China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?


Status
Not open for further replies.

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
Who cares about Australia. Australia has no more card to play except by inflicting self-wound. Except 5 eyes, who would listen to Kirstjen Nielsen.
People of the tidalwave persuasion have nothing better to do than spam FUD here. Since China's curb-stomping every problem in front of it, they (if a madman's multiple personalities can be referred to in the plural) have to reach further and further down into their barrel of FUD until they're scraping the absolute bottom - hence we're supposed to be shaking with fear at *gasp* Kirstjen Nielsen.
 

escobar

Brigadier
That would indeed be a difficult situation since that requires China to initiate violence, but for now, this is your imagination, as is the rest of your post.
Is it my imagination that US Navy C-40a flies inland over Taiwan's west coast ?

So basically everyone is "incoherent" because everyone, both country and person, calibrates their actions based on what opportunity presents at the moment? How incoherent an argument...

So basically you don't know what "incoherent" means and now you think that very coherent instincts that are followed by everyone suddenly make the Chinese "incoherent?" That's not making a good case for the coherence of your argument...

I'm starting to see what you think "coherence" means. You think it means to blindly follow a set of rigid rules to a tee without regard to circumstance. That is a guaranteed way to autopilot yourself/your nation into disaster. Not even a kindergarten teacher is foolish enough to do that.
So basically when you say China's "incoherent," you really mean that it's adaptable and resourceful, don't you? LOL
Learn to know the difference between a transactional IR primary based on favor and IR based on leadership, deterrence in which you do a favor. Your view of IR is so low and lack sophistication.

You should learn to read. I just said that you need to get China's words from China's mouth because Australia acts like a victim due to its vulnerability vis a vis China so it will interpret everything as a threat even when it is not. You missed the whole point.
You are so funny. I'm the one saying that CHina should not overacting on Australia decision on Huawei.
Why should I care about what Australia is saying? You are the one caring so much to have Australia not doing some things you don't like because of the trade surplus Australia enjoyed. What matter here is China action.

And the person who makes you look most incoherent is you! Interesting!
It is because you don't understand this reality that you care so much about Australia not banning huawei.

I'm showing you evidence of improvement and achievement and you have no response to that. The result is indeed clear from the data, not from you imagination. Countries do other countries favors for favors in return. China is no exception.
Yes, I understand that you view of IR is primary transactional. You lack sophistication a great power need to have.

I will never get an incoherent argument because I am logical.
Sure, you are logical. Just a low level IR logic

International relations are all about favors and return favors.
Yeah, for all the trade benefits Australia get for China, Huawei is still banned.

You failed to prove anything was made as a true threat other than by Australian perception, and China has already taken trade measures against Australia simply in calibration to Australia's actions.
China taking measures against Australia? But you just said Australia act like a victim and is interpreting everything China said as a threat. What a great logic...
 
Is it my imagination that US Navy C-40a flies inland over Taiwan's west coast ?
You were just talking about the US putting marines on the ROC. Moving the goal post much there?

Learn to know the difference between a transactional IR primary based on favor and IR based on leadership, deterrence in which you do a favor. Your view of IR is so low and lack sophistication.
Leadership must provide benefits as well. Transactional is one-time while "leadership" means that both sides continue to do favors for each other without counting. All the same, if one side suddenly stops, the other side won't take long to do follow. A country, even in a position of leadership, cannot simply act in its own favor without regard or benefit to its allies or it will lose them, just more slowly than in a transactional relationship. It is your lack of sophistication that you did not take it further to see this step.

You are so funny.
Fools find everything funny.

I'm the one saying that CHina should not overacting on Australia decision on Huawei. Why should I care about what Australia is saying?
Then stop telling me to check what Australia is saying, cus I don't care either.

You are the one caring so much to have Australia not doing some things you don't like because of the trade surplus Australia enjoyed. What matter here is China action.
I think you have me confused with some other member. I don't care what Australia does but I think China should send its business elsewhere where it can because I don't think that Australia is a country that deserves Chinese business in areas where China has alternatives.

It is because you don't understand this reality that you care so much about Australia not banning huawei.
Confused with another member; I don't care about Australia or their backwards internet.

Yes, I understand that you view of IR is primary transactional. You lack sophistication a great power need to have.
See above:

" Leadership must provide benefits as well. Transactional is one-time while "leadership" means that both sides continue to do favors for each other without counting. All the same, if one side suddenly stops, the other side won't take long to do follow. A country, even in a position of leadership, cannot simply act in its own favor without regard or benefit to its allies or it will lose them, just more slowly than in a transactional relationship. It is your lack of sophistication that you did not take it further to see this step. "

Sure, you are logical. Just a low level IR logic
My logic is an earthly logic that works and resounds throughout the world; yours is sky high in imagination.

Yeah, for all the trade benefits Australia get for China, Huawei is still banned.
OK, no problem, so we remove as much as we can and give those benefits to nations that deserve them. Chinese consumers don't want to patronize Australia where we don't need to. Any issue with that?

China taking measures against Australia? But you just said Australia act like a victim and is interpreting everything China said as a threat. What a great logic...
It is great logic. Someone giving you benefits wishes now to ween you off of them and give them to someone else. The institute funding your research no longer wishes to give you money. A partner in business wishes to withdraw himself because he no longer sees the merits of the joint venture. Better yet, your client has cancelled his order with you (or no longer wishes to continue placing his regular orders) because he wishes to take his business elsewhere. Are those threats? No, a threat is someone saying he will assault or sabotage you. Cancelling business deals are not a threat or all the banks and businesses would be threatening each other all day every day by your "logic."

It seems you have a serious problem with the English language. First you don't know what "coherent" means and now, you don't know what a threat is and both were central to your arguments...
 
