Cold War against China?

[neverdie]

Meh. Feck Kissinger and his shitty legacy, especially in Southeast Asia and Latin America.

You're speaking about a nobel peace prize winner there. It's lame to blame it on Kissinger anyway. It was an entire US campaign of which Kissinger was head of geopol for a few years. Look at the Pentagon Papers. It was going on for decades.

More apt to say "feck the American legacy in Southeast Asia" if that's the level we're debating at (and all the way back to Monroe for cancellation if we go Latin/South America). Chomsky famously said every US president post-FDR could have been tried in the Hague according to the Nuremberg laws. He was right, technically, but you only dislike Kissinger because you're rabidly anti-Chinese (or rabidly pro-Cold War with China or whatever it is that has Kissinger in your bad books: if he said "China is the scum of the earth", I have a feeling you woudn't give a shit). I doubt you'd have the same sentiment to the rest of the US MIC establishment, but I could be wrong.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

You're speaking about a nobel peace prize winner there. It's lame to blame it on Kissinger anyway. It was an entire US campaign of which Kissinger was head of geopol for a few years. Look at the Pentagon Papers. It was going on for decades.

More apt to say "feck the American legacy in Southeast Asia" if that's the level we're debating at (and all the way back to Monroe for cancellation if we go Latin/South America). Chomsky famously said every US president post-FDR could have been tried in the Hague according to the Nuremberg laws. He was right, technically, but you only dislike Kissinger because you're rabidly anti-Chinese (or rabidly pro-Cold War with China or whatever it is that has Kissinger in your bad books: if he said "China is the scum of the earth", I have a feeling you woudn't give a shit). I doubt you'd have the same sentiment to the rest of the US MIC establishment, but I could be wrong.

And you are either so stuck up China's ass ore purely anti-West, it is really pathetic.

You have never faced rabid CCP supporters while I was defending causes that should be universal; I did. Your words are totally empty all until you live through those moments.

@Raoul : Is there no way I can ignore that guy? I can't get on his profile to ignore him.

 

[neverdie]

And you are so stuck up China's ass, it is really pathetic.

You have never faced rabid CCP supporters while I was defending causes that should be universal; I did. Your words are totally empty all until you live through those moments.

@Mods: Is there no way I can ignore that guy? I can't get on his profile to ignore him.

I don't usually do individual posting tags, but your posting history is terrible (sorry for ad hominem). If "anti-war" or "nuance", then RDQ says "feck this guy" or whatever. Maybe just my misconception.

As for rabid CCP supporters: I have no idea what that means. You'd have to elaborate. You just seem like the most pro-war poster of all times. Might be wrong.

 

[neverdie]

Renowned diplomat Henry Kissinger calls for resolute American military might as a counterbalance against the rising challenges posed by China and Russia. He sternly admonishes their disruptive actions, urging the United States to be assertive in protecting its interests.

China's aggressive expansionism and Russia's destabilizing maneuvers demand robust responses. Kissinger insists on leveraging American strength to deter adversaries and safeguard global stability.

In this volatile world, NATO remains America's crucial ally. Kissinger emphasizes its role in collective defense and confronts new threats like cyber warfare head-on. A united Western front, spearheaded by the U.S., is essential in navigating the complex geopolitical landscape.

Kissinger's stance resonates with unyielding determination: unity through strength and a clear message to rivals – the United States will safeguard its interests and protect the international order.

@RedDevilQuebecois

I mean surely you agree with that.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Cal?]

Excellent, wish they'd hurry up with it, probably best to try to convince Kishida to agree to having nukes placed in Okinawa.

 

[Cal?]

@RedDevilQuebecois

I mean surely you agree with that.

I do, but when did Kissinger said that? Can't find anything online

 

[neverdie]

I do, but when did Kissinger said that? Can't find anything online

Sixty years ago. Was just paraphrasing the Kissinger doctrine of Soviet-China geopolitical lever (keeping them apart) for the modern age. It has always been his lasting achievement in geopolitics, that he managed, or is perceived to have managed, to prize one away from the other (not entirely down to him but basically smbolized in the Mao-Nixon via Kissinger moment).

