Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Pxx's avatar

A position of neutrality in the name of free economic development and non-interference is of course the ideal one in theory, but in practice the other large power is not playing by that rule at all.

What it means in practice, and it has been the case so far and to this day, is that US has a blank check to sabotage China's trade partners one by one. Countries directly adjacent to China are perhaps easier to defend, but if the pattern of US and its vassals getting unlimited free hits vs countries not directly adjacent to China, then it rather undermines the vision of making bilateral and multilateral partnerships around the world.

In short, I think reality will sooner or later compel PRC to do as the USSR did - with the necessary ideological modifications of course - and actively sponsor "wars of national liberation" from the US-hegemony system.

If Iran goes the way of Libya and Syria, and then Pakistan, and so on and so on, then indeed China will never be considered a "peer" of the US. It's that simple. One can of course point to necessary conditions for active support, to do with the suitability of government in the countries in question. But if one is too picky, there will be no results at all. US is not picky in the slightest when is in the cold-war proxy mode.

Expand full comment
Daniel Rich's avatar

During the Korean and Vietnam war, China didn't have to keep an eye on its purse [trade]. when coming to the aide of its neighbors. Imho, today she does, and that might hamper [influence] her actions in/with/during these conflicts.

This is an observation, not a judgement.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts