[late]

"Cold War rhetoric between China and the United States is threatening to freeze relations between the world’s two leading economies, triggering the risk of a military conflict.

There are even fears inside President Xi Jinping’s administration that a US-inspired coalition will challenge the Communist Party’s right to rule. An internal study from the Ministry of State Security, and cited by Reuters, warned that China should be prepared for a “worst-case scenario of armed confrontation.”

“If you’re a member of the Chinese Communist Party, you might read [the invocation of the May the Fourth movement] as encouraging people to challenge some of the existing parts of your political system. It didn’t quite say overthrow your leaders, but it certainly encouraged the rise of the masses, shall we say,” she told The Guardian newspaper."

Diplomacy can get insanely complicated, with thousands of pieces that can influence the outcome moving in what sometimes seems to be random directions.

In the relationship between China and America, there are powerful incentives on both sides to avoid overt conflict. There are also strong incentives from the benefits of cooperation. Not that we're likely to see much of that anytime soon.

So while I don't want to exaggerate the danger, it's worth mentioning the reckless behavior of the Trump administration is genuinely dangerous, and that there are a lot of people in the diplomatic and foreign affairs academic communities that are trying to get their sphincters unclenched.


https://asiatimes.com/2020/05/cold-war-chill-sweeps-through-china-and-the-us/

[foxdemon]

“Democratic populism is less about left versus right than top versus bottom. It’s about reminding a few that they need the consent of many to govern. When a privileged few grow too remote and self-interested, populism is what pulls them back or pitches them overboard,” he added, a remark that appeared to be aimed at the CCP.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/05/cold-war-chill-sweeps-through-china-and-the-us/


Couldn’t have put it better myself. That is why Trump being president serves the establishment right. It is their own fault and they will only get past it once they recognise the importance of governing with consent of the governed.

“China considers Europe the soft belly of the West. In their logic, there is the West, and in it the US that will oppose China for structural and ideological reasons, and their European allies that need to be neutral in case of conflict between China and the US,” he said.

Ah! The soft underbelly of the crocodile. Even Churchill could see that. Could be Beijing is right. The EU looks like it will be the real victim of SARS-2.

There are even fears inside President Xi Jinping’s administration that a US-inspired coalition will challenge the Communist Party’s right to rule. An internal study from the Ministry of State Security, and cited by Reuters, warned that China should be prepared for a “worst-case scenario of armed confrontation.”

The Communist Party has no right to rule. They are usurpers. They are also responsible for crimes against humanity. They should be forcibly removed from power and put on trial.

[late]

The Communist Party has no right to rule. They are usurpers. They are also responsible for crimes against humanity. They should be forcibly removed from power and put on trial.

You and what army?

[Unthinking Majority]

So while I don't want to exaggerate the danger, it's worth mentioning the reckless behavior of the Trump administration is genuinely dangerous, and that there are a lot of people in the diplomatic and foreign affairs academic communities that are trying to get their sphincters unclenched.

Talk, even insulting and blaming talk, is just talk. Words can ratchet up diplomatic tensions, but talk at the end of the day isn't very dangerous, compared to aggressive actions. Trump talks tough and PO's people, but he doesn't start wars fortunately and has been surprisingly tame in the use of the US military. If you think the Trump admin's rhetoric is genuinely dangerous, what about the dangerous actions of China?

Actions speak louder than words. Nobody has ever been killed by an offensive word.

[foxdemon]

You and what army?

Do you support the treatment of Uighur? That is ethnic cleansing.

What about Forced abortions, organ harvesting, disappearance of dissidents?

That is enough to justify charges of crimes against humanity. Do you support human rights?

Talk, even insulting and blaming talk, is just talk. Words can ratchet up diplomatic tensions, but talk at the end of the day isn't very dangerous, compared to aggressive actions. Trump talks tough and PO's people, but he doesn't start wars fortunately and has been surprisingly tame in the use of the US military. If you think the Trump admin's rhetoric is genuinely dangerous, what about the dangerous actions of China?

Actions speak louder than words. Nobody has ever been killed by an offensive word.

Well, if Hillary had won the last presidential election, we would probably be fighting WWIII already.

[SolarCross]

You and what army?