It's not a quote, it's rhetorical paraphrase. His policy, as it goes, is also White House orthodoxy today. They say that "Russia and China are not natural allies". Probably not wrong, but they're just going about it very differently, seemingly antithetical because it has the effect, whatever the cause, of driving the two together when the aim has always been to keep the two apart. That's the pitfall of what is an impossible "simultaneous" containment to begin with.

 

[Cal?]

Sixty years ago. Was just paraphrasing the Kissinger doctrine of Soviet-China geopolitical lever (keeping them apart) for the modern age. It has always been his lasting achievement in geopolitics, that he managed, or is perceived to have managed, to prize one away from the other (not entirely down to him but basically smbolized in the Mao-Nixon via Kissinger moment).

It's not a quote, it's rhetorical paraphrase. His policy, as it goes, is also White House orthodoxy today. They say that "Russia and China are not natural allies". Probably not wrong, but they're just going about it very differently, seemingly antithetical because it has the effect, whatever the cause, of driving the two together when the aim has always been to keep the two apart. That's the pitfall of what is an impossible "simultaneous" containment to begin with.

I don't agree that it's impossble to contain both, in fact, we are heading quite quickly towards it.

The Ukraine war has shown the world that Russia are not the force the USSR was and frankly, short of nukes, have nothing that threatens Europe. They also know that using nukes would likely lead to their annihilation.

China, on the other hand, are not doing well economically at all, the rapidly aging and declining population, the huge housing bubble on the verge of collapse, all looking eerily similar to Japan in the late 80s/early 90s before the lost decades. Whilst Japan stagnated through 30 years from one of the highest GDP per capita in the world in the 90s, China's is only middling right now.

 

[The United]

I don't agree that it's impossble to contain both, in fact, we are heading quite quickly towards it.

The Ukraine war has shown the world that Russia are not the force the USSR was and frankly, short of nukes, have nothing that threatens Europe. They also know that using nukes would likely lead to their annihilation.

China, on the other hand, are not doing well economically at all, the rapidly aging and declining population, the huge housing bubble on the verge of collapse, all looking eerily similar to Japan in the late 80s/early 90s before the lost decades. Whilst Japan stagnated through 30 years from one of the highest GDP per capita in the world in the 90s, China's is only middling right now.

The China economy stuff is pretty interesting. Some people have been saying that this would be their peak for about two decades and the country kept going on. I mean at one point, they would be right.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Excellent, wish they'd hurry up with it, probably best to try to convince Kishida to agree to having nukes placed in Okinawa.

In Okinawa, in South Korea and especially in Taiwan. Using a page from North Korea's playbook and turning it against the communist alliance would make sense to enforce the statu quo for as long as China, Russia and North Korea represent clear and present dangers to democracy.

I don't agree that it's impossble to contain both, in fact, we are heading quite quickly towards it.

The Ukraine war has shown the world that Russia are not the force the USSR was and frankly, short of nukes, have nothing that threatens Europe. They also know that using nukes would likely lead to their annihilation.

China, on the other hand, are not doing well economically at all, the rapidly aging and declining population, the huge housing bubble on the verge of collapse, all looking eerily similar to Japan in the late 80s/early 90s before the lost decades. Whilst Japan stagnated through 30 years from one of the highest GDP per capita in the world in the 90s, China's is only middling right now.

I believe China under the CCP is seriously fecked down the road, and that could be one reason why the danger of the CCP doing a desperate move like Argentina's invasion of the Falklands is real. Deterrence against a Chinese attack is the key now.

You mentioned Japan's stagnation for 3 decades, but they managed to survive those decades of economical mismanagement by having a solid social safety net for their own people and thus prevent a mass exodus abroad in that time. That picture will not be replicated in China with the current attitude in the CCP's current policies and the severe lack of job opportunities for younger people while there is basically no social safety net.

 

[neverdie]

I don't agree that it's impossble to contain both, in fact, we are heading quite quickly towards it.

It's been official US policy for ten years.

It's entirely impossible insofar as any of it = cold war (again) for that = species death. It is profoundly stupid no matter your national preference.

 

[VorZakone]

I'm sure Macron means well but how come so much of his foreign policy rhetoric causes controversy?

 

[Cal?]

The China economy stuff is pretty interesting. Some people have been saying that this would be their peak for about two decades and the country kept going on. I mean at one point, they would be right.

