Obama by losing all his credibility when he can't back up his threat. It is better off making ambivalent threats to advance your interests and deter your opponents than making a single threat of red line that your opponents might cross and force you in an awkward situation like Obama was forced to confront.
escobar
Brigadier
It prove exactly my point. No need to made red line or threat on issue that is not a fondamental or core interest. In these case, you compete, cooperate or deter. But anyway, Obama red line policy failure has not decreased US military capability perception and US militay is now in Syria. No one doubts american military might no matter what Obama or Trump does or does not. Any US president can afford threating even if he don't back up in the end. Do you really think US will no back up a threat on their core interest?
You do ambivalent threats when you are military weaker than the other side. That is what happening between US and China/Russia or between China and India. You do ambivalent threats because you have not many card to play. The primary reason China is in grey zone tactic in Asia is because of US INDO PACOM. China doe not have choice.
Last edited:
What is the US core interest? Nobody knows. No one doubts American military might but many people have started to doubt American resolve and what constitute American core interest. Beside if you declared something as your core interests, are that mean you are willing to compromise for every else. That is a very bad foreign policies.
America also did a lot of ambivalent threats all over the world and failed to back up these threats. It doesn't mean the US isn't the most powerful nation on earth. I think you have too much black and white view for international relationship and geopolitical conflicts.
- Status