China to EU: Russian defeat in Ukraine may push US to target Beijing next

[PurpleTree]

10 minutes ago, zazen said:

Yeah and the thumbnails haha so cringe. But he’s got some good interviews like with Alastair Crook and this Victor Gao’s a straight talker from China who was on chanel 4 etc. Hate what social media and algorithm whoring has done.

I think many commentators are valid for appreciating China and what it’s done, but they gotta be careful not get into glazing mode - it can definitely look like that.

China actually has a crappy geography (scarce water and arable land) that makes it vulnerable, with an enormous  population to feed and keep stable - yet it’s done very well despite that.  Meanwhile the US is geographically blessed and with a much smaller population to feed and maintain in comparison.

China has already surpassed the US in PPP terms (purchasing power parity) and will surpass it in nominal GDP (dollar terms) in the coming years. That shows us that China is competent in overcoming challenges and constraints - that it’s an enduring civilization and had an aberration of weakness in its 5’000 year history. Now a 250 year old baby country is trying dictate to it and slow it down. How audacious.

I mean China has a population of 1.4 B compared to like 350 M so yeah. And the West helped make China rich and still does. Not taking away from China’s hard work and strategy. But because of the huge market many westerners got greedy and technology transfer and so on. They’re playing the long game, it’s fair. Westerners can blame themselves for being greedy. People like Mershheimer are quite pessimistic for Chinas demographics.

 

10 minutes ago, zazen said:

Ngl though wish Europe had some more dynamism - I hope it doesn’t get left behind US and China, but then again Europes charm is its old world feel and slower pace.

We need some good people at the helm. Von der Leyen is crap. Get Germany away from the helm anyway. Let maybe nordics lead.

Edited Monday at 11:06 PM by PurpleTree

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

6 hours ago, zazen said:

I don’t think the major powers want war with each other - far too much risk today. The Thucydides trap in which majority of rising powers went to war the hegemon of the time is the model being projected onto today - but today we have nuclear deterrence and are economically integrated / globalised.

But then again, we are in the economic de-coupling phase to ensure dependencies don’t exist - which means being more resilient for a potential war if it were to happen or if it’s desired. One aspect is simply to contain China’s rise, the other is to have war as a possible option on the table.

Empire logic isn’t simply after profit but primacy. So even if we live in a bi-polar world where both sides (West vs East) are self reliant and gain abundance through tech advancements and AI - that doesn’t stop the imperial minded to want to be number 1 and bring down the peer competitor.

Maybe nuclear isn’t enough of a deterrence either (India-Pakistan recently happened). Certain powers can be crazy enough to think war will remain conventional and thar the other side wouldn’t dare touch the nukes. Like in a street fight where both parties throw the guns away to fist fight lol

Victor Gao brings up the old lens (as you mention) being used for today at 20 min here:

Far right nationalism of today is also different to that of the past. The past was expansionist nationalism, today’s is more isolationist. Previous nationalism wanted to expand imperially and conquer land due to no fixed borders + lack of international law framework. Today’s nationalism wants to actually protect itself from being hollowed out and swallowed by globalisation. 

That doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be flashpoints and friction, just that total war like the old days is unlikely - friction but not really a fracture. The great powers will exhaust every other avenue (trade, tech, cyber and propaganda warfare) before going for it kinetically, if they ever even do. 

No country would be able to convince it's citizens - men or women - that war is a good idea. There are too many ways to get informed now. Historically and today (20th -21th century) country leaders/dictators had to spend a lot of time and resources to convince the citizens of these countries that war was a good idea. You can't do that anymore

[Basman]

9 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

That’s hogwash. The US always supported (rightwing) dictatoships and regime changed democratically elected governments who didn’t suit them. Also Saudi and Qatar etc. are close allies.

American hegemony depends on democratically established countries maintaining their stability. These are economies which American way of life depend on. It is a different matter when you have backwater country to which the only interest are certain resources or they help stabilize the region. The middle-east aren't going to have any democracies anytime soon anyway. It has been tried.

Trump's isolationism will and already has hurt America's position as a global power.

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

No country would be able to convince it's citizens - men or women - that war is a good idea. There are too many ways to get informed now. Historically and today (20th -21th century) country leaders/dictators had to spend a lot of time and resources to convince the citizens of these countries that war was a good idea. You can't do that anymore

Russia did.
Also Russia didn't care and sent them anyway.

[zazen]

12 minutes ago, Basman said:

American hegemony depends on democratically established countries maintaining their stability. These are economies which American way of life depend on. It is a different matter when you have backwater country to which the only interest are certain resources or they help stabilize the region. The middle-east aren't going to have any democracies anytime soon anyway. It has been tried.

Trump's isolationism will and already has hurt America's position as a global power.

The only democracy the US cares about is the one it can control, which is no democracy at all.

American hegemony depends on the US dollar, 700 military bases, and a financial system they weaponise. Their muscle (military industrial complex - deep state empire elite) fires the shots so that their capital elites can call the shots (market access and subservience to western finance and corporations). Whether a democracy or a dictator are on the end of that deal is irrelevant to the empire.