Well, China's population is declining now and youth unemployment is skyrocketing.

In Okinawa, in South Korea and especially in Taiwan. Using a page from North Korea's playbook and turning it against the communist alliance would make sense to enforce the statu quo for as long as China, Russia and North Korea represent clear and present dangers to democracy.

It's imperative to make it clear to Emperor Xi that he has no chance of winning a war, conventional or otherwise.

I believe China under the CCP is seriously fecked down the road, and that could be one reason why the danger of the CCP doing a desperate move like Argentina's invasion of the Falklands is real. Deterrence against a Chinese attack is the key now.

You mentioned Japan's stagnation for 3 decades, but they managed to survive those decades of economical mismanagement by having a solid social safety net for their own people and thus prevent a mass exodus abroad in that time. That picture will not be replicated in China with the current attitude in the CCP's current policies and the severe lack of job opportunities for younger people while there is basically no social safety net.

Exactly, Japan stagnated through decades from a very high starting position, China is nowhere near that level and the CCP treat their people like shit.

 

[The United]

Well, China's population is declining now and youth unemployment is skyrocketing.

I personally think they will be fine for about another 50 years.

 

[Cal?]

I'm sure Macron means well but how come so much of his foreign policy rhetoric causes controversy?

I don't know what Macron is playing at, his objection to a NATO office in Japan is only going to dilute European influence in world affairs.

Japan already has a Security Treaty with the US and getting quite close with Australia and South Korea, not exactly waiting for France to send help if war breaks out.

Funny how Emperor Xi has solved the mutual distrust and tension between Japan & South Korea.

 

[George Owen]

I don't agree that it's impossble to contain both, in fact, we are heading quite quickly towards it.

The Ukraine war has shown the world that Russia are not the force the USSR was and frankly, short of nukes, have nothing that threatens Europe. They also know that using nukes would likely lead to their annihilation.

China, on the other hand, are not doing well economically at all, the rapidly aging and declining population, the huge housing bubble on the verge of collapse, all looking eerily similar to Japan in the late 80s/early 90s before the lost decades. Whilst Japan stagnated through 30 years from one of the highest GDP per capita in the world in the 90s, China's is only middling right now.

Isn't that the same as pretty much every country out there?

 

[Cal?]

I personally think they will be fine for about another 50 years.

Fine is a relative term, many were talking about China beating USA's GDP by the 2030s a few years ago, don't think anyone is projecting that any more.

 

[The United]

Fine is a relative term, many were talking about China beating USA's GDP by the 2030s a few years ago, don't think anyone is projecting that any more.

Because "anyone" can't accuately predict anything about economic stuff, in general. So, that's why I put "50" years stuff out there.

 

[Cal?]

Isn't that the same as pretty much every country out there?

Not quite, China has one of the lowest birth rates in the world (as do most of east Asia), but their biggest issue is the decades of the one child policy has left a rapidly aging population.

Of course projections may not be accurate, but even as things stand, it's not a healthy shape.

 

[Cal?]

Because "anyone" can't accuately predict anything about economic stuff, in general. So, that's why I put "50" years stuff out there.

We'll see, most indicators don't point in that direction.

 

[The United]

We'll see, most indicators don't point in that direction.

China will probably pass the U.S. in terms of GDP or whatever before they decline, assuming the U.S. stays strong themselves this whole time. That is based on my "gut' feeling and a lot of experts saying how they would have declined for the past twenty years.

 

[berbatrick]

Sixty years ago. Was just paraphrasing the Kissinger doctrine of Soviet-China geopolitical lever (keeping them apart) for the modern age. It has always been his lasting achievement in geopolitics, that he managed, or is perceived to have managed, to prize one away from the other (not entirely down to him but basically smbolized in the Mao-Nixon via Kissinger moment).

It's not a quote, it's rhetorical paraphrase. His policy, as it goes, is also White House orthodoxy today. They say that "Russia and China are not natural allies". Probably not wrong, but they're just going about it very differently, seemingly antithetical because it has the effect, whatever the cause, of driving the two together when the aim has always been to keep the two apart. That's the pitfall of what is an impossible "simultaneous" containment to begin with.

