China's view is the attitude of a mature adult: Not everyone (or every country) needs to be like you. The West feels a need to inject moralism into any and every interaction, and then when other countries don't fully agree, to use force (military, economic, etc.) to bring the other party into line. China just asks: "Does this country respect my sovereignty?", and beyond that says "You do you." At this point, China is making an explicit albeit largely tacit contrast with the United States as far as staying out of other people's business while pursuing constructive relationships with as many countries as possible. Peace, mutually beneficial commerce and mutual respect: What a radical idea!
Better is to be a military who does not need to ally with anyone. Makes one wonder though why China is holding so many military exercises with other nations if they have no shared interests.
Setting aside my own openly-admitted rooting biases that you may recall, I do want to offer a bit of advice as a member of one ostensibly declining power to yourself as a member of an ostensibly rising power:
Beware being the bank. By your own analogy, America was in your very position barely a century ago. We sported the most powerful industrial base, and it won us two of the largest wars the world had ever seen.
And to make it all happen, we needed banking. Financing is always critical to any endeavor, no?! But we let it overtake our entire political economy. It made us decadent, and it made us slaves to an executive class that sold our country out.
The seedlings of this are already visible in China’s reformed market-socialist system (I’m just approximating here, let’s not quibble over specific nomenclature!). Thus, I don’t mean to belittle China when I say this, but as it’s pretty well-known and documented that China has been laid low in the past by its pride, like every other great civilization of the world… but don’t let yourselves become so prideful that you fall into the same trap.
Assuming that China takes the mantle of world leadership one way or another, you will likely experience some great victories of one kind or another. Many will be tempted to revel in the dominance, and they will be completely justified by those recent victories. And nothing lasts forever. But as someone experiencing just how much it sucks to see everything I hold dear be undermined by the worst and stupidest people we can offer… just be careful.
Again, just wanted to set aside the rooting biases and offer as friendly a word as can be offered.
Well, I am sceptical to Deng Shao Ping´s "preparing socialism" capitalist project. China has "lifted 400 millions out of poverty" - but out to what? And China is leading in climate technology, but can climate technology solve the climate crisis? No, that can only much reduced growth and consumption.
Ok, China is not militaristic aggressive like the US and the EU, but I miss a political ethical compass from the so-called communist party in China with a subsequent position. China must have some values it actively pursues, thus China can not go on remaining neutral and cautious. For example, China must have a stance about the Nazi coup regime in Kiev, but it doesn´t dare to support Russia militarily for fear of reprisals from the US and the EU. And if the people of Taiwan want "independence" - of course provided that China can be guaranteed that Taiwan will not become an American base from which China is threatened, China can not demand Taiwan be incorporated into China.
The urgent requirement if you're living in poverty is to get out of it. Then you can start worrying about the enviable problems that face those not living in poverty. And why should China care about Russian wars being fought at the other end of Eurasia? The only thing they have in common with Russia is that they're both big autocracies.
Right, one shall not idealise poverty, but living a simple life with less stress may also have potential benefits. So as with everything it is a matter of balance.
And why should Russia care about China when China will be targeted by Nato ( the US and the EU)?
Democracies versus autocracies. Don't you use the same simple rhetorics as the West?
I agree to an extent (aside from SCS/Taiwan), but maintaining the order that allows China to function as a bank entails certain responsibilities, in my opinion. As US has carried much of the burden of providing the environment in which China can freely function, would it not be appropriate that some method of collecting the costs of maintaining that system not be collected if China chooses not to participate or throws up roadblocks, such as buying Iranian and Russian oil? It does not have to be tariffs, but it does not strike me as an unreasonable method.
Some orders are necessary for maintaining the order that China can also freely trade in. Some, however, are exactly the cause of the problems we are facing today. For instance, had NATO ceased to exist after the Cold War ended, instead of ever enlarging to the east, would we really have the same problem in Ukraine as we are having today? Asking China to pick a side in a war that should have been avoided in a more reasonable world, is, frankly speaking, unreasonable. And this is exactly what I mean by looking into the mirror: grouping countries into allies vs enemies may just be the cause of this world’s ills and should have been outlawed in the first place, maybe in a new world order.
