Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Geopolitical analysis for 2019: Asia Pacific" video.

@fearlessleader343 Those are internal issues, and that too fairly recent ones. Internal policies created them, and internal policies will attempt to deal with them. That in no way means America has dethroned China. Plus even if they fall through, it won't result in American companies coming back en masse. Meanwhile, Trump blockading China is wishful thinking. Blockades are an act of war, and I rather doubt America has the capacity or the will to engage in a protracted conflict with China right in its backyard, at least without some very strong provocation ala Pearl Harbor-style. Hell, they couldn't even handle far weaker nations in the Middle East or SE Asia. The American govt. will be forced to step back by both international AND domestic pressure long before the Chinese rise up in revolt against their own (just look how long Iran or Cuba has put with the same, and they both have far lower capacities) - it's not like the Chinese people are going to view this positively, they dislike the US probably far more than their own govt. If you think either the US establishment or public is going to tolerate such blatant and obvious swinging of the American dick around (pardon the language, but it conveys the impression well), then you've little appreciation for why Trump is so controversial even for his foreign policy - it's not because it's particularly different (it isn't), but because it's blatant and tactless. Meanwhile, plenty of countries have declining birth rates. China has more capacity than most to deal with that for a long long time - far longer than any period over which we can reasonably speculate the outcome, and certainly longer than both the current US administration, and even several of the successors to it. Hell, they even have millions of poor left to enrich who'll then buy more. There's plenty of room for incomes of the middle class to rise further as well, which powers further consumption. China isn't Japan or Germany - far from it (and even those nations are still doing okay, especially Germany). The reason China's domestic consumption is relatively low isn't because of its lowered population growth, but simply because the Chinese (like the Japanese, and unlike the Americans) save obsessively rather than spend more. That's a cultural thing, not demographic, and likely will fade over time as families get more used to being comfortably middle class rather than constantly stressing over their financial insecurities.
22
Why would they need to? China is still growing, even if a bit slower. And boosting domestic consumption has always been on the Chinese agenda - they don't like being too dependent on exports (especially to America) either. All this does is force them to expedite that shift. Meanwhile, the US isn't doing itself any favors with these tariffs - even the companies are just going to relocate to SE Asia rather than America, and the US leader responsible for pushing this agenda the hardest is likely to run out of time far sooner than Beijing will.
18
Lol. You're either seriously underestimating China's capacity, or seriously overestimating that of the US (and Japan lol!). Plus you're imagining a blockade, which I think you'll find won't go down well with anyone, including US citizens, unless China egregiously gave cause for one. To be clear, a blockade is an act of war - good luck trying to sell that (between the US and China) to any significant number of people.
13
@dh6128 India doesn't want to be an American stooge, like Europe has been for decades. They can even come together with China sometimes in that endeavour, such as with the recent launch of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank that directly competes with the US and Japanese dominated Asian Development Bank. Plus fundamentally the South China Sea and Taiwan are well beyond India's interests, which extend only to about the Malacca Strait (the real place where they can apply pressure to China). The last thing India wants is to pick a fight where it can't and doesn't even need to. The US has bases all over the world, but notably not in India - that tells you something. And generally Indian and American relations have been pretty unreliable over the decades (compared to say, the Russians, who've proven to be steadfast and dependable allies) something Indian policymakers will keep in mind when weighing their options. India likes its independence (it was even one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement) and won't give it up so easily.
10
He never said "the Chinese government is about to collapse", tho. China is still growing, even if a bit slower. And boosting domestic consumption has always been on the Chinese agenda - they don't like being too dependent on exports (especially to America) either. All this does is force them to expedite that shift. Meanwhile, the US isn't doing itself any favors with these tariffs - even the companies are just going to relocate to SE Asia rather than America, and the US leader responsible for pushing this agenda the hardest is likely to run out of time far sooner than Beijing will.
9
The parts of the world that have had issues with China for decades have usually had even worse experiences with the West. I think you'll find your little crusade is a pretty lonely one, which serves ya'll right for all the decades of self-serving 'realpolitik'.
