You’re right about Mearsheimer. I did hear him sometimes say (to a Chinese audience) that he doesn’t advocate actual conflict with China. Presumably he just wants US to maintain military pressure on China, not outright military conflict.
I don’t know if that really represents his view or he was just softening his position for a Chinese audience.
But I never liked his claim that US should end the Ukraine conflict in order to focus on China. For one thing, the case for ending conflict in Ukraine stands on its own, and does not need to be justified on grounds of pursuing another opponent.
Also, Mearsheimer has condemned unequivocally the Gaza genocide, but he cannot see that his own zero sum framework leads logically to the Gaza genocide.
his biggest problem is he is a theorist who doesn't seem to have a grasp of present day economic and military realities. as a result, his advice may be useful for the US 20 years ago but outright delusional for today.
However, it seem to me that you are not completely familiar with Russia. Russia is a globalist colony with elites (Putin's oligarchs) worshiping the West. Putin is its colonial administrator and a pupil/recruit of Kissinger/Schwab [4][5]. E.g. #1 Russian CB is setup as US Fed [6][7], etc. E.g. #2 if you'd believe it, Putin has asked Bill Clinton, at the time, for Russia's NATO membership.
We need to realize that, Russia under Putin has been acting as an unofficial member of NATO - just look at their Trojan Horse role in Syria [8]. They betrayed everyone including Serbia [10], Libya, Armenia, Syria, and many others.
So the dynamics between Russia and China are not as clear-cut as you see it - China does not trust Russia, which is completely understandable, as they know the details I'm talking about.
[10] The regime changers Russia now rejects such talk as ‘color revolution,’ but Vladimir Putin and Bill Clinton discussed removing Slobodan Milosevic (Milošević) from power 20 years ago — Meduza
Mearsheimer's core values and beliefs were forged during the cold war and by his early military experience. The all v all concept of reality means America will be destroyed sooner rather than later. That is not a strategy to pursue.
Mearsheimer's issue is that he takes it for granted that America should pursue her own selfish interest of dominating other countries. His concrete analysis is good, e.g. in Ukraine or Palestine, but all his arguments take the form "what should America do to maximize her own power?"
From this position, he can say "America should not antagonize Russia, because it will not end well" and then analyze all the reasons America's actions in Ukraine were destructive. He can say "America should not support Israel, as Israel is draining America's resources and damaging her reputation without providing any value in return" and then analyze the horrors of the Gaza war.
But he cannot say "America's power over other countries is itself is the problem. America, during her unipolar moment, has shown that she is not a responsible steward of global affairs. She should apologize for her wrongdoing, abandon the desire for global supremacy, and instead allow other countries to gain power while working with them as equal partners". This argument would be considered anti-American and a betrayal of loyalty, no matter how true it may be. Mearsheimer does not seem ready to embrace such a position and it would be extremely difficult for him to do so while embedded in the American university system.
Those of us who are simply citizens, and who care more about peace and prosperity instead of loyalty to a particular government in Great Power politics, are more free to take that position. To that end I really appreciate you bringing a Chinese perspective to an American audience - building a shared narrative together is a great first step in defeating the propaganda that paints us as enemies.
I cannot agree with you more. A true patriot should be rational and define his national interest in a realistic and sustainable way. The zero sum mentality of neocons and quasi-neocons like Measheimer will be the undoing of your republic. Chesterton, a philosopher, said "there is nothing the matter with Americans except their ideals. The real American is all right. It's the ideal American who is all wrong." Maybe this is his warning of imperialists.
I do take issue with your comment about Brzezinski.
You state:
> A Realist should understand the US is in no position to win a major power war with China or Russia, through its proxies or directly. ..... Zbigniew Brzezinski understood this.
then you go on to state:
> Brzezinki defined the strategy of preserving US dominance as .....
"Preserving U.S. dominance": that was and still is, esp. now, completely delusional. In other words, Zbig was also a crackpot realist.
he started as a crackpot realist but changed his thoughts later in his life. he never quite became a neocon and remained rational. I agree maintaining US hegemon is delusional but whileI'm not a fan of any imperialist, I'll cut him some slack as he lived in the age of unipolarity.
same cannot be said about Mearsheimer who is among the living but blind to the realities of the world.
