I understand, but I'd like to ask them what they were thinking when the US inevitably flips the chessboard and shits all over the table in front of them.
C'mon bruh, do you even know who you're dealing with?
what long game? US is already gearing up for war with China. No matter how much they try to appease US due to economic reasons, not sure if it yields fruitful results
I understand China prefers to the take as non-interventionist geopolitical position as possible. Personally speaking, I don't agree, but I am also not Chinese nor affiliated with the Chinese government and can't tell them what is best for China. There's the argument to be made that it makes them better mediators for large scale international conflict, and I would certainly prefer China in that position to the US.
I could very well be wrong, and China knows what they are doing better than I do. They've certainly had success in settling international disputes in other arenas, but I don't think the same approach works here. I think the Chinese strategy works brilliantly when you can expect the other country to behave rationally and in their own self-interest, but that isn't the case here.
You can't really build a multipolar world and also ignore things like active genocides or an enemy that clearly wants your downfall and will do everything in their power to do so, even against its own self interests.
China is way too appeasing in their foreign policy. I think it does partly explain China's good cooperation with other countries, which is good, but sometimes I wish they had more of a backbone. I just learned an hour ago that China doesn't even recognize Crimea as part of Russia.
My issue is when they put down "redlines" for Taiwan, have the west/US brazenly violate those redlines, and then follow up with the US with a letter or phonecall.
At some point, it might even be beneficial if you stop declaring redlines. If countries can regularly break them, then it does more to make China look weak.
It's like the one criticism I have with China (in general!) right now.
I still struggle to see this as a weakness honestly... why should we be condeming China for not taking the American approach and resorting to bombs first, talking later?
That's my view, too. We also don't know what's said behind closed doors. And the consequence of crossing a red line doesn't have to be a military response. China does seem to respond when it's red lines are crossed, it just does so subtly.
I believe the reason China does this is to boost its foriegn policy to BRICs/the third world. Its hard to make an arguement that you're the better option to the USA if you're engaged in 20 proxy wars.
how is china better than the DPRK? they have more wealth, sure, but Korea is just dealt a much worse hand than China.
regardless, GlueBear was making a comment about foreign policy, in which regard Russia actually does more than China, even though China has got their reasons
There is no value with Russian foreign policy right now, no mass movement to use the potential for heightened class contradiction. Besides, modern day Russia is just the hotbed for disguntled nationalists who only exist with even a modicum of power because of US strategic interests. The ideology guiding the ruling class of Russia is bland, incompatible with the concept of class struggle, and archaic. I see Russia to China as Canada is to the US. Do I really care that Canada may have better standards than the US or better foreign policy or better whatever? No, not really. I'm looking at countries that can actually do something useful for me, and the choices are between the US and China, not between Canada and Russia.
Russia >> China
It hurts, but it's true
China is playing a different game, a long game.
I understand, but I'd like to ask them what they were thinking when the US inevitably flips the chessboard and shits all over the table in front of them.
C'mon bruh, do you even know who you're dealing with?
what long game? US is already gearing up for war with China. No matter how much they try to appease US due to economic reasons, not sure if it yields fruitful results
I understand China prefers to the take as non-interventionist geopolitical position as possible. Personally speaking, I don't agree, but I am also not Chinese nor affiliated with the Chinese government and can't tell them what is best for China. There's the argument to be made that it makes them better mediators for large scale international conflict, and I would certainly prefer China in that position to the US.
I could very well be wrong, and China knows what they are doing better than I do. They've certainly had success in settling international disputes in other arenas, but I don't think the same approach works here. I think the Chinese strategy works brilliantly when you can expect the other country to behave rationally and in their own self-interest, but that isn't the case here.
You can't really build a multipolar world and also ignore things like active genocides or an enemy that clearly wants your downfall and will do everything in their power to do so, even against its own self interests.
China is way too appeasing in their foreign policy. I think it does partly explain China's good cooperation with other countries, which is good, but sometimes I wish they had more of a backbone. I just learned an hour ago that China doesn't even recognize Crimea as part of Russia.
My issue is when they put down "redlines" for Taiwan, have the west/US brazenly violate those redlines, and then follow up with the US with a letter or phonecall.
At some point, it might even be beneficial if you stop declaring redlines. If countries can regularly break them, then it does more to make China look weak.
It's like the one criticism I have with China (in general!) right now.
I still struggle to see this as a weakness honestly... why should we be condeming China for not taking the American approach and resorting to bombs first, talking later?
That's my view, too. We also don't know what's said behind closed doors. And the consequence of crossing a red line doesn't have to be a military response. China does seem to respond when it's red lines are crossed, it just does so subtly.
I believe the reason China does this is to boost its foriegn policy to BRICs/the third world. Its hard to make an arguement that you're the better option to the USA if you're engaged in 20 proxy wars.
Damn man those are your homies smh.
Currently they're playing good guy and bad guy.
They are dedicated to interacting as little as possible with the rest of the international community in the matter of global geopolitics.
Would be nice if they did a little more
China > > > > > > North Korea > > > Russia
how is china better than the DPRK? they have more wealth, sure, but Korea is just dealt a much worse hand than China.
regardless, GlueBear was making a comment about foreign policy, in which regard Russia actually does more than China, even though China has got their reasons
I think its useless to compare the two, but without China NK doesnt even exist as a communist state.
There is no value with Russian foreign policy right now, no mass movement to use the potential for heightened class contradiction. Besides, modern day Russia is just the hotbed for disguntled nationalists who only exist with even a modicum of power because of US strategic interests. The ideology guiding the ruling class of Russia is bland, incompatible with the concept of class struggle, and archaic. I see Russia to China as Canada is to the US. Do I really care that Canada may have better standards than the US or better foreign policy or better whatever? No, not really. I'm looking at countries that can actually do something useful for me, and the choices are between the US and China, not between Canada and Russia.