How does the World view China these days?

  On 9/15/2024 at 7:41 PM, auxien said:

pretty worrying when the President is being called on to enforce some sort of rush actions to do some laws Congress can't handle being able to enact itself.

I agree. I think also in these months leading up to the election, everything in the news cycle is going to revolve around the politics of this election, and all the politicians are gonna be focused on it instead of developing and implementing policy, policy that is well-thought out and not just a band-aid. This means that the ukraine and middle east situations are just going to be running on auto-pilot, which concerns me.

America's policies toward China are also not in great shape. Harris would probably continue biden's policy from a security/military standpoint. Paying lip service to the one-china policy while doing brinkmanship in south china seas and providing military funding to Taiwan. The Trump tariff plan also seems ill-advised to me, and I would assume that he would most likely just continue the biden admin's military pressure on China. I am not well versed enough in economics to know what the effect of trump's tariffs would be, and a lot of people say that the American consumers would end up footing the bill for those. Although the Biden admin this week stepped up its own tariffs on China, so who knows.

All of this amidst China, Russia, and America declining to do nuclear weapons treaties and all pledging to up their arsenal, although Russia probably does not need to do this (pretty sure their nuclear arms capacity is more modern and they have more nukes that us. I also remember reading that Russia has surplus of plutonium or enriched uranium, so they are in a position to help their allies to develop weapons if it ever came to that).

America and China are very much entangled economically. So many of American consumer goods are manufactured in China, they own a decent-sized chunk of our national debt, and the US also exports a lot of stuff to China. I do not think that China wants a large scale war at all. After WWII they only had one major offensive that I am aware of in 1979 against Vietnam, and it only lasted a month and China ended up withdrawing. I imagine they also have had small scale border skirmishes with India (which seem to be on the rise now too). As a Dale Cooper enthusiast, I also should not forget that they annexed Tibet. But America on the other hand has done non-stop military offensives since WWII, whether directly or by proxy.

So many people say this, that America and China will at some point be forced to do battle with one another. I am sure that a lot of people high in the US government probably think that this is inevitable too, but I still hope that this is not the case and that cooler heads prevail. Having relations between America and China that emphasize cooperation and diplomacy seems like such an important issue, way more so than all of the usual bullshit that politicians force feed the public to get votes and whatnot, yet there is little substantial discussion about the sino-american relationship.

  On 9/15/2024 at 8:21 PM, decibal cooper said:

This means that the ukraine and middle east situations are just going to be running on auto-pilot, which concerns me.

idk, Putin's bullshit over the last day or whatever about 'Ukraine attacking inside of Russia = NATO attack' may be changing those dynamics...and Zelensky's changes to the military/powers around him could mean some more longterm cracks in their ability to keep up their borders.

and at this point i'm really thinking there's going to be an upheaval in the Israel/etc. conflicts some day soon enough. who knows what way it'll go, but there's so many players vying for attention there with nothing/little to lose, i don't think either of these flash point areas (middle east & ukraine/Russia) are on auto pilot for long, if at all.

  On 9/15/2024 at 8:21 PM, decibal cooper said:

All of this amidst China, Russia, and America declining to do nuclear weapons treaties and all pledging to up their arsenal, although Russia probably does not need to do this (pretty sure their nuclear arms capacity is more modern and they have more nukes that us. I also remember reading that Russia has surplus of plutonium or enriched uranium, so they are in a position to help their allies to develop weapons if it ever came to that).

this is all just bluster. nobodies using nukes until they are. not worried about this, nukes are an eternal stalemate (among the main players) until it's suddenly not. not worth stressing about...if someone ramps up to that level, then every calculation/decision/plan/etc. immediately changes.

  On 9/15/2024 at 8:21 PM, decibal cooper said:

America and China are very much entangled economically. So many of American consumer goods are manufactured in China, they own a decent-sized chunk of our national debt, and the US also exports a lot of stuff to China. I do not think that China wants a large scale war at all. After WWII they only had one major offensive that I am aware of in 1979 against Vietnam, and it only lasted a month and China ended up withdrawing. I imagine they also have had small scale border skirmishes with India (which seem to be on the rise now too). As a Dale Cooper enthusiast, I also should not forget that they annexed Tibet. But America on the other hand has done non-stop military offensives since WWII, whether directly or by proxy.