9
Lol! Keep dreaming. ;)
8
@PlayerOblivion "China is an economic superpower, thus not a superpower in the same sense that the United States is." - China has repeatedly said that it doesn't even WANT to be a superpower in the same sense that US (and previously Britain) is. It's an extremely expensive position to maintain, and so Beijing would much rather focus on other things. All China wants is the power to set its own agenda, especially in its local region, not to be able to project military operations all the way to Florida. And so far it's been pretty successful at that. Simply put, China doesn't seek to greatly expand its power across the globe, simply to evict or reduce American influence over its region. If a war were to break out in the South China Sea, China has no desire to be able to land strikes on California, simply to sink enough American warships in the South China Sea. And you don't need a blue water navy to do that.
8
Alright, allow me to clarify (or retrench, if you choose to view it that way) my position - I'm not saying China doesn't want a seat at the table, or even considerable influence at that table. I'm saying China doesn't seek to be a superpower in the same vein as the US (or previously Britain). Yes, if it needs to be able to combat pirates, it will seek to be able to. Yes, if it needs to be able to defend its trade routes (from incursions short of WW3), it will seek to. But that's not the same as what America can do (and often has done) now, or what Britain could in its heyday. That kind of global military reach is simply unnecessary for China (as anything short of WW3 wouldn't need it), and is extremely expensive to maintain (not to mention pisses a lot of people off, which China certainly doesn't need more of). The only space it needs to be able to oust America from is the South China Sea, and perhaps (maybe) as far afield as the Straits of Malacca. Beyond that range a blockade would hurt so many nations, or be so ineffective if applied selectively, that the US would never try it. Combating pirates, meanwhile, doesn't require a particularly strong navy - yes, it's technically blue water, but let's be clear that it's nothing compared to the US navy. China certainly does not need to have the capacity to occupy nations thousands of miles away, something almost no nation (even first world ones) has or even pursues. In that sense, China (and India, for that matter) doesn't seek to be a superpower i.e. like America today. But that's a level of superpower that's arguable if its even worth pursuing. China will still have plenty of influence over its region (including militarily) and beyond (economically and diplomatically) to be able to stand up to America and make its demands, while having invested far less money into the enterprise.
7
They won't, most likely. And I'm no big fan of Modi. However, what they will do is force him to operate in a coalition govt. What one thinks of that outcome comes down to how mistrustful one is of centralized, single party power versus the policy difficulties coalition governance creates.
5
@fearlessleader343 "Why shouldn’t the US control the Philippines strategically...", "America won the Philippines fair a square. The Spanish gave it up..." - found the neocon lol! Everything is alright if the Americans do it, amirite?! ;)
4
@shanerooney7288 Well, I think we're splitting hairs at this point, as we agree closely enough. As I said in my clarification, I agree that technically what it seeks is a blue water navy, but it's not one that promises particularly strong power projection (against the likes of the US, not small fry pirates) much beyond the Straits. The difference of opinion here is just a matter of degree, over something as uncertain as the future course of the world (or even just one country), so I'm content to leave it at that. Cheers! :)
3
@LiamN4321 "The idea that the US is a uniquely evil power that exclusively influences countries around the world is very very stupid." - That's just your imagination of our reasoning, no one has said that. For my part, I said they wouldn't do it because it's an excessively expensive endeavor (and by this I mean not just monetary expense - for instance, it affects your international relations as well) that's simply not worth it beyond a point. Also partly because the kind of power the US currently enjoys came out of a unique historical moment and circumstances (two world wars that effectively cleared the table and also allowed it to bargain for some fairly uniquely favorable international arrangements), which means other emerging powers are unlikely to have so golden an opportunity to replicate it (unlike similar level catastrophes rearrange the world once more). Your examples of Japan and Germany are themselves evidence of this - each has proven it can take on the world if it wants to, and both have long since recovered from WW2, so why don't they? It isn't just the US 'keeping them in check' - their people don't even really aspire for those glory days again (even shorn of the brutality and genocide). Why? At least partly because they'd rather enjoy higher standards of living instead. There's little to gain from conquest these days and, as Iraq and Afghanistan have recently shown, plenty to lose down the hole of a protracted conflict. The US has until recently shown itself willing to shoulder