(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Ardennes posted:Why do superpowers have to be evenly matched rather than capable of at least challenging one another? The USSR was never as strong as the US (about 40% of its GDP at most) but nevertheless did significantly challenge the US for global supremacy into the late 1980s. Likewise, China doesn't have the financial influence of the US but is still now actively challenging it geopolitically. It's trending that way and some think tanks are talking about it but I think it will take about 10 more years to let the US public accept the new geopolitic condition. China's version of WB and IMF are still not ready. RCEP is not online. China hasn't finished its naval modernization. China hasn't overtly challenged the petrodollar and pushed its version of SWIFT. The entire point of the trade war is the current admin think they can only rely on the (not very effective) tool of tariff to chock China. It's not working very well that's why they never stop playing the tech card (Huawei). HK card has already been played and it's not going anything. The trade talk may break down next year and the US may play the Taiwan card, which will get dangerous. Hopefully the two mafia bosses can reach a trade deal and we can delay the world entering into new cold war for another 5-10 years.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:A resolution on "monitoring" Hong Kong has been advancing through the US congress. More than the bill itself, it is a message to the PRC that the US is at least thinking about trying to openly intervene in Chinese domestic affairs. Likewise, US diplomatic staff openly meeting with protestors is sending a message. I would say that everyone in the world knows that US congressional resolutions like this are meaningless, and the only major way the US has tried to interfere with China domestic issues recently is by intercepting Huawei Fedex packages in Memphis or stifling China growth with tariffs, etc. The US's efforts in regards to Hong Kong seem barely more than a whisper TheBuilder has issued a correction as of 16:55 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I poo poo you not the current Sinophobic talking point in my neck of the woods is that Chinese fishing vessels are actually operated by PLAN sailors
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, the Chinese have a real navy nowadays and has begun trading without the USD (the Soviet Union also traded in USD btw). In the same sense France has a real navy. I mean, yes, they have a navy. But what is it, ten carrier groups to two?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
TheBuilder posted:I would say that everyone in the world knows that US congressional resolutions like this are meaningless, and the only major way the US has tried to interfere with China domestic issues recently is by intercepting Huawei Fedex packages and Memphis or stifling China growth with tariffs, etc. The US's efforts in regards to Hong Kong seem barely more than a whisper Ehhh Maybe on paper it's meaningless. But the US legislature, coupled with NGOs, the media, and global allies, have a way of making mountains out of a mole hills. For example, the effort that the US has put into couping Venezuela is really minimal, but the impact has been huge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:In the same sense France has a real navy. China has been significantly modernizing its surface fleet before it started building carriers. The PLAN has now 25-30 modern missile destroyers and about 45 modern frigates (and a bunch of corvettes and missile boats) (older Soviet knockoff models are quickly being retired). The French Navy has 11 destroyers, 10 frigates, and 1 carrier. The gap is narrowing pretty quickly (especially since the Chinese are building new ships rather quickly). Either way, 10 years really isn't that much time, and I think a lot of it is that American policymakers really don't want to admit they have been asleep at the wheel. ---------------------- Also, what the US is doing isn't about just hard results (the tariffs did have an effect btw) but sending a message to China. The Chinese are still playing the long game. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 17:09 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
get that OUT of my face posted:he did some successful self-crit hes literally the original capitalist roader Wikipedia posted:In meetings in April 1979, he convinced Deng Xiaoping to permit Guangdong to make its own foreign trade policy decisions and to invite foreign investment to projects in experimental areas along the provincial border with Hong Kong and Macau and in Shantou, which has a large overseas diaspora.[12] As for the name of the experimental areas, Deng said, "let's call them, 'special zones', [after all, your] Shaanxi-Gansu Border Region began as a 'special zone'."[12] Deng added, "The Central Government has no funds, but we can give you some favorable policies." Borrowing a phrase from their guerrilla war days, Deng told Xi, "You have to find a way, to fight a bloody path out."[12] Xi submitted a formal proposal on the creation of special zones, later renamed special economic zones and in July 1979, the party center and State Council approved the creation of the first four special economic zones.[11][12]
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The Chinese are still playing the long game. Bingo!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
What did I win?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:Bingo! It doesn’t mean that they aren’t challenging the US already, they are just doing it more carefully.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
uncop posted:The Chinese used to know better how to parade a Xi. a very shameful period of chinese history and crime committed against a great proletarian statesman and revolutionary
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The Chinese are still playing the long game. lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
I'm over here playing the short game like a loving doofus
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
I’m getting better at putting and chipping tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
get that OUT of my face posted:is it that really that hard for some people to wrap their heads around the fact that more than one country, and indeed most of the ones in the world, can be awful
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
I mean we can criticize the PRC all we like, and I will do so gleefully, but when you compare the track record of China and the US it really is no contest. The Communist Party of China never destroyed a country and left its populace to be murdered by ISIS and sold as slaves, which is something the Democratic Party can't say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
they did destroy the country of Tibet
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Continuity RCP posted:they did destroy the country of Tibet Ahem. Nice try, liberal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
TrilliontonNixon posted:Ahem. Nice try, liberal. do you have a source with a bigger mohawk?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:
You might say they're being quite inscrutable Continuity RCP posted:they did destroy the country of Tibet Won't someone think of the feudal theocracy
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
TrilliontonNixon posted:I mean we can criticize the PRC all we like, and I will do so gleefully, but when you compare the track record of China and the US it really is no contest. The Communist Party of China never destroyed a country and left its populace to be murdered by ISIS and sold as slaves, which is something the Democratic Party can't say. I mean, they tried with Vietnam but were unable to break their superior socialist spirit and were driven out