He said "should" not could but still if enough of the world gave a crap enough a coalition of the willing could potentially outnumber even the PLA. Also one has to wonder how popular the CPC is among their own people, probably a lot would be less than enthusiastic for fighting for them and might even go into revolt. The USSR was an immoral regime too but in the end it went down without a fight and the nukes stayed in their silos. CPC may go that way too. Containment may be the way to go. We tried the olive branch.

[late]

Do you support human rights?

Long time ago I was a member of Amnesty International. I'm currently a member of the ACLU.

Do you support reality. (Please note the lack of a question mark, it's a rhetorical question, kinda know the answer)

[late]

Containment may be the way to go. We tried the olive branch.

A Cold War would be sane.

After we dump the chump, whoever is president is going to have to try and clean up the mess. First step is repairing the alliances. You'll need them to do sanctions and breathe life back into our Asian military agreements.

Having said all that, I'd guess the probability of a Cold War happening with China as trivial.

Trump screwed our allies repeatedly, you know what they say thrice burned, quad shy...

Then there is the way all our economies are intertwined.

Diplomacy shares some things in common with politics. Like politics, it's the art of the possible. And it's usually done in small steps.

So while I have no problem with repairing relationships and pursuing diplomatic agreements, I don't see any way to even get close to where you want to go, unless Xi loses it.

China is a strong economy, and it's promised a lot in it's projects like Silk Road. Unless Trump sends us straight to hell, I don't see countries backing out of those agreements. And there's a lot of them, across the globe, from South Korea to Norway.

[SolarCross]

China's economy is over-hyped. IP stealing, slave labour and gargantuan fake real estate scams sums it up.

[late]

China's economy is over-hyped. IP stealing, slave labour and gargantuan fake real estate scams sums it up.

It's still huge.

And you didn't respond to my other points.

But then, it was kinda obvious, eh?

[SolarCross]

It's still huge.

And you didn't respond to my other points.

But then, it was kinda obvious, eh?

A huge pile of shit.

You did not have any other points just some obsessive TDS crankery. I tune that boring crank stuff out now, it is on the same level as the incoherent droning of some piss stained alcoholic vagrant.

[late]

A huge pile of shit.

You did not have any other points just some obsessive TDS crankery. I tune that boring crank stuff out now, it is on the same level as the incoherent droning of some piss stained alcoholic vagrant.

I understand, foreign affairs are complicated.

But I do appreciate the way you project..

[SolarCross]

I understand, foreign affairs are complicated.

But I do appreciate the way you project..

ok boomer, enjoy your senile raving then.

[late]

ok boomer, enjoy your senile raving then.

"Enough already. It is time to stop debating whether the United States stands at the threshold of a “new Cold War” with China. The question has become an obsession among China watchers and foreign policy analysts. But the debate’s poorly defined nature sheds little light on the excruciating choices policymakers face when dealing with Beijing.

Let’s start by examining why the controversy amounts to geopolitical empty calories — energizing but lacking in the substance needed to prescribe policy.

Paradoxically, despite their differing assessments about the nature of the problem, the two schools largely agree on the major elements for how Washington should deal with Beijing: strengthen U.S. alliances, maintain an effective military deterrent, uphold democratic values, foster domestic renewal, and seek out pragmatic cooperation with China. When it comes to implementing those broad strokes, however, a number of difficult questions arise. How U.S. policymakers answer such questions will shape Sino-American relations much more than generalized observations on Cold Wars or lack thereof.

Crafting responses to these vexing dilemmas will determine where the proverbial rubber hits the road on US-China relations. Notably, most of those tradeoffs are just as agonizing whether or not one believes Washington and Beijing are locked in a new Cold War—which should tell us something about the value of that discussion overall. Let’s put the whole debate to bed and get down to discussing the harder but more consequential tradeoffs that will shape US-China relations in the decades to come.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/who-cares-if-the-us-is-in-a-new-cold-war-with-china/

[Atlantis]

@late, even if nobody wants war, an escalating conflict can easily spiral out of control. The US is used to getting its way by beating it's European and Asian allies into submission. During my time in Japan, I have seen how the US imposed one unequal trade agreement after the other on the country to correct the trade imbalance. The US simply isn't competitive in many fields and its only chance is to change the rules so as to gain a market advantage over its competitors by applying political pressure, which is ultimately backed by military power.