I do not judge it to be that simple. The Eastern bloc countries had been controlled by the USSR for approximately 50 years, and threats do not go away overnight. There is a period of building trust, and Russia was on that track to an extent, despite serious internal problems. NATO responded by disarming (becoming irrelevant in large part) and tying itself to Russian gas. Had Russia succeeded in becoming like Western (and new Eastern European) NATO partners, NATO's primary purpose of keeping Russia out would have gone away.
Russia was overly paranoid, and the Ukrainians were right when they said Russia would violate their agreement when Ukraine agreed to give up nukes in return for "kind of" guarantees.
GHWB made position clear when the USSR disbanded. Although there was much debate on the topic, there was no agreement not to extend NATO eastward beyond East Germany. What can one say? Country disintegration is ugly, and it is in the past. In the meantime, one stands with friends in my neighborhood.
«the Ukrainians were right when they said Russia would violate their agreement when Ukraine agreed to give up nukes in return for "kind of" guarantees.»
The nukes belonged to the USSR and the RF is the successor state to the USSR, and only the RF government had the launch codes anyhow. If Montana left the USA the USA ICBMs and nukes in Montana would not then belong to Montana making it a major nuclear power...
The Budapest Memorandum of Understanding (while not being a binding treaty) anyhow committed the ukrainian government to friendship with the RF government and to neutrality in general; the same for the previous treaties on the dissolution of the USSR and the CIS treaties and the ukrainian government violated first that MOU and all those treaties, as well as the Minsk I and II treaties.
Double check: Kazakhstan had the same MOU and treaties and since it did not violate them as shamefully as the ukrainian government there is no dispute between RF and Kazakhstan even if the Kazakhstan oligarchs are very friendly with the USA but not to the point of being willing to start a proxy war for them. There is nothing like the Azov/UPA/Bandera fascists in Kazakhstan eager to kill russians.
The general picture is that all this happened because the US badly wanted a proxy war (in Ukraine, Georgia, etc.) with the RF and while the RF really wanted to avoid any wars.
I've read the document. There was no agreement of friendship express or implied and certainly not one where Russia gets to define friendship. Russia guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty as US and UK did. Russia violated it; it's really that simple, but there is no court of law at that level to go to enforce the agreement.
My view is that Russia wants to redo the breakup of the Soviet Union as it pines for the days of empire. Trump has offered them US friendship and it being willing to turn away from NATO commitments. I think that is a sweet deal but if it is to be empire, no choice in my mind but to continue supporting Ukraine and NATO.
As for launch codes...please.
As for a successor to the Soviet Union, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, although I see the argument that it was merely a state conquered by Russia. In that scenario, I'd have kept the nukes if it were not for Russia's agreement not to violate the sovereignty. One can make foolish arguments all day long and Russia is quite good at it but I think it is time to stop and take the US deal of it aligning with Russia.
I suspect China will continue to do what the press ignores, which is keep taking up Iran's case at the U.N. This won't do much to slow down the USA from it's lobotomy, but it does help just a little bit with sharpening the blade so there is less chance of a false cut to the cranium.
One other thing, the merchants of death are Chinese, but do they represent China? The comment section notes about how the zero-factories are creating long term problems for China, not dissimilar to what US (and Canadian ie: Rockerfeller) mining corporations have done for the USA, and what's interesting is apparently the Chinese Consulates are apparently in the pockets of these money interest as bad as the American Consulates are for theirs. I expect China's rare earth export restrictions will be undermined, etc. All of this to point out that there are interests in China that would sell the rope to hang China.