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I mean, they tried with Vietnam but were unable to break their
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
also China achieved most of its objectives in the resist Soviet-Vietnam aggression war and never intended to occupy vietnam (the whole war was scheduled for around 4 weeks) so it is inaccurate to portray china as being driven out
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Yeah there's a reason it's called a border war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
If this thread wants to do the "was the USSR a superpower?" dance it first needs to define what a superpower is. The USSR led an entire international order in defiance of the Western order led by the United States, and were powerful enough to completely overwhelm NATO in the one theater it really cared about (Europe) enough to the point that it was unquestioned that nuclear weapons would have to be used. Certainly they were weak when it came to global power projection, but that has more to do with the Soviet Union's geography than an inherent inability to do so. The USSR had reach over half the world's population which was denied to US exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
The way to think about it is that China by itself is more powerful than the USSR by itself during the Cold War economically. But it has a weaker conventional military force as well as no alliance networks of fraternal Republics on its borders, nor a bunch of overseas allies to enhance power projection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Typo posted:The way to think about it is that China by itself is more powerful than the USSR by itself during the Cold War economically. But it has a weaker conventional military force as well as no alliance networks of fraternal Republics on its borders, nor a bunch of overseas allies to enhance power projection. Yeah China is integrated into the global order in ways that the USSR just wasn't. It's a completely different geopolitical context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
current superpowers: China, EU, US, Russia Regional Powers: Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil a big part of what defines a superpower is force projection (both economic and military).
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
The EU doesn't even have a military.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
It still makes me laugh to think of people about a decade or so ago believing that the EU would become the world's hegemon in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The EU doesn't even have a military. It's mostly france that has the military, yeah. They've got a good weight behind their economic projection though. They're probably more of a regional power but I think they count as a superpower, or would if they got their poo poo together and federalized more. TrilliontonNixon posted:It still makes me laugh to think of people about a decade or so ago believing that the EU would become the world's hegemon in the near future. I don't think anyone expected them to make the worst choices but Germany desperately wants to control Europe and is more than willing to hurt the EU to keep themselves as top dog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I mean, they tried with Vietnam but were unable to break their superior socialist spirit and were driven out hey if we want to make a Vietnam thread I can be the Typo for that one
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:It's mostly france that has the military, yeah. They've got a good weight behind their economic projection though. They're probably more of a regional power but I think they count as a superpower, or would if they got their poo poo together and federalized more. IMO to qualify as a superpower you need to be able to at least project force either globally, or lead your own international political bloc. China, EU, and Russia have none of those capabilities. I guess you could argue over the bloc distinction of the EU, but it's much less of a political bloc and more of a market union. Plus there's no one state that has a commanding lead over the EU, even if Germany comes pretty close and benefits the most from its arrangements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
I'm being too generous, I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
It's very interesting to think about. If you go back to the 2000s and look at the nations people were saying were going to be the next superpower, none of them have really panned out. The US remains the most militarily powerful nation in the world, is still a pillar of the world's economy, and nominally maintains a web of alliances and client states around the globe, but it has very clearly shown itself to be incapable of running things effectively. Everything it gets its hands on turns to poo poo, there's massive global resentment to the US led world order, and any legitimacy it once held is now long gone. China seems powerful on the surface, but it has serious internal issues. Huge swaths of its population are still dirt poor, it's facing a severe environmental crisis, and its population is aging. In addition, it has the problem of being hemmed in on all sides by potential great power rivals, Japan, Russia, India, and it still lacks the ability to project power in a way the US can. The EU is just a shambles right now, I honestly wonder if it'll still exist in a decade, and no one else is anywhere near ready to fill America's shoes. We seem to be heading into a world where no one's in charge anymore. Well except for capital that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
It's probable that superpowers could only be possible in the post-war context of the Cold War, where you had two clearly identifiable ideological camps. Without an opposition to act against, America can only act defensively to maintain its stranglehold over world affairs. International relations are also inherently multipolar, which makes it practically impossible for anybody to achieve anything greater than Great Power status. You can only spread out so far without butting up against somebody else's interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
.
sincx has issued a correction as of 05:29 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
TrilliontonNixon posted:It's very interesting to think about. If you go back to the 2000s and look at the nations people were saying were going to be the next superpower, none of them have really panned out. The US remains the most militarily powerful nation in the world, is still a pillar of the world's economy, and nominally maintains a web of alliances and client states around the globe, but it has very clearly shown itself to be incapable of running things effectively. Everything it gets its hands on turns to poo poo, there's massive global resentment to the US led world order, and any legitimacy it once held is now long gone. I think the real question you should ask is if China' internal problems are worse or Americas also lol no USA has pushed Russia into the Chinese camp (not those) so the northern frontiers are quite secure right now
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:current superpowers: China, EU, US, Russia Neither the EU nor Russia are even close to superpowers: Russia is a great power with superpower pretensions, the EU is.....nothing (maybe germany is but w/e)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:hey if we want to make a Vietnam thread I can be the Typo for that one same but Iran, I find them a fascinating evil-mirror-universe socialist experiment and it wouldn't take all that much prodding for me to become the mask, I suspect or Sri Lanka when loving Gotobaya gets elected 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 01:58
|
|