Kissinger and winning the cold war isn't good enough for today's liberals, they're closer to Bircherite foreign policy, a strong moral drive towards annihilation.
So you have the same person, a few pages ago, arguing that the bombing of Vietnam (which included chemical warfare causing generational birth defects, and of course bombing of cities) was too mild, and then, a few pages later, arguing that Kissinger bombing Cambodia is a human tragedy (because it implicates Kissinger, a realist as opposed to Neoncons or Birchers or liberal anti-communists).

 

[TwoSheds]

Kissinger and winning the cold war isn't good enough for today's liberals, they're closer to Bircherite foreign policy, a strong moral drive towards annihilation.
So you have the same person, a few pages ago, arguing that the bombing of Vietnam (which included chemical warfare causing generational birth defects, and of course bombing of cities) was too mild, and then, a few pages later, arguing that Kissinger bombing Cambodia is a human tragedy (because it implicates Kissinger, a realist as opposed to Neoncons or Birchers or liberal anti-communists).

You do know that guy is a bloodthirsty war nerd and therefore not terribly reflective of "liberals" at large? But don't let your anecdotal evidence get in the way of a good generalisation will you. Doom mongering is the only way to get the juices flowing these days it seems.

 

[entropy]

I can’t think of a single democrat president in the last few decades who was against kissinger. all of them hold him in very high regard.

 

[neverdie]

Fine is a relative term, many were talking about China beating USA's GDP by the 2030s a few years ago, don't think anyone is projecting that any more.

Most would still say that's going to happen by the end of the next decade.


By 2050:

• The world economy could more than double in size by 2050, far outstripping population growth, due to continued technology-driven productivity improvements
• Emerging markets (E7) could grow around twice as fast as advanced economies (G7) on average
• As a result, six of the seven largest economies in the world are projected to be emerging economies in 2050 led by China (1st), India (2nd) and Indonesia (4th)
• The US could be down to third place in the global GDP rankings while the EU27’s share of world GDP could fall below 10% by 2050
• UK could be down to 10th place by 2050, France out of the top 10 and Italy out of the top 20 as they are overtaken by faster growing emerging economies like Mexico, Turkey and Vietnam respectively
• But emerging economies need to enhance their institutions and their infrastructure significantly if they are to realise their long-term growth potential

China and then US (qualitatively) and India. In that order. India has at least 30 years to go to get to a per capita level rather than just PPP (equilibrium). China has overtaken the us in pure PPP terms already. In nominal terms, the US is still ahead but unlikely, or close to impossible, for that to remain 15+ years into the future. It's just simple mathematics. Despite Japan's problems, debt, mostly, they still have an economy which represents a trade surplus of a 100 billion per year (it's growing).

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

I don't know what Macron is playing at, his objection to a NATO office in Japan is only going to dilute European influence in world affairs.

Japan already has a Security Treaty with the US and getting quite close with Australia and South Korea, not exactly waiting for France to send help if war breaks out.

Funny how Emperor Xi has solved the mutual distrust and tension between Japan & South Korea.

Macron is basically obeying to several corporate interests that fed off Russian and Chinese money for decades, with Louis Vuitton being arguably the biggest culprit here.

Worth a read in The Globe and Mail.

 

[Cal?]

Most would still say that's going to happen by the end of the next decade.


By 2050:

• The world economy could more than double in size by 2050, far outstripping population growth, due to continued technology-driven productivity improvements
• Emerging markets (E7) could grow around twice as fast as advanced economies (G7) on average
• As a result, six of the seven largest economies in the world are projected to be emerging economies in 2050 led by China (1st), India (2nd) and Indonesia (4th)
• The US could be down to third place in the global GDP rankings while the EU27’s share of world GDP could fall below 10% by 2050
• UK could be down to 10th place by 2050, France out of the top 10 and Italy out of the top 20 as they are overtaken by faster growing emerging economies like Mexico, Turkey and Vietnam respectively
• But emerging economies need to enhance their institutions and their infrastructure significantly if they are to realise their long-term growth potential

China and then US (qualitatively) and India. In that order. India has at least 30 years to go to get to a per capita level rather than just PPP (equilibrium). China has overtaken the us in pure PPP terms already. In nominal terms, the US is still ahead but unlikely, or close to impossible, for that to remain 15+ years into the future. It's just simple mathematics. Despite Japan's problems, debt, mostly, they still have an economy which represents a trade surplus of a 100 billion per year (it's growing).

