China nowadays has the capacity to steamroll half of asia into compliance. Instead they build alliances/partnerships via trade, even with countries they ideologically disagree with. It’s less profitable in the short-term but leads to more predictable and stable development in the region, which benefits them massively in the long-term. Crazy what you can do if you think in centuries and not quarters.
They don’t have capacity to deal with the US intervening. If not for that, they would 100% be steamrolling everything they could. They’ve done it many times before and they’ll do it again, just like everybody else in history.
China has successfully withstood US intervention and helped communist forces prevail in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. They also semi-successfully done the same in Korea.
They don’t fear US intervention much, it’s just that their modern foreign policy is targeted at stability and growth rather than immediate overthrow of capitalism.
If China tried to invade a country, that would give the US an excuse to come to that country’s defense, and China does not have the resources to deal with that. Since they can’t use hard power, they’re using soft power.
Expecting altruism in geopolitics is hopelessly naïve.
¿Por qué no los dos? I mean, if you actually go to developing nations you will see that they are investing into real infrastructure that improves the standards of living dramatically. They also intend to turn some profit off of it. Most likely much of that profit will be in building long-term economic relations, rather than immediate rent-seeking, which can be viewed as “trapping nations in debt traps”, or as “investing into development”. They also invest with much fewer strings attached compared to IMF, which is a win comparatively speaking.
Nah, I mean that what they’re doing isn’t charity (so they are doing the debt trap thing on some level), but it’s also beneficial for populations of countries they invest in, and better than whatever the fuck IMF is doing.
China nowadays has the capacity to steamroll half of asia into compliance. Instead they build alliances/partnerships via trade, even with countries they ideologically disagree with. It’s less profitable in the short-term but leads to more predictable and stable development in the region, which benefits them massively in the long-term. Crazy what you can do if you think in centuries and not quarters.
They don’t have capacity to deal with the US intervening. If not for that, they would 100% be steamrolling everything they could. They’ve done it many times before and they’ll do it again, just like everybody else in history.
China has successfully withstood US intervention and helped communist forces prevail in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. They also semi-successfully done the same in Korea.
They don’t fear US intervention much, it’s just that their modern foreign policy is targeted at stability and growth rather than immediate overthrow of capitalism.
If China tried to invade a country, that would give the US an excuse to come to that country’s defense, and China does not have the resources to deal with that. Since they can’t use hard power, they’re using soft power.
Expecting altruism in geopolitics is hopelessly naïve.
I don’t expect altruism. Stability and economic prosperity in the region is directly beneficial and profitable to China.
When military action is more beneficial and profitable to China, they will not hesitate to use it.
China isn’t building trade alliances, they are trapping developing nations in debt traps
¿Por qué no los dos? I mean, if you actually go to developing nations you will see that they are investing into real infrastructure that improves the standards of living dramatically. They also intend to turn some profit off of it. Most likely much of that profit will be in building long-term economic relations, rather than immediate rent-seeking, which can be viewed as “trapping nations in debt traps”, or as “investing into development”. They also invest with much fewer strings attached compared to IMF, which is a win comparatively speaking.
Why not both? From someone from ML? Really?
So I guess imperialism is all good when China’s doing it?
Nah, I mean that what they’re doing isn’t charity (so they are doing the debt trap thing on some level), but it’s also beneficial for populations of countries they invest in, and better than whatever the fuck IMF is doing.
Yeah pretend that you weren’t literally just gushing about Chinese imperialism. Lenin would’ve loved that.
Are you in denial even to yourself?