The push for democracy when it does exist is usually a Trojan horse to subvert a country away from its interests and toward the empires. It will hijack any organic ground movement and amplify it to “democratically win” - part of that win will include kissing the ring of the one who helped get them into power. If they go rogue, you know what’s next, back to firing shots lol

The American way of life (consumerism) depends heavily on China who isn’t a democracy. It’s the largest trading partner for majority of the world - all the American branded products the world enjoys is being manufactured and shipped  through an anti-democracy.

America hurt itself when it abused its position of globalisation. Much of the world would prefer it if America isolated itself to its own region and got out of their business. Trump is isolating America diplomatically and rhetorically but not empire wise - pressuring allies to spend on military is just sharing the cost of empire rather than withdrawing it. 

Essentially - let Europe deal with the Ukraine quagmire and Russia, while pivoting to Asia to go after flaming dragon.

Even if American empire retreated to is own region, it’s lost a lot of goodwill it initially started with because of its imperial behaviour there. Just see the first minute of this where Brazils Lula literally calls the US out for all its coups in South America:

 

[Basman]

17 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Russia did.
Also Russia didn't care and sent them anyway.

Russia is highly depoliticized. A generation of men dying on the front line isn't seen as a national issue but like a private matter between individuals and the state. They took a bad deal and lost or where just unlucky. 

[Ajay0]

34 minutes ago, Basman said:

American hegemony depends on democratically established countries maintaining their stability.

US brought down democratically elected south american governments when they went against American corporate policies and created people friendly policies, and replaced then with brutal military dictatorships which favored the policies and dominance of us companies over there.

This is all well known and this is a major reason why latin America is perpetually at odds with the US and the west. 

Short-term greed and unethical policies have led to this long-term western debacle over there and which is often cited to show the hypocrisy of the Americans as self-styled champion of democracy and human rights which they are not. 

The very democractic countries in south america they dismantled were more democratic and humane than the US, and their shortcoming was that they lacked the economic and military power of the US.

[Basman]

The difference is those countries aren't world leading economies with close historical and cultural ties. Democracy becomes an obstacle for US interest  if for example a South American country seeks to nationalize it's oil industry and raise prices. American politics is also very much in bed with corporations, who's interest the government protects at times, like with those banana republics. Or private oil companies. The US was also fighting to prevent communism in the South at the time.

Being corrupt doesn't refute that America is broadly pro-democracy though because it is generally good for business. In the case of the pacific, it is of great importance to maintain regional stability for the US.

Edited yesterday at 08:14 AM by Basman

[Ajay0]

21 minutes ago, Basman said:

The difference is those countries aren't world leading economies with close historical and cultural ties. Democracy becomes an obstacle for US interest  if for example a South American country seeks to nationalize it's oil industry and raise prices. American politics is also very much in bed with corporations, who's interest the government protects at times, like with those banana republics.

Mexico nationalizing its oil industry had angered the western companies over there who had been exploiting them. The nationalization led to a western boycott of Mexico in order to coerce Mexico to turn back its decision.

However the second world war came in handy for Mexico , as most western colonial nations divided in military alliances, were busy fighting each other and had need for oil, and they eagerly pardoned Mexico for the same. The mexican nationalist model greatly boosted its economy and revenue, and  became a reference for other oil producing nations as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_oil_expropriation#:~:text=oil company%2C PEMEX.-,Oil Expropriation Day%2C March 18%2C 1938,Eagle Petroleum Company) operating companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lázaro_Cárdenas

Cardenas is considered to be one of the greatest democratically elected leaders of the twentieth century, noted for his efficiency and ethical character.

It is possible that if it weren't for the second world war, he might have been similarly replaced by a military dictatorship with western assistance turning back its oil nationalisation program.

Edited yesterday at 08:29 AM by Ajay0

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Basman said:

Russia is highly depoliticized. A generation of men dying on the front line isn't seen as a national issue but like a private matter between individuals and the state. They took a bad deal and lost or where just unlucky. 

Well Russia is one and they won't be much different to China, North Korea etc. They'll die in droves for the state, either from threatening them or propaganda.

The poster said it'll be impossible to convince people. I'm saying they are already ready to do so.

If they mean it'll be impossible to convince a democratic country to attack another, no, i've seen it happen before. But it won't even need that it'll just need to be framed as defense. For example, I've seen the almost entire electorate weaponised against immigration and now in the name of economic benefit,  which is such a farcical position I wonder if I am living in an alternative universe.

 

Edited yesterday at 09:51 AM by BlueOak

[Hayato]

On 8/4/2025 at 7:14 AM, OmniNaut said:

BTW, why is this not classified as WWIII yet?

 

This video answers your question.

 

 

[Basman]

4 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

 For example, I've seen the almost entire electorate weaponised against immigration and now in the name of economic benefit,  which is such a farcical position I wonder if I am living in an alternative universe.

Illegal/unwanted immigrants aren't sovereign citizens though. It is a bad example.

When a country moves against immigration it is always because there is an undercurrent sense of one's sovereignty being at stake.

Democratic countries are unlikely to ever really go directly at war with each other because they are too intertwined for that to even be an option. They are all westernized and roughly the same level of development. Unless something radical happens.