Global Chinese diplomatic presence and intervention?

TK3600

Captain
Registered Member
For a long time China has maintained a non-intervention position in an almost neutral fashion. Usually China urge both sides to maintain dialogue and respect international laws, that's it. Whenever China is making deals with other countries the actions are constrained to China and the partner country only. The recent Ukraine peace proposal marked a shift in the policy. China is directly confronting American interest in a region far away from home. China officially is taking a position in the crisis. Will this be the beginning of a China actively wrestling influence against Americans?
 

coolgod

Captain
Registered Member
For a long time China has maintained a non-intervention position in an almost neutral fashion. Usually China urge both sides to maintain dialogue and respect international laws, that's it. Whenever China is making deals with other countries the actions are constrained to China and the partner country only. The recent Ukraine peace proposal marked a shift in the policy. China is directly confronting American interest in a region far away from home. China officially is taking a position in the crisis. Will this be the beginning of a China actively wrestling influence against Americans?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No, Europe is a lost cause. They can fight Russia and amongst themselves for all China cares, the only thing they offer to China is market. With the fall of Europe and the rise of global south, the loss of the European market is quickly replaced by the rest of the world.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
I hope it will be. Most people don't realize it but China has fewer allies than it had in 1970. The reason is political isolationism. Nobody allies a shopping mall because the threat of violence trumps over all economic arguments.
How do you even count to arrive at an absurd conclusion like that?

I mean, sure you can count US and their client states as being allies in 1970. But you see how that turned out once the mutual goal of putting the USSR out of its misery was finished. Those were not true allies by any stretch of the word.

Nowadays China has Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, Iran as its core autonomous allies and NK as a client state. That might not be a huge list, but Russia was the grand prize of the cold war and comes with 5-6 thousand nukes plus territory bigger than the EU. How is having them under China's thumb any worse than in the late 1970s when China's only major autonomous ally was USA, which China was a junior partner to???

Today, China's bloc has already surpassed what the USSR had in output, territory, population and economy, by a lot, even during its peak. Even if China needs to progressively tie its bloc closer, this is still the largest the socialist world has ever been.

China should always look to expanding its architecture in size, but I don't think this is anywhere as close to a priority compared to expanding in quality. First, they need to get rid of corruption and inefficiency in the projects they're already managing before finding new projects. That means tightening ideological adherence, helping them purge the useless within their local politics. Russia and NK are the ideal candidates for that.

Better to have just a handful of countries as well developed as China itself than spread thin trying to influence a lot of stuff at once and end up owning a bunch of shitty rebel groups.
 

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
How do you even count to arrive at an absurd conclusion like that?

I mean, sure you can count US and their client states as being allies in 1970. But you see how that turned out once the mutual goal of putting the USSR out of its misery was finished. Those were not true allies by any stretch of the word.

Nowadays China has Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, Iran as its core autonomous allies and NK as a client state. That might not be a huge list, but Russia was the grand prize of the cold war and comes with 5-6 thousand nukes plus territory bigger than the EU. How is having them under China's thumb any worse than in the late 1970s when China's only major autonomous ally was USA, which China was a junior partner to???

Today, China's bloc has already surpassed what the USSR had in output, territory, population and economy, by a lot, even during its peak. Even if China needs to progressively tie its bloc closer, this is still the largest the socialist world has ever been.

China should always look to expanding its architecture in size, but I don't think this is anywhere as close to a priority compared to expanding in quality. First, they need to get rid of corruption and inefficiency in the projects they're already managing before finding new projects. That means tightening ideological adherence, helping them purge the useless within their local politics. Russia and NK are the ideal candidates for that.

Better to have just a handful of countries as well developed as China itself than spread thin trying to influence a lot of stuff at once and end up owning a bunch of shitty rebel groups.
Umm, no.

North Korea is not a Chinese client state at all. Looking at what's going on China has zero say over its relationship to Russia or nuclear program. Russia and Pakistan are not Chinese allies either. Which of them would help China in a conflict in WESTPAC? The answer is none.

China of 1970 had actual political weight in numerous countries. In 1960s it intervened in many revolutionary and independence wars. It was how 2/3 of the planet voted in favor of replacing ROC with PRC in UN. Major arms sales is usually a good indicator of political alignment. Compare export record of the J-7 with J-10.

