What?
China is rich because of US-West trade. China never got rich with Soviet trade.
China never lost a single inch for land to US, but China lost vast swaths of territory to Russia.
US can encircle a million bases around China, but US never dare annex Chinese territory like Russia has done in the past.
Russia is only useful to offset US influence, there is Zero benefit to anti-West alliance with Russia except making China another pariah state like Russia and North Korea.
Last edited:
Counterpoints:
1. Without the Soviets, the basic foundation of Chinese industrialization will not be complete. The production factories prior to 1949 were too weak in comparison to that of the Soviets. The Soviets screwed up the relationship since their paranoia of China blinded them. Without them, China would be like Vietnam: they would only have the ability to produce sub-par steel and iron, clothes, and 99 cent goods. Being rich is important, but the Opium wars show that industrialization is much more important since it allows innovation and self-production.
2. Those territories are giving Russia a headache to this day since they are poor. They are no loss and might create more trouble than the Russians could manage, thereby opening a possibility that the Chinese can take back that territory. As for the US, the Chinese allowed them to spearhead and spread an American-worshiping culture throughout Chinese society, a phenomenon that is still prevalent to this day and blinds the Chinese to the truth. In short the US basically controlled the Chinese's minds which are worth more than ten Chinas.
3. The US never intends to conquer territory as that is too costly and inefficient. Instead it props up puppet governments to carry out its will. As for Russia, the border intrusions of the past happened due to the paranoia in the past. Fortunately, the leadership of Russia, President Putin, woke up from that paranoia.
4. Agreed, but not for the reason you stated. An alliance is too easy to target and doesn't allow flexibility in political and economic maneuvers.
I'm not saying the Chinese should whole-heartedly trust Russia since Russia still has a lot of West-worshipping people. In fact, the Chinese should trust nobody since trust and friendship is meaningless in the realm of politics. However, working with Russia gives China an excellent leverage against the West and vice versa. As for the idea of potential isolation, the West has no choice but to trade with China unless they want to lower their living standards to unacceptable levels.
I knew her name sounded familiar when I read it in the tweet. Thanks for the refresher!
Hi LawLeadsToPeace,
Excellent post and may I add some more.
However, working with Russia gives China an excellent leverage against the West and vice versa.
You may noticed that the Russian under Putin allow the Chinese investment and trade within the former Soviet Republic, Its core interest. This partnership and the POWER OF SIBERIAN pipeline bind the two together. So you will see the BRI and the Russian EURASIA ECONOMIC UNION become one, a potentially huge market without the US presence and participation. As Russia look east as a way to diversify itself and with China a perfect complement.
addendum: If we add Iran to the mix that AXIS (BRI +EEU +Iran) will make it even more attractive and powerful and may shift the geopolitical dynamics in that region.
Last edited:
Sorry Phead128, I had to disagree, China become rich due to its people hard work and gov't policy. If trading with the west is the answer, why is the Philippine my home country had remain poor, as we traded with them longer than China.
Land is useless until people settled and make it productive. Like what I had experience in HULUNBUIR, living there is a nightmare.
That itself is more a threat to China sovereignty. being hemmed in and restricted, its like being put in a prison.
Hi caudaceus,
A reprieved for China and Iran, a nightmare for Russia and Assad, the next election cycle in 2024, we will see the reverse and China will be the bad guy again. So who will trust the American on their words as they flip flop on their foreign policy. Europe had seen it and experience it with Trump and an investment deal with China is a result of that.
Mr T
Senior Member
I don't think that Biden's latest nominations will change anything regarding his China policy. He's always said that he would end some of the needless confrontation, but apart from not increasing sanctions against China I doubt much will change. If anything Beijing may regret Biden coming to the White House if he's able to bolster partnerships and alliances that conflict with China's interests.
Only a few days ago Sullivan was saying that Biden would patch up relations with the EU and that the US would treat China as a serious strategic competitor. That's no reason to be optimistic about US-China relations going back to those of a decade or so ago.
Chinese people, like Taiwanese, (South) Koreans and Japanese worked hard after the end of the war. However, they didn't dig money out of the ground. Trade with other countries has always been important, and in the late 20th century North America, Europe, Japan and Taiwan were great sources of income/investment for the PRC. Even now much of the ex-USSR is still a basket case economically.
As for the Philippines, it has been and remains a highly corrupt country by all objective measures. 20 years of Marcos didn't help but since then things haven't got a lot better.
Only a few days ago Sullivan was saying that Biden would patch up relations with the EU and that the US would treat China as a serious strategic competitor. That's no reason to be optimistic about US-China relations going back to those of a decade or so ago.
I think Phead meant that China got rich from trade with the developed world after economic reforms. China's economy took off after it implimented reforms under Deng Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang, allowing private investment, business and reduced the dominance of state-owned companies.
Chinese people, like Taiwanese, (South) Koreans and Japanese worked hard after the end of the war. However, they didn't dig money out of the ground. Trade with other countries has always been important, and in the late 20th century North America, Europe, Japan and Taiwan were great sources of income/investment for the PRC. Even now much of the ex-USSR is still a basket case economically.
As for the Philippines, it has been and remains a highly corrupt country by all objective measures. 20 years of Marcos didn't help but since then things haven't got a lot better.
Last edited:
I know you're not going to reply because you have me and others on your ignore list. (It's like burying your head in the sand)!
But for the benefit of other members:
Yes corrupt and Marcos! But who was the one that supported and propped up this despotic regimes? So much for democracy, freedom and human rights that you always harping on about!