So many people say this, that America and China will at some point be forced to do battle with one another. I am sure that a lot of people high in the US government probably think that this is inevitable too, but I still hope that this is not the case and that cooler heads prevail. Having relations between America and China that emphasize cooperation and diplomacy seems like such an important issue, way more so than all of the usual bullshit that politicians force feed the public to get votes and whatnot, yet there is little substantial discussion about the sino-american relationship.

Expand  

America & China are doing battle, have been for decades. it's akin to the US/Russian cold war, but it's an economic/technological (control of, at least) war. there's probably someone really smart who's already given this a good name and written books about it. it could ramp up to some more chest-thumping/proxy stuff at some point, but i really don't see any path towards China & the US going to a real warfare standoff in my lifetime. what do i know tho, maybe China will get too behind and have to deal with some internal citizenry uprisings at some point and change those calcs.

the smaller players in Asia around China may become more important at some point, maybe already happening, idk i don't keep up all that much.

Americans don't care about international politics. 90% of the country couldn't name anything other than China and Russia on map of Asia/Europe.

  On 9/15/2024 at 8:21 PM, decibal cooper said:

Russia probably does not need to do this (pretty sure their nuclear arms capacity is more modern and they have more nukes that us.

Russia's nuclear arsenal is in the process of being modernized - they are trying to catch up to the US in terms of modern nuclear weapons. As to the number of nuclear warheads that can be used, it's not clearcut.

Here is a good article on it from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

  Quote

"A cyberattack tied to the Chinese government penetrated the networks of a swath of US broadband providers, potentially accessing information from systems the federal government uses for court-authorized network wiretapping requests," the WSJ wrote. "For months or longer, the hackers might have held access to network infrastructure used to cooperate with lawful US requests for communications data, according to people familiar with the matter."

These "attackers also had access to other tranches of more generic Internet traffic," according to the WSJ's sources. The attack is being attributed to a Chinese hacking group called Salt Typhoon.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/reports-china-hacked-verizon-and-att-may-have-accessed-us-wiretap-systems/

(see my above comment about the US & China already doing battle for decades...)

  Quote

In a September interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said he would be able to prevent Chinese aggression by telling Xi, “If you go into Taiwan, I’m sorry to do this, I’m going to tax you”

…

When asked specifically if he would use military force to break a blockade, Trump said, “I wouldn’t have to, because he respects me and he knows I’m fucking crazy.”

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/390895/china-taiwan-conflict

lol at Trump saying that shit. maybe he’ll be good for this situation, who knows 

anyway the article is huge, only about halfway through so i’m partly posting here so i don’t forget to finish it

  On 12/16/2024 at 7:41 PM, auxien said:

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/390895/china-taiwan-conflict

lol at Trump saying that shit. maybe he’ll be good for this situation, who knows 

anyway the article is huge, only about halfway through so i’m partly posting here so i don’t forget to finish it

That was a super interesting article - thanks for sharing!

Loved this detail on Musk:

  Quote

Negotiations with Elon Musk’s Starlink, which has a larger satellite network and which Ukraine has heavily relied on, though not without incident, reportedly fell apart over Taiwan’s local ownership requirements for the joint venture.

 

Chiueh also noted Musk’s significant financial interests in China, telling Vox, “he could cut the service [over] his personal opinion, so we don’t think this was a trustable partner.” (The Wall Street Journal reported in October that Musk was urged by Russia’s Vladimir Putin, in private conversations, to avoid activating Starlink over Taiwan.)

  Quote

Here we present the Digital Brain (DB)—a platform for simulating spiking neuronal networks at the large neuron scale of the human brain on the basis of personalized magnetic resonance imaging data and biological constraints.

An architecture with up to 86 billion neurons and 14,012 GPUs—including a two-level routing scheme between GPUs to accelerate spike transmission in up to 47.8 trillion neuronal synapses—was implemented as part of the simulations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-024-00731-3

China is building brains

  On 1/7/2025 at 7:34 PM, auxien said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-024-00731-3

China is building brains

Yeah ok but this is kind of BS. There's so much that we just don't know about the brain, let alone how we process and integrate the simplest stimuli.  Get it to run on the order of a few hundred or even thousand watts even for the resting state and I'll be impressed.