China's view is the attitude of a mature adult: Not everyone (or every country) needs to be like you. The West feels a need to inject moralism into any and every interaction, and then when other countries don't fully agree, to use force (military, economic, etc.) to bring the other party into line. China just asks: "Does this country respect my sovereignty?", and beyond that says "You do you." At this point, China is making an explicit albeit largely tacit contrast with the United States as far as staying out of other people's business while pursuing constructive relationships with as many countries as possible. Peace, mutually beneficial commerce and mutual respect: What a radical idea!
Exactly. Thank you for this comment.
I enyoued your article and analysis even though I never watched GOT
You should! It’s a great show
A military ally with no one. That's a good place to be.
Better is to be a military who does not need to ally with anyone. Makes one wonder though why China is holding so many military exercises with other nations if they have no shared interests.
Setting aside my own openly-admitted rooting biases that you may recall, I do want to offer a bit of advice as a member of one ostensibly declining power to yourself as a member of an ostensibly rising power:
Beware being the bank. By your own analogy, America was in your very position barely a century ago. We sported the most powerful industrial base, and it won us two of the largest wars the world had ever seen.
And to make it all happen, we needed banking. Financing is always critical to any endeavor, no?! But we let it overtake our entire political economy. It made us decadent, and it made us slaves to an executive class that sold our country out.
The seedlings of this are already visible in China’s reformed market-socialist system (I’m just approximating here, let’s not quibble over specific nomenclature!). Thus, I don’t mean to belittle China when I say this, but as it’s pretty well-known and documented that China has been laid low in the past by its pride, like every other great civilization of the world… but don’t let yourselves become so prideful that you fall into the same trap.
Assuming that China takes the mantle of world leadership one way or another, you will likely experience some great victories of one kind or another. Many will be tempted to revel in the dominance, and they will be completely justified by those recent victories. And nothing lasts forever. But as someone experiencing just how much it sucks to see everything I hold dear be undermined by the worst and stupidest people we can offer… just be careful.
Again, just wanted to set aside the rooting biases and offer as friendly a word as can be offered.
Well, I am sceptical to Deng Shao Ping´s "preparing socialism" capitalist project. China has "lifted 400 millions out of poverty" - but out to what? And China is leading in climate technology, but can climate technology solve the climate crisis? No, that can only much reduced growth and consumption.
Ok, China is not militaristic aggressive like the US and the EU, but I miss a political ethical compass from the so-called communist party in China with a subsequent position. China must have some values it actively pursues, thus China can not go on remaining neutral and cautious. For example, China must have a stance about the Nazi coup regime in Kiev, but it doesn´t dare to support Russia militarily for fear of reprisals from the US and the EU. And if the people of Taiwan want "independence" - of course provided that China can be guaranteed that Taiwan will not become an American base from which China is threatened, China can not demand Taiwan be incorporated into China.
The urgent requirement if you're living in poverty is to get out of it. Then you can start worrying about the enviable problems that face those not living in poverty. And why should China care about Russian wars being fought at the other end of Eurasia? The only thing they have in common with Russia is that they're both big autocracies.
Right, one shall not idealise poverty, but living a simple life with less stress may also have potential benefits. So as with everything it is a matter of balance.
And why should Russia care about China when China will be targeted by Nato ( the US and the EU)?
Democracies versus autocracies. Don't you use the same simple rhetorics as the West?
I agree to an extent (aside from SCS/Taiwan), but maintaining the order that allows China to function as a bank entails certain responsibilities, in my opinion. As US has carried much of the burden of providing the environment in which China can freely function, would it not be appropriate that some method of collecting the costs of maintaining that system not be collected if China chooses not to participate or throws up roadblocks, such as buying Iranian and Russian oil? It does not have to be tariffs, but it does not strike me as an unreasonable method.
Some orders are necessary for maintaining the order that China can also freely trade in. Some, however, are exactly the cause of the problems we are facing today. For instance, had NATO ceased to exist after the Cold War ended, instead of ever enlarging to the east, would we really have the same problem in Ukraine as we are having today? Asking China to pick a side in a war that should have been avoided in a more reasonable world, is, frankly speaking, unreasonable. And this is exactly what I mean by looking into the mirror: grouping countries into allies vs enemies may just be the cause of this world’s ills and should have been outlawed in the first place, maybe in a new world order.