Some Chinese nationalists get angry at me when I say this, but to me, it seems like post-1979 China wanted to become a larger Japan or Germany without US bases. Politically passive trader... They had zero interest in great power games even after Obama's pivot to the Pacific. It took years for China to understand it had to confront the USA.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Umm, no.

North Korea is not a Chinese client state at all. Looking at what's going on China has zero say over its relationship to Russia or nuclear program. Russia and Pakistan are not Chinese allies either. Which of them would help China in a conflict in WESTPAC? The answer is none.

China of 1970 had actual political weight in numerous countries. In 1960s it intervened in many revolutionary and independence wars. It was how 2/3 of the planet voted in favor of replacing ROC with PRC in UN. Major arms sales is usually a good indicator of political alignment. Compare export record of the J-7 with J-10.

Some Chinese nationalists get angry at me when I say this, but to me, it seems like post-1979 China wanted to become a larger Japan or Germany without US bases. Politically passive trader... They had zero interest in great power games even after Obama's pivot to the Pacific. It took years for China to understand it had to confront the USA.
Yep Deng wanted China to be big Singapore and "pragmatic", Jiang and Hu couldn't challenge that due to both owing too much political capital to the Deng faction.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Umm, no.

North Korea is not a Chinese client state at all. Looking at what's going on China has zero say over its relationship to Russia or nuclear program. Russia and Pakistan are not Chinese allies either. Which of them would help China in a conflict in WESTPAC? The answer is none.

China of 1970 had actual political weight in numerous countries. In 1960s it intervened in many revolutionary and independence wars. It was how 2/3 of the planet voted in favor of replacing ROC with PRC in UN. Major arms sales is usually a good indicator of political alignment. Compare export record of the J-7 with J-10.

Some Chinese nationalists get angry at me when I say this, but to me, it seems like post-1979 China wanted to become a larger Japan or Germany without US bases. Politically passive trader... They had zero interest in great power games even after Obama's pivot to the Pacific. It took years for China to understand it had to confront the USA.

You're right that China under Mao and China under Deng had different views on foreign policy. China under Mao was an active member of the global Communism movement while China under Deng followed the famous maxim of hiding your strength and biding your time.

The key difference was that in the former era, China was following the Soviet Union's lead in exporting revolutions. However, once relations with the Soviet Union deteriorated, and China instead began cultivating relations with the US, it no longer made sense to continue it's previous foreign policy, and thus Deng's maxim came into play.

Today, with an actively hostile US, China can no longer stand by and is now forced to play a more active role on the world stage.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Umm, no.

North Korea is not a Chinese client state at all. Looking at what's going on China has zero say over its relationship to Russia or nuclear program. Russia and Pakistan are not Chinese allies either. Which of them would help China in a conflict in WESTPAC? The answer is none.

China of 1970 had actual political weight in numerous countries. In 1960s it intervened in many revolutionary and independence wars. It was how 2/3 of the planet voted in favor of replacing ROC with PRC in UN. Major arms sales is usually a good indicator of political alignment. Compare export record of the J-7 with J-10.

Some Chinese nationalists get angry at me when I say this, but to me, it seems like post-1979 China wanted to become a larger Japan or Germany without US bases. Politically passive trader... They had zero interest in great power games even after Obama's pivot to the Pacific. It took years for China to understand it had to confront the USA.
Who okayed them to have a nuclear program?

They literally have the same agreement as NATO Article 5 with China as US has with Canada. How does that not make them a complete extension of Beijing?

Russia is as likely to help as Japan is likely to help US. You tell me if that's likely or not?

Pakistan is too terrible economically to do anything anyways. Just like Mexico or Lithuania would not help USA either, because they're too shit. They're still some sort of asset.

Theres no fucking way you'd look back to the 70s with rose tinted glasses during an era where China had to be junior partner with US and there was nearly no national capabilities. I'm sorry but that is the opinion of an absolute donkey.

0 F-22s have been sold vs how many thousands of F-104s distributed all over the world? What is even your point. The J-10 is a top of the line product that only reliable countries can have access to and needs good maintenance to work.