  On 1/8/2025 at 2:57 AM, EdamAnchorman said:

Yeah ok but this is kind of BS. There's so much that we just don't know about the brain, let alone how we process and integrate the simplest stimuli.  Get it to run on the order of a few hundred or even thousand watts even for the resting state and I'll be impressed.

oh for sure. i wasn't trying to make a clickbait headline sorta thing, just oversimplifying for brevity. they are trying to build processes in computer hardware/etc that replicate the basic building blocks of how we understand a brain to work at the moment. this is a step towards a better understanding/model of a brain, maybe? it could be, at least. or it could turn into something interesting in a different (maybe even horrifying! stay tuned for more news at 5!) way. i found it interesting, perhaps due to the lack of detail, only seen the abstract thus far.

  Quote

We show that the DB can reproduce blood-oxygen-level-dependent signals of the resting state of the human brain with a high correlation coefficient, as well as interact with its perceptual input, as demonstrated in a visual task

I wonder in the next few decades if China will begin replacing America as global superpower - was listening to an interview with Lawrence Wilkerson talking about this, about global power shifting from west to east, and it is interesting to speculate about it. I agree with him that if true, America's foreign policy is hastening the shift. He said that one third of the world's population is in some way impacted by America's economic sanctions. A lot of non-western countries also probably look at the so called 'international rules based order' that America and Europe built after World War II and see it as a complete sham after all of the american and nato military interventions in middle east, and now the flash point with israel and palestine. If I were an up and coming nation like Indonesia for instance, it would probably make more sense to align with China than the west. Even Europe, Wilkerson suggested, is slowly crumbling. High level leaders in UK, France, and Germany are being cast aside for newer right leaning ideologies. He argued that Europe might eventually align with China, but that it will most likely keep doing business with both America and China and slowly watch the power shift from west to east.

I do not know enough about the Eastern countries to say whether or not these theories hold any water, but it seems right intuitively, especially given the fact that America has given up doing any real diplomacy under biden admin and has turned up kinetic warfare and sanctions full throttle. I do not see Trump admin reversing this trend and it also might even make things worse in terms of foreign policy.

China's foreign policy does not seem to be aggressive in comparison with America, and this might be an asset to China in the future. They seem to want compromise and to do business with other countries by and large, although I am sure there are exceptions, like on some of its borders with India. Additionally, these guys like Wilkerson and Mearsheimer seem to neglect talking about domestic issues in the eastern countries that could impede the rise of China and its closest allies, but then again America is not without its domestic issues too. Regarding China's domestic situation, I need to learn more and read up on that.

The China analysis starts at around the 9:40 mark:

Visualizing $102 Trillion of Global Debt in 2024

In 2024, global public debt is forecast to reach $102 trillion, with the U.S. and China largely contributing to rising levels of debt.

This marks a $5 trillion increase since 2023 alone. Looking ahead, debt levels are projected to increase faster than previously expected as government policies fail to address debt risks amid aging populations and increasing healthcare costs. Going further, rising geopolitical tensions could lead to higher spending on defense, adding strain to government budgets.

This graphic shows government debt by country in 2024, based on data from the IMF’s October 2024 World Economic Outlook.

Ranked: Government Debt by Country

Rank	Country	Gross Debt (B)	% of World Total	Debt to GDP
1		$35,293.0	34.6%	121.0%
2		$16,464.3	16.1%	90.1%

  On 1/8/2025 at 4:43 AM, prdctvsm said:

Visualizing $102 Trillion of Global Debt in 2024

In 2024, global public debt is forecast to reach $102 trillion, with the U.S. and China largely contributing to rising levels of debt.

This marks a $5 trillion increase since 2023 alone. Looking ahead, debt levels are projected to increase faster than previously expected as government policies fail to address debt risks amid aging populations and increasing healthcare costs. Going further, rising geopolitical tensions could lead to higher spending on defense, adding strain to government budgets.

This graphic shows government debt by country in 2024, based on data from the IMF’s October 2024 World Economic Outlook.