I do not judge it to be that simple. The Eastern bloc countries had been controlled by the USSR for approximately 50 years, and threats do not go away overnight. There is a period of building trust, and Russia was on that track to an extent, despite serious internal problems. NATO responded by disarming (becoming irrelevant in large part) and tying itself to Russian gas. Had Russia succeeded in becoming like Western (and new Eastern European) NATO partners, NATO's primary purpose of keeping Russia out would have gone away.
Russia was overly paranoid, and the Ukrainians were right when they said Russia would violate their agreement when Ukraine agreed to give up nukes in return for "kind of" guarantees.
GHWB made position clear when the USSR disbanded. Although there was much debate on the topic, there was no agreement not to extend NATO eastward beyond East Germany. What can one say? Country disintegration is ugly, and it is in the past. In the meantime, one stands with friends in my neighborhood.
«the Ukrainians were right when they said Russia would violate their agreement when Ukraine agreed to give up nukes in return for "kind of" guarantees.»
The nukes belonged to the USSR and the RF is the successor state to the USSR, and only the RF government had the launch codes anyhow. If Montana left the USA the USA ICBMs and nukes in Montana would not then belong to Montana making it a major nuclear power...
The Budapest Memorandum of Understanding (while not being a binding treaty) anyhow committed the ukrainian government to friendship with the RF government and to neutrality in general; the same for the previous treaties on the dissolution of the USSR and the CIS treaties and the ukrainian government violated first that MOU and all those treaties, as well as the Minsk I and II treaties.
Double check: Kazakhstan had the same MOU and treaties and since it did not violate them as shamefully as the ukrainian government there is no dispute between RF and Kazakhstan even if the Kazakhstan oligarchs are very friendly with the USA but not to the point of being willing to start a proxy war for them. There is nothing like the Azov/UPA/Bandera fascists in Kazakhstan eager to kill russians.
The general picture is that all this happened because the US badly wanted a proxy war (in Ukraine, Georgia, etc.) with the RF and while the RF really wanted to avoid any wars.
I've read the document. There was no agreement of friendship express or implied and certainly not one where Russia gets to define friendship. Russia guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty as US and UK did. Russia violated it; it's really that simple, but there is no court of law at that level to go to enforce the agreement.
My view is that Russia wants to redo the breakup of the Soviet Union as it pines for the days of empire. Trump has offered them US friendship and it being willing to turn away from NATO commitments. I think that is a sweet deal but if it is to be empire, no choice in my mind but to continue supporting Ukraine and NATO.
As for launch codes...please.
As for a successor to the Soviet Union, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, although I see the argument that it was merely a state conquered by Russia. In that scenario, I'd have kept the nukes if it were not for Russia's agreement not to violate the sovereignty. One can make foolish arguments all day long and Russia is quite good at it but I think it is time to stop and take the US deal of it aligning with Russia.
I suspect China will continue to do what the press ignores, which is keep taking up Iran's case at the U.N. This won't do much to slow down the USA from it's lobotomy, but it does help just a little bit with sharpening the blade so there is less chance of a false cut to the cranium.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/05/despite-chinas-warning-us-has-opened-new-front-in-trade-war-with-investment-restrictions-in-uk-pact.html
One other thing, the merchants of death are Chinese, but do they represent China? The comment section notes about how the zero-factories are creating long term problems for China, not dissimilar to what US (and Canadian ie: Rockerfeller) mining corporations have done for the USA, and what's interesting is apparently the Chinese Consulates are apparently in the pockets of these money interest as bad as the American Consulates are for theirs. I expect China's rare earth export restrictions will be undermined, etc. All of this to point out that there are interests in China that would sell the rope to hang China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQMfglDUKwU&t=780s
Another interesting view on China from the car as the blob drives it toward a cliff.