Thank you! I look forward to this: " real discussion about the role of Jews, Zionism, and Israel in American economic and political life. This is a topic I’ll explore in a future essay."
Every American scholar/academic has to walk the plank somewhere between dissidence and what might be seen as out right treason. Universities have lost much of their status as purveyors of impartial analysis and too many in their ivory towers remain expediently silent. Think tanks in too many ways have unfortunately replaced them.
Going to the very core of the global crisis is that the US is hell bent on global conquest and rejects detente, cooperation or rapprochement ..... and its resources for pursuing global conquest have and are depleting rapidly as it becomes a quarrelsome and fractured society.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine forty years later is still very much in play and ultimately destructive to the US. The idea that the US must subdue every country that challenges its dominance is an absurdity, especially when it only speaks for 4% of the world's population.
In his time George Bush Sr. referred to Wolfowitz, Cheney and other neocons as the " crazies in the basement".... now they have gone main stream and the debacle rolls on.
Lying by omission. This the modus operandi of deceivers like Mere sheister.
Any geopolitical analyst that at this point isn't focused on the 6 million pound elephant occupying the entirety of the American living room, and filling it with excrement, are to be regarded as fools or liars, or some combination of the two.
well written, yes, he probably is a false opposition. Also, yes, the China strategy their pushing is foolish***.
*** in the context of the stated rationale at least, there’s likely ulterior motives that make it make sense for them, but even there I suspect that unintended effects would make the strategy, if actually enacted, still ultimately foolish
When all the writer wants to do is insult his opponents, it screams of wounded pride, which is all I get from a whole sordid list of militant Chinamen. Revanchism and wounded pride is the underlaying sentiment of this and many previous posts.
In the Western and Eastern Christian tradition, as in the levantine Muslim one, pride is a deadly sin. Which it obviously is not in the Chinese tradition. As a writer you need to be aware of the jolting nature of your tone. This is not a criticism, just an observation.
In as much as these posts reflect such a view, they are useful.
China is a materialist, Communist dictatorship, that willy nilly copied Mussolini's non Marxist economic model. This later form of socialism, is the only form of socialism that does not result in economic ruin, and brings some level of prosperity to the greatest number of people. Calling China fascist is not an insult, it's a realistic use of the term. China's pivot after 1992 has been astounding in its breadth and depth, and the heights of success it has achieved in the last five years are outstanding and exceptional. What you fail to understand, is the sudden nature of this reality. In 1993, China was a third world shit hole, now it's one of the preeminent world economies, and the descendant of China's millenarian civilization. China is the one challenging the status quo, and must expect that accommodation to this new state of affairs will take time. China is acting like a bully because it wants immediate realization of its present greatness. Since China is in a rush for this to happen, it will not be able to negotiate the best deal. If China thinks it will be able to force a resolution, it is lacking in historical knowledge. The world was not remade in Europe's image because of good deeds, it succeeded because of its ability to fight and win wars.
The US and EU allowed China entry into the free trade world on the condition that once China's internal market was developed, the world's economy would be larger. The cost of exporting large chunks of the manufacturing economy to China, have taken a heavy political burden on the middle class of the US and Europe. The political toll has been extreme, and Trump and other populists are the result of this process. China did not honor its commitments. China has taken a purely mercantilist zero sum position, failed to develop its internal market, and refused to allow foreign firms to operate within China absent forceful know how transfer. China should therefore not be surprised if the US and the EU decide to change the terms of the engagement. China is the one not honoring its agreements. Yes, the US helped Europe after WWII, since it doubled the size of the market that US corporations got to sell into. But since then it has been a reciprocal affair, ditto with Korea and Japan. Trade frictions are mostly caused by China, a fact you rarely even perceive.
Lastly, you are making a moral equivalence argument between the US, Western European States and China. China is a communist tyrannical dictatorship. Even meeting China half way would be an admission of moral bankruptcy. Absent economic incentives because of China's lack of fair play in economic affairs, there will not be a middle ground. I do not see any valid reason, moral or otherwise, for countries like Japan or Korea to be part of "China's sphere of influence". Your Monroe Doctrine argument has no basis, and does not present a moral equivalence.