Ranked: Government Debt by Country

Rank	Country	Gross Debt (B)	% of World Total	Debt to GDP
1		$35,293.0	34.6%	121.0%
2		$16,464.3	16.1%	90.1%

Expand  

debt is interesting. there's so many takes on it and what it's for and what it does. steve keen has thoughts. there's a bunch of "modern monetary theory" videos out w/lot's of info on how things "really" work. i'm no economist so a lot of it goes woosh over my head but there's places where people dumb it down enough w/less jargon so some of it gets in my head for better or worse.  

he gets a little nerdy in this one and goes through some software he's created to show his ideas but explains along the way. there's other talks w/him where he's more user friendly for us normies but below is a good synopsis .. he's been on nate hagens' podcast talking about energy blindness which is interesting.  sometimes he comes off like a dick but i think it's because he's so contrary to a lot of the 'classic' economics stuff and has a grudge i think. 

  On 2/4/2025 at 4:02 AM, decibal cooper said:

 

Expand  

This is some North Korea dear leader level bullshit. The first very obvious mistake is that Hemingway's favourite Cuban-inspired cocktail was not the mojito, bur rather the daiquiri.

The second is that Xi wasn't simply "swept up in the Down to the Countryside" movement, he basically had to go as his father (who was a high-ranking CCP official) had been purged, so they needed to do something to show penance.

The third, less obvious mistake is that if Xi had the Chinese translation of Faust memorized, what was he rattling off to Merkel? I'm doubting her Mandarin ability here. I don't think Xi's English or German is very good at all...

U.s doing as much as possible to make China look good. Just look at all those wars China started in the last 100 years....

  On 2/4/2025 at 5:57 AM, Crazing said:

U.s doing as much as possible to make China look good. Just look at all those wars China started in the last 100 years....

This is not a good take. First off, the PLA's primary mission is to ensure the defence of the CCP. Second, up until about 25 years ago, the PLA lacked the capacity and capability to undertake serious offensive combat, as they could not project force in a significant way. They were able to invade an essentially defenseless Tibet in 1950, then antagonize India leading to an attack by China in the early 1960s, and then finally in the late 1960s engaged in limited aggression against the Soviets. With the commission of two aircraft carriers in the 2010s, China could finally project force in a comprehensive manner (air, land, and sea) - and now that they have that capability, they are not afraid to use it to bully and harass smaller nations: https://genesysdefense.com/intl/chinas-military-expansion-in-the-south-china-sea-a-security-risk-assessment/ I predict China will only grow bolder as the US becomes more isolationist.

Also, China's military history is extensive and fascinating, and explains a lot about why they've been relatively quiet until now.

If you want a more honest comparison, compare military actions between the US and the USSR over the period the USSR existed as a political entity. Both powers had pretty fucking shit records on foreign policy.

  On 2/4/2025 at 7:29 AM, chenGOD said:

This is not a good take. First off, the PLA's primary mission is to ensure the defence of the CCP. Second, up until about 25 years ago, the PLA lacked the capacity and capability to undertake serious offensive combat, as they could not project force in a significant way. They were able to invade an essentially defenseless Tibet in 1950, then antagonize India leading to an attack by China in the early 1960s, and then finally in the late 1960s engaged in limited aggression against the Soviets. With the commission of two aircraft carriers in the 2010s, China could finally project force in a comprehensive manner (air, land, and sea) - and now that they have that capability, they are not afraid to use it to bully and harass smaller nations: https://genesysdefense.com/intl/chinas-military-expansion-in-the-south-china-sea-a-security-risk-assessment/ I predict China will only grow bolder as the US becomes more isolationist.

Also, China's military history is extensive and fascinating, and explains a lot about why they've been relatively quiet until now.

If you want a more honest comparison, compare military actions between the US and the USSR over the period the USSR existed as a political entity. Both powers had pretty fucking shit records on foreign policy.

Expand  

This is all well and good and yes sure regarding Tibet...but as of now who has done more global damage? 

  On 2/4/2025 at 10:13 AM, Crazing said:

This is all well and good and yes sure regarding Tibet...but as of now who has done more global damage? 

Define global damage please. 

  On 2/4/2025 at 10:15 AM, chenGOD said:

Define global damage please. 

invasions, destabilisations, counter insurgency abroad, imperialist expansion, weapons sales...

