Just some casual warmongering with no repercussions, totally not dangerous at all.
all jokes aside, this is indeed very scary. FP is the mouthpiece of the "liberal" foreign policy establishment - people like Samantha Power etc. You know shit is getting bad if they're nakedly beating the war drum like this
There are many possible outcomes to the Sino-American competition, from the United States ceding a sphere of influence to China, to mutual accommodation, to Chinese collapse, to a devastating global conflict.
In short, can Sino-American tensions lead to competitive coexistence? Or must this rivalry culminate in regime failure via the weakening or political evolution of the United States’ challenger? U.S. officials should certainly hope for the first outcome, but they should probably prepare for the second.
Why is a Chinese collapse possible, but not a US collapse?
Advocates of competitive coexistence believe the United States can eventually change the minds of Chinese leaders, convincing them not to seek regional preeminence and upset the U.S.-led international order in Asia and beyond. The hope is that if the United States demonstrates, over a period of years, that it can maintain a favorable balance of power in the Western Pacific, preserve its key economic and technological advantages, and rally overlapping state coalitions to uphold key rules and norms, then Beijing might adopt less bellicose (and self-defeating) policies.
Why does the US need to maintain a favorable balance of power in the Western Pacific? Why should there be a US-led international order in Asia?
The Chinese Communist Party may no longer be Marxist, but it hails from the same Leninist tradition that views strategic deception, obfuscation of intentions, and other artifices as essential tools of geopolitical rivalry.
Leninism is strategic deception and obfuscation of intentions?
Instead, rivalry could persist in a fairly intense form until the party loses its ability to prosecute it. This could come about due to either a decline in Chinese power or a fundamental change in the nature of the ruling regime.... In this case, competition would not be a relatively short bridge to a more stable, less hostile relationship but rather a longer bridge to the collapse of China’s power or transformation of its government.
Again, no question of the US backing off, declining in power, or collapsing itself.
According to this regime-failure theory, what will ultimately end the Sino-American competition is the accumulated effect of the profound internal stresses China faces combined with consistent external resistance. If the United States and its allies and partners are successful in checking China’s aggrandizement, then the combination of slowing economic growth, a growing debt bubble, a slow-motion demographic catastrophe, and other internal domestic stresses could lead to a marked decline in China’s ability to challenge the international order.
Pot, meet kettle.
Leninism is strategic deception and obfuscation of intentions?
Socialist states are always accused of this. The Soviet Politburo were constantly confused by the way the US would constantly knock down mutually beneficial proposals, claiming it was some kind of trap.
Xi has been nothing but open about his geopolitical aims for China, possibly too much so.
I am more and more convinced that what will ultimately bring about the fall of the US empire will be the arrogant dogma of US superiority that renders them unable to make any serious analysis of its competitors' motives, strengths and weaknesses.
The Chinese Communist Party may no longer be Marxist
yeah American deep state, keep thinking that!
"Zack Cooper is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also co-director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy and co-host of War on the Rocks’ Net Assessment podcast.
Hal Brands is the Henry A. Kissinger distinguished professor of global affairs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies."
:michael-laugh:
" It holds that Washington can still successfully shape Beijing’s behavior through the right mix of incentives, although it will have to rely more on collective pressure and less on positive inducements. It maintains the hope that the Chinese Communist Party may mellow over time: Even if Chinese President Xi Jinping has chosen confrontation, perhaps his successors will be more moderate. This approach thus relies on effective Sino-American diplomacy, not just to avoid war and identify possibilities for near-term cooperation but also to explore the possibility of a longer-term way of life."
Imagine thinking you have the authority to shape the policy of other countries
" perhaps his successors will be more moderate " wink wink nudge nudge
Imagine thinking we still have a long-term to work with.
some grade a historical revisionism too. Like it wasn't america who started this shit in the first place
IIrc, foreignpolicy is also the rag that published an article whose premise was that the concept of friendship does not exist in chinese culture.
you know -- the game we're all willingly playing with the planet and our lives! :biden-harbinger:
Not even collapse, this article didn't even mention the US 'losing' in any form as a possible outcome. It was literally "should we tolerate them and try for a mutually beneficial outcome, or should we use a new cold war to strangle them? Probably do the cold war option just to be safe"
Also, the long list of china's flaws are just massive projection - bubble economy, "irresponsible" covid response, unpopular government, dishonesty in their diplomacy, etc etc. Beyond parody.
Cope is a hell of a drug.
But I do wonder if a lot of these CIA/State Dept ghouls actually believe their own bullshit. Ultimately, these agencies are made of just... people. Nearly all of whom likely fit somewhere on that neoliberal/center-right line. We tend to think of them as cynical geniuses who totally understand realpolitik, Marxism, materialism, etc. They don't though. I think it's very possible a lot of these people actually believe capitalism and liberal democracy will always win in the end. Vis-a-vis China, this means they might genuinely believe the CPC isn't actually popular or that communism must mean no food so they are eventually destined to collapse. They probably think what happened to the USSR must also eventually happen to the PRC.
They're too dumb to realize that what happened to the USSR is precisely why it won't happen in China. They saw the actual results, and thus won't be as willing to fold.
Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union fall to pieces? An important reason is that in the ideological domain, competition is fierce! To completely repudiate the historical experience of the Soviet Union, to repudiate the history of the CPSU, to repudiate Lenin, to repudiate Stalin was to wreck chaos in Soviet ideology and engage in historical nihilism. It caused Party organizations at all levels to have barely any function whatsoever. It robbed the Party of its leadership of the military. In the end the CPSU—as great a Party as it was—scattered like a flock of frightened beasts! The Soviet Union—as great a country as it was—shattered into a dozen pieces. This is a lesson from the past!
So by the rule of contraposition, America will not at all win when China’s regime doesn’t fail?
Is this article arguing for critical support for the CCP?
ooh boy i can't wait for us to "win"! i'm really invested in that outcome! bet it'll be good for me personally!
Lmao eat shit you fucking hacks.
And these people dare to call Chinese people brainwashed and propagandized.