There is a reason why the finest of China's elites left China in the early and middle of the 20th century. Three Cultural Revolutions, forced marches and pure Marxist agrarian revolutions, resulted in the brutal death of sixty to ninety million Chinese people. That is the moral legacy of having Mao on your banknotes. Mao murdered everybody that belonged to the aristocracy, the landed classes, the monied classes, the business leaders and everybody with a university degree. The world is filled with the best of China's millenarian traditions and civilization. You will not only find them in the Western Hemisphere but also in places like Hong Kong, Singapore and in Taiwan. China did not honor its commitments in Hong Kong, and that is very well understood in Taipei. What makes you think any reasonable civilized China person would willingly want to become part of the People's Republic? The ROC exists precisely because of what the PRC is, a tyrannical democidal people's tyranny that refuses to acknowledge its history and has made no amends for it.
It would be morally bankrupt of the US and Europe individually and collectively to allow the good citizens of Taiwan to be subjected to communist rule. The cowardice of the UK is still fresh in everybody's mind, and China's unwillingness to even honor the little guarantees it gave the citizens of Hong Kong is a fact fraught with consequences.
The People's Republic of China has no valid claim to Taiwan.
If China thinks it will be able to enforce its entry onto the world stage solely on its terms by way of military confrontation, it will be sorely disappointed with the results.
Post Scriptum, I do not agree with Mearsheimer, but a plurality of opinions is better than a communist monoculture where freedom of thought is crushed with prejudice.
since you have gone to the trouble of writing (or copying and pasting) a long rant, I feel obligated to respond -
1. I write what I think for readers who are independent thinkers; my views may hurt the feelings of some ideologues but that's fine by me.
2. If you have differing views, you can make a point by point rebuttal against my thesis. No one needs to agree but I'd appreciate some logic and counterfacts rather than a ranting.
3. I write under my real name and the profile picture is mine. If you are honest about what you write, please put on your name and picuture and don't hide behind some online handle. If you feel what you say can be said under the sun, then man up. Otherwise, go back to the rock you have been hiding under.
4. I don't know where you are from and who you are but take a mirror and look at what your country has done and whether you are proud of it.
5. A free life advice. It's unbecoming to be a two-penny troll with racist rants writing on comment section of others' essays. Write and publish your thoughts for the world to see. I am sure your mother is proud of you.
An ad hominem attack always follows from a weak mind incapable of formulating a proper argument. Grow up, grow a backbone, and come up with a better rebuttal. Ad hominem attacks are weak, and so are you. Weak, vengeful and prideful are the best adjectives to describe your jingoistic arguments.
Keep the posts coming, it's useful to know how divorced from reality the Chinese revanchist crowd is.
You’re right about Mearsheimer. I did hear him sometimes say (to a Chinese audience) that he doesn’t advocate actual conflict with China. Presumably he just wants US to maintain military pressure on China, not outright military conflict.
I don’t know if that really represents his view or he was just softening his position for a Chinese audience.
But I never liked his claim that US should end the Ukraine conflict in order to focus on China. For one thing, the case for ending conflict in Ukraine stands on its own, and does not need to be justified on grounds of pursuing another opponent.
Also, Mearsheimer has condemned unequivocally the Gaza genocide, but he cannot see that his own zero sum framework leads logically to the Gaza genocide.
his biggest problem is he is a theorist who doesn't seem to have a grasp of present day economic and military realities. as a result, his advice may be useful for the US 20 years ago but outright delusional for today.
Thank you Oliver for your articles! Hard to find an intellectual tackling global affairs with a blog!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, it seem to me that you are not completely familiar with Russia. Russia is a globalist colony with elites (Putin's oligarchs) worshiping the West. Putin is its colonial administrator and a pupil/recruit of Kissinger/Schwab [4][5]. E.g. #1 Russian CB is setup as US Fed [6][7], etc. E.g. #2 if you'd believe it, Putin has asked Bill Clinton, at the time, for Russia's NATO membership.
We need to realize that, Russia under Putin has been acting as an unofficial member of NATO - just look at their Trojan Horse role in Syria [8]. They betrayed everyone including Serbia [10], Libya, Armenia, Syria, and many others.