that expense (in return for unprecedented influence, so they weren't just 'taken for a ride', but it's unlikely China will benefit so much due to the US alternative), and so these countries have simply allowed themselves to benefit from that. China doesn't trust the US and so will expand its military power as much as it feels it needs to, however, it won't expand it much further because (and even more so because it's poorer than the US) there are better, more enriching things and policy strategies it can leverage instead. Look at Germany - it dominates the EU without threatening any members with war. Japan is currently spearheading the largest free trade agreement on the planet (after America's abdication) without any military stick to force nations to comply. Why wouldn't China seek to replicate their success? They have influence aplenty, and China would have proportionately more. Even security interests these days tend to be better served by a domestic focus - America's War on Terror has been largely ineffective (or worse) at eliminating people with the worst in mind for the US, but its domestic anti-terror infrastructure has proven up to the task instead. And China is even more capable of domestic security operations (while projecting power over its nearby region), unfettered by a vibrant domestic media or civil society. It'd be far cheaper and more efficient for them to maintain security with a local priority than a globe-spanning military. Basically, China won't be as the US not because China is nicer, but because it's the smarter play. They can see what it takes to be a USA (and they don't even have any reliable allies, as the US had in Europe post-WW2), and in most cases (without any uniquely favorable global circumstances) that role fails a national cost-benefit analysis.
3
@LiamN4321 Oh, and "The US will strike down a emerging rival just like Britain did to Germany. That’s how geopolitics works, get used to it." - that's a very childish model of how geopolitics works, a zero-sum game where you have to brutally beat down every competitor. The US has struggled to beat even far weaker adversaries - they'll probably fail miserably with China. Not because China will beat them, but simply cos it'll exhaust them - they're fighting on China's border, after all. Short of WW3, total war isn't an option. And short of that, assuming Americans even have the stomach for that without any direct attack on their territory, they'll just get bogged down - something they're thoroughly sick of by now. War with China is no small endeavor and once again your own example illustrates that - Britain didn't want to fight Germany, and China has so far presented far less of a threat to the US than Germany ever did to Britain. Also, Britain had strong allies, the US doesn't (tbf, neither does China) - the rest of the world mostly doesn't want this trade war, and certainly won't care for an American hot war with China itself. Unless there's some giant provocation, an aggressive American action will mostly invite scorn from the international community, who'll probably sit it out if they can and hope it just comes to an end soon. The end result will simply be a tattered American reputation, and global economic distress. This isn't a schoolyard - geopolitics is far more nuanced and subtle than that.
2
China doesn't need to equal US consumption patterns. Indeed, no one needs to equal US consumption levels. US consumption outstrips even that of even developed nations, partly because of excess and partly because of inefficiency (this latter especially thanks to it being such a 'spread out' nation, rather than densely populated).
1
A piece of fucking sliced white bread! Hmm...so I guess now at least I've an idea of where you come from. Good to know.
1
@buttert5091 Indeed. It won't be easy. However, most of those countries are currently most interested in China staying out of their business than actively sabotaging China itself. And India in particular stands out here, as it has its own interests and disputes with China but, unlike Japan, is also fiercely against the idea of being used as a base for American power projection. I highly doubt they're going to do anything to actively hurt China unless China forces their hand (they've got this to worry about if they do - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siliguri_Corridor). Generally speaking India isn't going to interfere much in the South China Sea as long as China doesn't interfere too heavily in their North-East states. Which means they don't really align all too cleanly with the American agenda. That leaves the nations of SE Asia, which generally tend to play a sensitive balancing act, Japan, which will support the US upto a point but which China can probably handle, S. Korea, which is mainly concerned with its northern neighbour, and Taiwan, which is more reliant on the US than bolsters it. Tbh, really, this is just the normal pressures most nations have to (and have always had to) deal with. It's Britain (as island power) and the US (probably the most geographically gifted country on Earth, with no strong continental rivals) that're the outliers here. The Chinese face contestation much like most countries do, and they're well used to it (as is India, for that matter).
1
What's there to report? There's been no significant changes, have there?
1