China won't be beaten into submission like a vassal state. It's simply too big for that. The tension with China is due to the fact that US strategists understand that the US cannot compete with China. The only way the US can win is by military means. That's what worries me. Will the US just roll over like the SU? Or will it make a last stand by unleashing a nuclear holocaust on us? The change in US strategy away from nuclear deterrence towards the deployment of a new type of small nuclear warheads is very worrying.

China has no interest in military conflict because it can compete by non-military means. The Chinese will make concessions to maintain access to the US market, but they will not let the US stifle its national development. It will not let Trump thwart its high-tech sectors with companies like Huawei.

In view of the above, it would be very foolish for Europe to bind itself to a militaristic and trigger happy US. We would be the first victim in any conflict. The only way is for Europe to stay at equal distance from both the US and China, while competing with better technology by non-military means.

[late]

@late, even if nobody wants war, an escalating conflict can easily spiral out of control. The US is used to getting its way by beating it's European and Asian allies into submission. During my time in Japan, I have seen how the US imposed one unequal trade agreement after the other on the country to correct the trade imbalance. The US simply isn't competitive in many fields and its only chance is to change the rules so as to gain a market advantage over its competitors by applying political pressure, which is ultimately backed by military power.

China won't be beaten into submission like a vassal state. It's simply too big for that. The tension with China is due to the fact that US strategists understand that the US cannot compete with China. The only way the US can win is by military means. That's what worries me. Will the US just roll over like the SU? Or will it make a last stand by unleashing a nuclear holocaust on us? The change in US strategy away from nuclear deterrence towards the deployment of a new type of small nuclear warheads is very worrying.

China has no interest in military conflict because it can compete by non-military means. The Chinese will make concessions to maintain access to the US market, but they will not let the US stifle its national development. It will not let Trump thwart its high-tech sectors with companies like Huawei.

In view of the above, it would be very foolish for Europe to bind itself to a militaristic and trigger happy US. We would be the first victim in any conflict. The only way is for Europe to stay at equal distance from both the US and China, while competing with better technology by non-military means.

One of the points I was trying to get Crossy to understand is exactly that, things can spiral out of control.

I agree with most of that. I think it's a bit more complicated than your portrayal, but you have a point.

Finding a peaceful resolution when there is an emerging power, and a fading empire, is tricky. Historically, most of the time, things get ugly.

But because China can win economically, and China is just too big to push around, there is the potential to find a balance point, a negotiated agreement.

[SolarCross]

We should want them to spiral out of the CPC's control. Their control is the problem. That and their paid shills here.

[ThirdTerm]

Cold War rhetoric between China and the United States is threatening to freeze relations between the world’s two leading economies, triggering the risk of a military conflict.

The Cold War was all about containment to prevent a full-blown war between the two superpowers, which could have led to the annihilation of the human race. The Cold War was a period of long peace when the United States didn't engage with the Soviet Union militarily. Trump is just doing fine with China which has been making trade and territorial concessions. China does not want war with the mightiest nation in the world and it will be pressured to observe international norms. The Sum of All Fears is a good introduction for those who have not lived through the Cold War. I still remember President Reagan fondly as a Cold Warrior.

[Atlantis]

Finding a peaceful resolution when there is an emerging power, and a fading empire, is tricky. Historically, most of the time, things get ugly.

In his book Sleepwalkers, historian Christopher Clark compares pre-war Germany with today's China. Before WWI Germany rose to became an industrial and technological power that was a challenge to the British Empire like China is a challenge to the US today. Could the war have been avoided if Britain had let Germany have a greater share of the pie? Anyways, Clark believes we shouldn't make the same mistake and let China integrate with the world economy.

Perhaps the rest of the world should find a way of gradually easing the US away from its current role without taking too much of an economic hit.

But because China can win economically, and China is just too big to push around, there is the potential to find a balance point, a negotiated agreement.

I don't really understand what that even means. There will be a competition of systems, and despite China's enormous size, there is space for others.

[late]

I don't really understand what that even means. There will be a competition of systems, and despite China's enormous size, there is space for others.

The balance point is keeping enough pressure on to get China to play nice while at the same time allow it a growing influence through Soft Power, through economic and diplomatic agreements.