So the dynamics between Russia and China are not as clear-cut as you see it - China does not trust Russia, which is completely understandable, as they know the details I'm talking about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You may check the following blogs [1][2][3] for more background on Russia, and some selected articles [4][5][6][7][8][9][10].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Articles Archive | Iurie Rosca | Yuri Roshka Substack
https://iurierosca.substack.com/archive?sort=new
[2] Articles Archive | Rurik Skywalker / Rolo Slavskiy Substack
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/archive?sort=new
[3] John Helmer Articles Archive - The Unz Review
https://www.unz.com/author/john-helmer/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[4] Resetting Without Schwab: Russia & the Fourth Industrial Revolution
( Riley Waggaman aka Edward Slavsquat | Whitney Webb | Unlimited Hangout ) | 2022-07
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/07/investigative-reports/resetting-without-schwab-russia-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/
[5] What the West gets wrong about Putin
https://unherd.com/2022/01/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-putin/
[6] Russia is getting gold-robbed | Riley Waggaman aka Edward Slavsquat | Feb-2022
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/russias-gold-is-being-robbed
[7] Why did Russia's largest bank empty its gold vaults? | Riley Waggaman aka Edward Slavsquat | Feb-2022
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/why-did-russias-largest-bank-empty
[8] The New Time of Troubles, Part II — Putin Overruled the General Staff, by John Helmer - The Unz Review | 2024-12-12
https://www.unz.com/article/the-new-time-of-troubles-part-ii-putin-overruled-the-general-staff/
[9] Partners and the Banana Republic of Russia | Iurie Rosca / Yuri Roshka Substack | Feb-2025
https://iurierosca.substack.com/p/american-partners-and-the-banana
[10] The regime changers Russia now rejects such talk as ‘color revolution,’ but Vladimir Putin and Bill Clinton discussed removing Slobodan Milosevic (Milošević) from power 20 years ago — Meduza
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2020/10/08/the-regime-changers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mearsheimer's core values and beliefs were forged during the cold war and by his early military experience. The all v all concept of reality means America will be destroyed sooner rather than later. That is not a strategy to pursue.
Good article!
Mearsheimer's issue is that he takes it for granted that America should pursue her own selfish interest of dominating other countries. His concrete analysis is good, e.g. in Ukraine or Palestine, but all his arguments take the form "what should America do to maximize her own power?"
From this position, he can say "America should not antagonize Russia, because it will not end well" and then analyze all the reasons America's actions in Ukraine were destructive. He can say "America should not support Israel, as Israel is draining America's resources and damaging her reputation without providing any value in return" and then analyze the horrors of the Gaza war.
But he cannot say "America's power over other countries is itself is the problem. America, during her unipolar moment, has shown that she is not a responsible steward of global affairs. She should apologize for her wrongdoing, abandon the desire for global supremacy, and instead allow other countries to gain power while working with them as equal partners". This argument would be considered anti-American and a betrayal of loyalty, no matter how true it may be. Mearsheimer does not seem ready to embrace such a position and it would be extremely difficult for him to do so while embedded in the American university system.
Those of us who are simply citizens, and who care more about peace and prosperity instead of loyalty to a particular government in Great Power politics, are more free to take that position. To that end I really appreciate you bringing a Chinese perspective to an American audience - building a shared narrative together is a great first step in defeating the propaganda that paints us as enemies.
I cannot agree with you more. A true patriot should be rational and define his national interest in a realistic and sustainable way. The zero sum mentality of neocons and quasi-neocons like Measheimer will be the undoing of your republic. Chesterton, a philosopher, said "there is nothing the matter with Americans except their ideals. The real American is all right. It's the ideal American who is all wrong." Maybe this is his warning of imperialists.
Nailed it..none can be trusted. Same cult. Full of insane ideologies and world perceptions.
A good analysis, thank you.
I do take issue with your comment about Brzezinski.
You state:
> A Realist should understand the US is in no position to win a major power war with China or Russia, through its proxies or directly. ..... Zbigniew Brzezinski understood this.
then you go on to state:
> Brzezinki defined the strategy of preserving US dominance as .....