I am NOT saying China is the good guy...I'm just pointing out the obvious discrepancy of negative impact

  On 2/4/2025 at 10:18 AM, Crazing said:

invasions, destabilisations, counter insurgency abroad, imperialist expansion, weapons sales...

I am NOT saying China is the good guy...I'm just pointing out the obvious discrepancy of negative impact

Right so as I said, you want to compare the Soviet Union to the US over most of that period. 
 

Then compare China’s foreign policy since Xi gained power to US foreign policy. 
 

you can’t compare the two entities over the whole period because China had no capability to really engage in serious international relations. Now that they do, they’re doing the same as other global powers have done throughout history. 

  On 2/4/2025 at 10:45 AM, chenGOD said:

Right so as I said, you want to compare the Soviet Union to the US over most of that period. 
 

Then compare China’s foreign policy since Xi gained power to US foreign policy. 
 

you can’t compare the two entities over the whole period because China had no capability to really engage in serious international relations. Now that they do, they’re doing the same as other global powers have done throughout history. 

Expand  

Dude come on, you absolutely can compare the two, just because America has a gigantic military since ww2 does not mean that they with western help had to blow up and sanction countless countries and help create the kind of instability that we have been seeing accelerated since 9/11. Like crazing I am not saying China is some kind of bastion of peace and stability, but their foreign policy has been based on compromise and not war plus sanctions for last few decades

  On 2/4/2025 at 1:05 PM, decibal cooper said:

their foreign policy has been based on compromise and not war plus sanctions for last few decades

Because they literally did not have the capability to do anything else. 
Their foreign policy in the last decade has gotten much more aggressive and imperialistic. 

  On 2/4/2025 at 1:52 PM, chenGOD said:

Because they literally did not have the capability to do anything else. 
Their foreign policy in the last decade has gotten much more aggressive and imperialistic. 

It comes down to a simple question: how many countries has China invaded, bombed, sanctioned, or provided funding to proxies to do these same things on their behalf in the last two decades. You are arguing that they did not do these things because they did not have the capacity to do so, but maybe they choose a different foreign policy because they are more interested in economic cooperation among peers and adversaries even. I am not saying that China cannot change in the future, but your argument does not make sense to me. How long have they had nukes and a modernized military, especially when it comes to the sea. I hear their private commercial fishing boats are armed too and they have a ton of them 

  On 2/4/2025 at 3:16 PM, decibal cooper said:

It comes down to a simple question: how many countries has China invaded, bombed, sanctioned, or provided funding to proxies to do these same things on their behalf in the last two decades. You are arguing that they did not do these things because they did not have the capacity to do so, but maybe they choose a different foreign policy because they are more interested in economic cooperation among peers and adversaries even. I am not saying that China cannot change in the future, but your argument does not make sense to me. How long have they had nukes and a modernized military, especially when it comes to the sea. I hear their private commercial fishing boats are armed too and they have a ton of them 

If they don't have the capacity to do something you can't measure the thing they didn't do. Let me put it to you a different way - how many books in Chinese have you read over the last 10 years? I'm going to guess none, because you don't have the capability or capacity to do so, because much like a nation-state, you have limited resources.

China's foreign policy objectives are the same as America's - they want to secure their territory and protect investments abroad.

So for example, in Myanmar, China is funding both sides of the ongoing conflict between the military junta and various indigenous states: https://www.specialeurasia.com/2024/07/04/myanmar-war-chinas-ethnicmilitia/ although they are definitely leaning more towards the illegal military government with the use of private military contractors: https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/myanmar-china-watch/myanmar-junta-planning-joint-security-firm-with-china.html (as an aside, the dismantling of USAid by the Trump admin and president unelect Musk will have tremendous negative consequences for those in Myanmar living under the junta).

China provides funding to many other proxies either through the guise of loans or through direct military aid.

With regards to its naval operations, first, a modern navy is not an invading force, but is a force multiplier. However, since China DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO INVADE FOREIGN NATIONS, China uses its naval resources to bully smaller nations in Southeast Asia. A good overview of that and potential responses can be found here: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/may/david-vs-goliath-southeast-asia-can-resist-chinas-gray-zone

The only times China has tried to invade foreign nations in the last 20 years have been excursions into India around the disputed border areas (ongoing for much longer than the last 20 years https://web.archive.org/web/20200528054807/https://rusi.org/commentary/not-‘spirit-wuhan’-skirmishes-between-india-and-china. But these have been minor because neither side wishes to evolve the conflict. China, would, if they could, but they can't.