Last edited:

escobar

Brigadier
You were just talking about the US putting marines on the ROC.
And you think it is totally impossible.

Leadership must provide benefits as well. Transactional is one-time while "leadership" means that both sides continue to do favors for each other without counting. All the same, if one side suddenly stops, the other side won't take long to do follow. A country, even in a position of leadership, cannot simply act in its own favor without regard or benefit to its allies or it will lose them, just more slowly than in a transactional relationship. It is your lack of sophistication that you did not take it further to see this step.
How this even contradict what i'am saying? You're just repeating what I've been saying for all this time

I think you have me confused with some other member. I don't care what Australia does but I think China should send its business elsewhere where it can because I don't think that Australia is a country that deserves Chinese business in areas where China has alternatives.
Good

It is great logic. Someone giving you benefits wishes now to ween you off of them and give them to someone else. The institute funding your research no longer wishes to give you money. A partner in business wishes to withdraw himself because he no longer sees the merits of the joint venture. Better yet, your client has cancelled his order with you (or no longer wishes to continue placing his regular orders) because he wishes to take his business elsewhere. Are those threats? No, a threat is someone saying he will assault or sabotage you. Cancelling business deals are not a threat or all the banks and businesses would be threatening each other all day every day by your "logic."

It seems you have a serious problem with the English language. First you don't know what "coherent" means and now, you don't know what a threat is and both were central to your arguments...
So much misunderstanding. I stop here
 

Wangxi

Junior Member
Registered Member
My opinion may seem controversial, but I am worried that China is making enemies everywhere.

I think China must stop the claims (9 dash lines) in the South China Sea (for the moment), because it endangers the relations with the ASEAN countries

Same for the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands with Japan, we must stop poisoning our international relations for such things.

In the past we could do this because we were less on the radar of the USA (who was focused on russia and the middle east)
, but today we have to focus only on the USA, everything else is superficial, and we need allies, or even just some countries remain neutral (like ASEAN countries) but because of the conflict in the South China Sea, even Vietnam (communist!) has a bad image of us, Duterte wanted to expulse the American bases and get closer to China, but he made a volt face because of the conflict in the south china sea, we lose geopolitically
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I am also disappointed about the conflict with India, it opens the door to the USA to make a great anti-Chinese alliance throughout Asia (
anti-Chinese hatred in India has increased sharply).

This does not mean that we should give up our demands, but we must lower our tone, we must realize that to win the "cold war" against the USA, we need allies, nobody can win an open conflict on several fronts, and unfortunately today China has diplomatic problems on several fronts, from Japan to India, Australia, Great Britain, the USA ect ...

That's why Tsai Ing Wen has gained a lot of confidence lately, she sees anti-Chinese sentiment rising everywhere.

Time is playing in China's favor, we must be calm for the time being, we cannot win a cold war against the USA at the moment, this is stupid, especially as time is playing against the USA and playing in our favor, we need patience.

I also think as free_6ix9ine that China doesn't have a powerful soft power, China has to invest billions and billions in its soft power to target the entire world, because the united states has the power to influence the whole world through its media and it's culture (Hollywood ect)

(Sorry for my english)
I quote my post

I would add that Xi Jinping in terms of foreign policy is much more aggressive than his predecessors.

If we could afford this luxury before, when the United States was occupied in the Middle East or against Russia, today with the new cold war approaching (no matter the US president, the consensus is bipartisan ) China will need allies, we can't win on several fronts at the same time
 

KYli

Junior Member
China never has any alliance except with NK. China was much more isolated til Deng reform era. Just look at ASEAN nations, the relationship between China and ASEAN is still far better than a decade or two decades ago. I just don't get it why you guys are so desperate wanting people to like China. It is like you are willing to give up territories integrity just to appease these nations but couldn't explain what China would gain from giving up territories.

Myanmar, Cambodia, Lao, and Thailand, and Singapore improve and strengthen over the years
Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei, stay about the same over the years
Vietnam and Philippines, much better than the 80s and 90s but worse than 00s
 

Wangxi

Junior Member
Registered Member
China never has any alliance except with NK. China was much more isolated til Deng reform era. Just look at ASEAN nations, the relationship between China and ASEAN is still far better than a decade or two decades ago. I just don't get it why you guys are so desperate wanting people to like China. It is like you are willing to give up territories integrity just to appease these nations but couldn't explain what China would gain from giving up territories.

Myanmar, Cambodia, Lao, and Thailand, and Singapore improve and strengthen over the years
Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei, stay about the same over the years
Vietnam and Philippines, much better than the 80s and 90s but worse than 00s
I hope you realize that we are entering in a new cold war

When China was poor nobody cared, now that China is making progress in all areas, economy, space, military, semiconductor ect the United States became more aggressive because they don't want to be overtaken

Wake up, we are not in the 80s where China had only 1/20 of the GDP of America

The situation is not the same as in the 80s

Or even in the 2000s when the USA was concerned only with Russia or the Middle East, the Americans will pivot to Asia, Europe will take second place (whether biden or trump), the new cold war is going to take place in asia, and for that, whether you want it or not, china needs allies, and for the moment it is a disaster.

Fortunately for China, the USA has someone like Trump, Biden will be much more serious, I even think that Biden will succeed in mounting Europe against China.

The USA will never accept being overtaken by China, China must be ready, and time is playing on our side, territorial disputes can wait and we must keep the statue quo with our neighbors and improve our relations to be ready for the new cold war, every year we get stronger, our growth is stronger, time is playing in our favor, let's not be in a hurry on territorial issues, Hu Jintao was smarter than Xi Jinping
at the level of international relations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top