2/3 the world voted for PRC because it was the legit government. Today 2/3 of the world also voted against even bringing up numerous American lies in the UN. So I don't see a difference, except back then, China didn't rule its bloc, and that 2/3 had terrible gdp. Now, its still 2/3 but it includes the biggest oil producers, the biggest areas by land mass, and they have the largest economy in the world in their bloc. And China, not the USSR, is the leader.

You cannot possibly be so delusional that you look on those dark ages as a model of what to do.
 

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Who okayed them to have a nuclear program?

They literally have the same agreement as NATO Article 5 with China as US has with Canada. How does that not make them a complete extension of Beijing?

Russia is as likely to help as Japan is likely to help US. You tell me if that's likely or not?

Pakistan is too terrible economically to do anything anyways. Just like Mexico or Lithuania would not help USA either, because they're too shit. They're still some sort of asset.

Theres no fucking way you'd look back to the 70s with rose tinted glasses during an era where China had to be junior partner with US and there was nearly no national capabilities. I'm sorry but that is the opinion of an absolute donkey.

0 F-22s have been sold vs how many thousands of F-104s distributed all over the world? What is even your point. The J-10 is a top of the line product that only reliable countries can have access to and needs good maintenance to work.

2/3 the world voted for PRC because it was the legit government. Today 2/3 of the world also voted against even bringing up numerous American lies in the UN. So I don't see a difference, except back then, China didn't rule its bloc, and that 2/3 had terrible gdp. Now, its still 2/3 but it includes the biggest oil producers, the biggest areas by land mass, and they have the largest economy in the world in their bloc. And China, not the USSR, is the leader.

You cannot possibly be so delusional that you look on those dark ages as a model of what to do.
China didn't okay North Korean nuclear program. It was one of the biggest opponents. It still doesn't sell them TELs. In fact that TEL embargo was one of the biggest problems of NK's nuclear program until they started producing good ones 2-3 years ago. North Korea ignored China's opinion and went ahead. Because there was nothing China could do besides invading them. China was complying with sanctions even regarding food and healthcare. So North Korea, in my opinion correctly, decided that China's security guarantee wasn't reliable. You don't watch your ally struggle to find food. Yet China did exactly that for decades.

Talking about exports of modern fighter jets, how many countries are betting the next 30 years of their air force on the F-35? Quite a lot. On the other hand, China's friend Pakistan would order American aircraft if it could. F-22 and F-104 comparison is meaningless, sorry.

Look, I am very pro-China as you can easily see from my other posts. But we need to recognize that there are massive problems with China's foreign policy and communication with the outside world. For example China shouldn't have any problems with US bases in the Philippines in 2023. But it does. If it continues this "avoid any confrontation to avoid any economic loss" policy it will get treated like a shopping mall rather than a great power. This is why I think it should support Russia and invade Taiwan before 2030. China hasn't stood up for its redlines or friends for 40+ years. And that is a bad look. The US is sending 200 soldiers to Taiwan. A redline regardless of how you can bother to twist it. China's reaction will affect its long term credibility.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Look, I am very pro-China as you can easily see from my other posts. But we need to recognize that there are massive problems with China's foreign policy and communication with the outside world. For example China shouldn't have any problems with US bases in the Philippines in 2023. But it does. If it continues this "avoid any confrontation to avoid any economic loss" policy it will get treated like a shopping mall rather than a great power. This is why I think it should support Russia and invade Taiwan before 2030. China hasn't stood up for its redlines or friends for 40+ years. And that is a bad look. The US is sending 200 soldiers to Taiwan. A redline regardless of how you can bother to twist it. China's reaction will affect its long term credibility.

I have to disagree here. I think the past 30 years speak for themselves. Since the fall of the USSR, every time the US tried to turn its attention to China, something would force them to direct their attention elsewhere. Meanwhile, China has neutralized every US attempt at undermining: SCS, Diaoyu Island, Trade War, HK. The current TW crisis is only the latest maneuver from the US. At the same time, China is building economic ties with every continent except Antarctica.

The only redline China has with regards to Taiwan is independence. The latest US provocations can be met with proportional retaliatory measures.
 
Top