With respect to economic cooperation - China is quickly learning why loans to countries with high-risk situations is not sustainable. Their lending to Africa has decreased significantly since 2013. Even a return to increased lending comes with lending for military aid and stipulations around debt postponement rather than debt cancellation (interesting that they are lending in yuan this time). But their lending is not altruistic. 

Now, I know what you are going to argue - "this is much less 'global damage' than the US has caused". Again - China DID NOT HAVE THE MILITARY CAPACITY TO DO SO. They absolutely would if they could.

With respect to the US - many of their "invasions" are multi-lateral interventions against ISIS/ISIL/Al-Shabaab etc. Now, I don't agree with a lot of US foreign policy (for example their long-standing, and continued support for Israel's genocide of Palestinians), but much of their military use of force overseas in the last two decades has been in response to the attacks of 9/11 and suppression of the Islamic caliphate (which by the way, China has contributed a limited but useful amount of support to the global coalition fighting the Islamic caliphate, especially in Nigeria).

Anyways, I'm relatively sure I've wasted my time here, but there you go.

  On 2/5/2025 at 2:35 AM, chenGOD said:

If they don't have the capacity to do something you can't measure the thing they didn't do. Let me put it to you a different way - how many books in Chinese have you read over the last 10 years? I'm going to guess none, because you don't have the capability or capacity to do so, because much like a nation-state, you have limited resources.

China's foreign policy objectives are the same as America's - they want to secure their territory and protect investments abroad.

So for example, in Myanmar, China is funding both sides of the ongoing conflict between the military junta and various indigenous states: https://www.specialeurasia.com/2024/07/04/myanmar-war-chinas-ethnicmilitia/ although they are definitely leaning more towards the illegal military government with the use of private military contractors: https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/myanmar-china-watch/myanmar-junta-planning-joint-security-firm-with-china.html (as an aside, the dismantling of USAid by the Trump admin and president unelect Musk will have tremendous negative consequences for those in Myanmar living under the junta).

China provides funding to many other proxies either through the guise of loans or through direct military aid.

With regards to its naval operations, first, a modern navy is not an invading force, but is a force multiplier. However, since China DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO INVADE FOREIGN NATIONS, China uses its naval resources to bully smaller nations in Southeast Asia. A good overview of that and potential responses can be found here: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/may/david-vs-goliath-southeast-asia-can-resist-chinas-gray-zone

The only times China has tried to invade foreign nations in the last 20 years have been excursions into India around the disputed border areas (ongoing for much longer than the last 20 years https://web.archive.org/web/20200528054807/https://rusi.org/commentary/not-‘spirit-wuhan’-skirmishes-between-india-and-china. But these have been minor because neither side wishes to evolve the conflict. China, would, if they could, but they can't.

With respect to economic cooperation - China is quickly learning why loans to countries with high-risk situations is not sustainable. Their lending to Africa has decreased significantly since 2013. Even a return to increased lending comes with lending for military aid and stipulations around debt postponement rather than debt cancellation (interesting that they are lending in yuan this time). But their lending is not altruistic. 

Now, I know what you are going to argue - "this is much less 'global damage' than the US has caused". Again - China DID NOT HAVE THE MILITARY CAPACITY TO DO SO. They absolutely would if they could.

With respect to the US - many of their "invasions" are multi-lateral interventions against ISIS/ISIL/Al-Shabaab etc. Now, I don't agree with a lot of US foreign policy (for example their long-standing, and continued support for Israel's genocide of Palestinians), but much of their military use of force overseas in the last two decades has been in response to the attacks of 9/11 and suppression of the Islamic caliphate (which by the way, China has contributed a limited but useful amount of support to the global coalition fighting the Islamic caliphate, especially in Nigeria).

Anyways, I'm relatively sure I've wasted my time here, but there you go.

 

Expand  

thank you chengod I APPRECIATE YOU EDUCATING ME ON THIS TOPIC