"Preserving U.S. dominance": that was and still is, esp. now, completely delusional. In other words, Zbig was also a crackpot realist.
he started as a crackpot realist but changed his thoughts later in his life. he never quite became a neocon and remained rational. I agree maintaining US hegemon is delusional but whileI'm not a fan of any imperialist, I'll cut him some slack as he lived in the age of unipolarity.
same cannot be said about Mearsheimer who is among the living but blind to the realities of the world.
Yes, I agree with that observation. Thanks for setting that straight 😀
Thank you! I look forward to this: " real discussion about the role of Jews, Zionism, and Israel in American economic and political life. This is a topic I’ll explore in a future essay."
Brilliant and comprehensive analysis!
Every American scholar/academic has to walk the plank somewhere between dissidence and what might be seen as out right treason. Universities have lost much of their status as purveyors of impartial analysis and too many in their ivory towers remain expediently silent. Think tanks in too many ways have unfortunately replaced them.
Going to the very core of the global crisis is that the US is hell bent on global conquest and rejects detente, cooperation or rapprochement ..... and its resources for pursuing global conquest have and are depleting rapidly as it becomes a quarrelsome and fractured society.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine forty years later is still very much in play and ultimately destructive to the US. The idea that the US must subdue every country that challenges its dominance is an absurdity, especially when it only speaks for 4% of the world's population.
In his time George Bush Sr. referred to Wolfowitz, Cheney and other neocons as the " crazies in the basement".... now they have gone main stream and the debacle rolls on.
Hua, I enjoy writing and analysis. Which books about China would you recommend an American read, particularly about its history and culture?
I listed the books on my own shelf on China written by western writers in my interview with Mike Whitney. The list is in the end of the article. https://huabinoliver.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-chinas-meteoric-rise
My favorite writers about Chinese history are John King Fairbanks, Ezra Vogel, and John Keay.
To be fair to Mearsheimer, he said on multiple occasions that trying to peel Russia off from China has very little chance of succeeding.
Lying by omission. This the modus operandi of deceivers like Mere sheister.
Any geopolitical analyst that at this point isn't focused on the 6 million pound elephant occupying the entirety of the American living room, and filling it with excrement, are to be regarded as fools or liars, or some combination of the two.
Walmsley on limitations USA faces over Ukraine
https://open.substack.com/pub/kdwalmsley/p/ukraine-has-broken-the-eu-now-theyre?r=1nbjd&utm_medium=ios
well written, yes, he probably is a false opposition. Also, yes, the China strategy their pushing is foolish***.
*** in the context of the stated rationale at least, there’s likely ulterior motives that make it make sense for them, but even there I suspect that unintended effects would make the strategy, if actually enacted, still ultimately foolish
When all the writer wants to do is insult his opponents, it screams of wounded pride, which is all I get from a whole sordid list of militant Chinamen. Revanchism and wounded pride is the underlaying sentiment of this and many previous posts.
In the Western and Eastern Christian tradition, as in the levantine Muslim one, pride is a deadly sin. Which it obviously is not in the Chinese tradition. As a writer you need to be aware of the jolting nature of your tone. This is not a criticism, just an observation.
In as much as these posts reflect such a view, they are useful.
China is a materialist, Communist dictatorship, that willy nilly copied Mussolini's non Marxist economic model. This later form of socialism, is the only form of socialism that does not result in economic ruin, and brings some level of prosperity to the greatest number of people. Calling China fascist is not an insult, it's a realistic use of the term. China's pivot after 1992 has been astounding in its breadth and depth, and the heights of success it has achieved in the last five years are outstanding and exceptional. What you fail to understand, is the sudden nature of this reality. In 1993, China was a third world shit hole, now it's one of the preeminent world economies, and the descendant of China's millenarian civilization. China is the one challenging the status quo, and must expect that accommodation to this new state of affairs will take time. China is acting like a bully because it wants immediate realization of its present greatness. Since China is in a rush for this to happen, it will not be able to negotiate the best deal. If China thinks it will be able to force a resolution, it is lacking in historical knowledge. The world was not remade in Europe's image because of good deeds, it succeeded because of its ability to fight and win wars.
