They’re more incompetent.
Not that Sullivan is very competent but his strategy makes more sense than Trump destroying US alliances while fighting trade wars with China at same time.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Not that Sullivan is very competent but his strategy makes more sense than Trump destroying US alliances while fighting trade wars with China at same time.
Depends. Yes, Trump weakened the US-EU alliance but it remained strong enough that the US was able to convince EU to sanction China regarding Xinjiang, HK, and other host of things. Trump got better with the Gulf states than Biden, and he was equally committed to mobilize the Asian anti-China coalition.
All in all, it's not obvious who is better for China.
It is important to note that Trump was the president from 2016-2020. China was still seen as a rising power, it's economy, military, geopolitical clout is at a much higher stage than it was back then.(it's crazy how the balance has shifted in just 4 years)
The EU won't seek to destroy it's relationship with both China and the US. Gulf too is increasingly diversifying their economies. The trade volume increase with China since the pandemic is insane.
American protectionism will hit SK, Japan, EU and India too. They are going .
Trump winning in 2016 is miles better than whatever grand strategy the Hillary - NATO - EU camp would have been planning. Do you think China industries or even Huawei would be in the position they are today if Hillary won and the trade war never happened? Would the severe brain rot of cultural decay happen under Hillary as it did under Trump?
The main difference is that Trump went off and did his own foreign policy. Hillary camp would have worked with their allies to create a global foreign policy. Trump’s actions did one thing that Hillary would have never given to China or Russia. Time. There would have never been a 2-3 year long trade tensions with the EU, Canada, Mexico, India, and China or the 1 year distraction in Iranian tensions between 2019-2020. US influence would still be in Afghanistan.
Half of my country thinks that the climate change is a "globalist lie" and the previous president pulled out of Paris climate agreement but we will DEFINITELY lead the world in dealing with the climate change. We will do that while repressing the only successful EV company of my country. Last but not least, the said previous president may return in 7 months.
Apparently it’s cuz the KMT controlled parliament wants to pass a law holding legislators accountable for lying, with criminal prosecutions. Naturally the DPP and their Anglo American backers would have a problem with that.
The purpose of climate change under the auspices of the Anglo led West is to keep the third world impoverished and industrialised as the bottom of the feudal pyramid of the anglo led 'rules based order'. China and its EVs and green tech subverts that naked anglo attempt at power grab and resource theft by offering the third world a better alternative.
Pompeo and Bolton are what the Russians call 'not agreement capable'.
Don't worry. These guys don't spend their own money and when they do it is for a 1000 fold ROI.
Nederlands or Turkiye in this case?
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It's the US and the West so stubborn hiding their principles that won't allow them to work with China. But then they expect China to bend to their will on "important" global concerns like climate change so they don't look like they betrayed their principles. Obama when running for President said he was going to be known as the "Green President". That's because he thought the world would be forced to comply to international standards over the environment and he assumed the US would be leading in green technologies thus the US would make all the money until he realized China was going to be the primary benefactor not the US. The so-called Green President did literally nothing during his eight-year Presidency for the environment all because he didn't want China making the money from it. What's so important for the world that China has to yield to every Western demand is not so important if it does not serve Western interests first.
It's the same with the West's democracy vs autocracy argument. They make the assumption that democracies are not a threat to people's human rights. But the US had slaves while being a democracy. So human rights are not sacred to a democracy when the leader of democratic world made excuses for itself to violate human rights and had slaves. Maybe they make exceptions for themselves like how they're saying what's happening in Gaza is not a genocide while it's happening Xinjiang is...
Democratic countries have principles...