Ennui's End: Europe Wakes from Daydreams as Empire Falls

[Ibrahim]

[monster_gardener]

[Alph]

[Ibrahim]

[Captain Murphy]

[Azrael]

[Ibrahim]

I just don't see any credible evidence of any threat from China, period. What would they have to gain, compared to all they would lose?

The exception is Taiwan, but ultimately that will be done politically, not militarily.

[Azrael]

[Najar]

[Colonel Sun]

Oh? The Tibetans may see matters somewhat differently.



So according to the Chinese claims, if I step into the water off a beach in Brunei, then I'm stepping into Chinese territory.

China's ASEAN neighbours do not take such a complacent view of the situation.

[Ibrahim]

[Alph]

[Alph]

[Ibrahim]

[noddy]

[Ibrahim]

[noddy]

go for the hysterical overshoot why dont you! china is very unlikely to attack oz or any western state.

they are extremely likely to apply pressure (political and economic) to their surrounding countries and places that are strategically important to them..

this is the reason most south east asian countries are perfectly happy with america being involved in the region keeping china honest...

its nonsense to say china isnt a bully and doesnt abuse any leverage its got (much the same as america is accused of in the middle east), and its far better for everyone in this region with the both of them playing soft power games rather than just china playing hard power games.

they are playing by western rules, nominally peaceful .. those rules allow "intervention"..... incompetent governments not paying their chinese debt... hmm..

sorry for off topic, just thought id support the colonels post - back to how europe doesnt need america keeping things honest for them either.

[Colonel Sun]

The characters for China 中国 are often translated in English as Middle Kingdom.

What is lost is the meaning behind those characters:
that China is the centre of the world - the nation to which all other nations should naturally and rightfully kowtow and pay tribute.

That this was not the case since the Opium Wars, the Unequal Treaties imposed by the Western powers, and the Japanese occupation of Manchuria
resulted a cognitive dissonance in the national psyche: a well balanced personality with a chip on both shoulders.

Most in the West have forgotten these events, but they are still perceived by many in China as righteous grievances - a humiliating loss of face yet to be regained.

Japan's response to gunboat diplomacy was rapid modernization - the Meiji Restoration. In China such efforts were thwarted.
Including a long excursion into one of the greatest idiocies in history - Maoism.

[Side note. Sun Yat Sen, the founder of modern China, spent about 10 years in Japan supported and aided by those opposed to what was perceived as Western imperialism.]

Of course, the progress in China since the reforms of Deng Xiao Ping have been remarkable. Yet the CCP is still insecure about it's legitimacy and ultimately it's survival.
The problem of endemic corruption has not been properly addressed.

The younger generations, not having experienced war or the privations of Maoism, and educated in history with Chinese characteristics are even more nationalistic.
A point that Torchwood has made, I think, in various posts.
One only has to read the Chinese posts on, say, The Edge [atimes.com]. They make the shrillest Spenglermanian sycophant look sane and reasonable.

So for these reasons, while I don't always agree with the implementation of Pax Americana, I don't think that the rest of E and SE Asia, would welcome a Pax Sinica.
Better the devil you know . . .

And as noddy pointed out, better two powers competing than one dominant.

[Ibrahim]

[Ibrahim]

[noddy]

[Captain Murphy]

[I am ST]

Come on people.

The 110k or so US soldiers in Japan, Germany and Korea were not sent there to fight off an invasion. They were sent there to die in the first hours of an invasion.

They were sent there as a commitment device. You see, some small (and some not-so-small) countries are hard to persuade that the big ally actually cares enough to fight for them. (Incidentally, this is why France and the UK both developed their own nukes). Therefore, the big ally puts a few of its troops in the line of fire, so that if things ever turn hot, a few thousand Americans are already dead and the Ron Pauls in Congress can't get traction with the isolationist card. Spilled blood cries out for vengeance.

Are they needed now? On the face of it, no. Japan, Germany and S. Korea all have credible armies. However, politics happen fast, and bases take a long time to build, troops a long time to deploy. Think of it as disaster insurance. Very long odds, very high payoff if something really bad happens. I think US troops can likely leave Europe (who's gonna attack, Russia? Although Germany is a good safe staging ground for the Middle East) but definitely stay in E. Asia, where they're still needed to die in the first hours of an unthinkable Chinese attack (and thus make it even more unthinkable, given that that would surely bring the full might of the hegemon down on the aggressor).

[Ibrahim]

[I am ST]