The US and EU allowed China entry into the free trade world on the condition that once China's internal market was developed, the world's economy would be larger. The cost of exporting large chunks of the manufacturing economy to China, have taken a heavy political burden on the middle class of the US and Europe. The political toll has been extreme, and Trump and other populists are the result of this process. China did not honor its commitments. China has taken a purely mercantilist zero sum position, failed to develop its internal market, and refused to allow foreign firms to operate within China absent forceful know how transfer. China should therefore not be surprised if the US and the EU decide to change the terms of the engagement. China is the one not honoring its agreements. Yes, the US helped Europe after WWII, since it doubled the size of the market that US corporations got to sell into. But since then it has been a reciprocal affair, ditto with Korea and Japan. Trade frictions are mostly caused by China, a fact you rarely even perceive.
Lastly, you are making a moral equivalence argument between the US, Western European States and China. China is a communist tyrannical dictatorship. Even meeting China half way would be an admission of moral bankruptcy. Absent economic incentives because of China's lack of fair play in economic affairs, there will not be a middle ground. I do not see any valid reason, moral or otherwise, for countries like Japan or Korea to be part of "China's sphere of influence". Your Monroe Doctrine argument has no basis, and does not present a moral equivalence.
There is a reason why the finest of China's elites left China in the early and middle of the 20th century. Three Cultural Revolutions, forced marches and pure Marxist agrarian revolutions, resulted in the brutal death of sixty to ninety million Chinese people. That is the moral legacy of having Mao on your banknotes. Mao murdered everybody that belonged to the aristocracy, the landed classes, the monied classes, the business leaders and everybody with a university degree. The world is filled with the best of China's millenarian traditions and civilization. You will not only find them in the Western Hemisphere but also in places like Hong Kong, Singapore and in Taiwan. China did not honor its commitments in Hong Kong, and that is very well understood in Taipei. What makes you think any reasonable civilized China person would willingly want to become part of the People's Republic? The ROC exists precisely because of what the PRC is, a tyrannical democidal people's tyranny that refuses to acknowledge its history and has made no amends for it.
It would be morally bankrupt of the US and Europe individually and collectively to allow the good citizens of Taiwan to be subjected to communist rule. The cowardice of the UK is still fresh in everybody's mind, and China's unwillingness to even honor the little guarantees it gave the citizens of Hong Kong is a fact fraught with consequences.
The People's Republic of China has no valid claim to Taiwan.
If China thinks it will be able to enforce its entry onto the world stage solely on its terms by way of military confrontation, it will be sorely disappointed with the results.
Post Scriptum, I do not agree with Mearsheimer, but a plurality of opinions is better than a communist monoculture where freedom of thought is crushed with prejudice.
since you have gone to the trouble of writing (or copying and pasting) a long rant, I feel obligated to respond -
1. I write what I think for readers who are independent thinkers; my views may hurt the feelings of some ideologues but that's fine by me.
2. If you have differing views, you can make a point by point rebuttal against my thesis. No one needs to agree but I'd appreciate some logic and counterfacts rather than a ranting.
3. I write under my real name and the profile picture is mine. If you are honest about what you write, please put on your name and picuture and don't hide behind some online handle. If you feel what you say can be said under the sun, then man up. Otherwise, go back to the rock you have been hiding under.
4. I don't know where you are from and who you are but take a mirror and look at what your country has done and whether you are proud of it.
5. A free life advice. It's unbecoming to be a two-penny troll with racist rants writing on comment section of others' essays. Write and publish your thoughts for the world to see. I am sure your mother is proud of you.
An ad hominem attack always follows from a weak mind incapable of formulating a proper argument. Grow up, grow a backbone, and come up with a better rebuttal. Ad hominem attacks are weak, and so are you. Weak, vengeful and prideful are the best adjectives to describe your jingoistic arguments.
Keep the posts coming, it's useful to know how divorced from reality the Chinese revanchist crowd is.
I think you are conflating his theory of offensive realism with his personal views.
I have watched enough of his interviews and speeches to know his personal views, provided he is being honest in his remarks.
But Chinese treat him like a rockstar in China, swarming him with book autographs requests. 🤭
the same reason Chinese like Trump. people like them are bad for the US