Nobody can predict the future accurately, but your first point and 2nd point simply don't correlate.

If growth is to be driven by technology rather than population, there's littel to suggest emerging markets will grow quicker than developed economies.

The way things are going, I would be shocked to see China get to first place ever.

 

[Cal?]

Macron is basically obeying to several corporate interests that fed off Russian and Chinese money for decades, with Louis Vuitton being arguably the biggest culprit here.

Worth a read in The Globe and Mail.

Guess Bernard Arnault is the overlord of France.

Refering to the article, it's little surprise that favorability of China has steadily declined around the world with China's war wolf policy.

 

[neverdie]

The way things are going, I would be shocked to see China get to first place ever.

I'd be shocked to see them not retain first, in PPP terms, which they have already (some would say more accurate to begin with, though I prefer a balance of both because it seems more accurate, both per capita and purchasing power), and, from then, I don't see how given the rate of transformation and consistent growth (5% this year's target) over seventy years but accelerated over thirty or so, - I don't see how they do not slowly but surely reach and struggle, with India, by end of this century, so US for the majority of it, to officially take top status in each metric.

1. China
2. US
3. [EU] (should grow more than the US if you consider its population size but then it has certain things against it, lack of minerals and so on to begin with: also, does it even survive?).
4. India

Few people looking at the past in the present with an eye to the future expect anything other than that for a few decades (India may eventually overtake the US, and even China, next century). It's just the way it's going. The Americans were/are the first to recognise it (pivot to Asia, competition for attention/saturation within that zone of economic "fire"). After that, you have the EU, a general Arab League, which I cannot see NOT becoming more of a bloc than it is, just for economic sake, the BRS from the BRICS (Iran not Arabic, but within that category in trade-terms) and an African Union which needs to seriously become something functional (the continent itself representing the largest likely area of growth over the century considering population, age, economic baseline, and so on). Anyway, I don't know a serious forecaster in any area who would not give you that top four (as per the next decade and probably China/US, in that order, for a couple more).

 

[VorZakone]

American intelligence officials believe the malware could give China the power to disrupt or slow American deployments or resupply operations, including during a Chinese move against Taiwan.

 

[Cal?]

I'd be shocked to see them not retain first, in PPP terms, which they have already (some would say more accurate to begin with, though I prefer a balance of both because it seems more accurate, both per capita and purchasing power), and, from then, I don't see how given the rate of transformation and consistent growth (5% this year's target) over seventy years but accelerated over thirty or so, - I don't see how they do not slowly but surely reach and struggle, with India, by end of this century, so US for the majority of it, to officially take top status in each metric.

1. China
2. US
3. [EU] (should grow more than the US if you consider its population size but then it has certain things against it, lack of minerals and so on to begin with: also, does it even survive?).
4. India

Few people looking at the past in the present with an eye to the future expect anything other than that for a few decades (India may eventually overtake the US, and even China, next century). It's just the way it's going. The Americans were/are the first to recognise it (pivot to Asia, competition for attention/saturation within that zone of economic "fire"). After that, you have the EU, a general Arab League, which I cannot see NOT becoming more of a bloc than it is, just for economic sake, the BRS from the BRICS (Iran not Arabic, but within that category in trade-terms) and an African Union which needs to seriously become something functional (the continent itself representing the largest likely area of growth over the century considering population, age, economic baseline, and so on). Anyway, I don't know a serious forecaster in any area who would not give you that top four (as per the next decade and probably China/US, in that order, for a couple more).

I agree with most of that, in PPP terms China is ahead and will probably for a while. But in nominal terms, I think US will stay top for a while yet.

All this assuming WWIII doensn't happen...

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

Interesting development from Italy..

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Scholz and Macron are both crawling in front of their greedy and amoral corporate overlords. No wonder why they have looked pathetic for so long after the war in Ukraine began, until it was no longer politically viable to do so.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[berbatrick]

You do know that guy is a bloodthirsty war nerd and therefore not terribly reflective of "liberals" at large? But don't let your anecdotal evidence get in the way of a good generalisation will you. Doom mongering is the only way to get the juices flowing these days it seems.

It's anecdotal and yes I chose the low hanging fruit by picking him, and I'm not going to bother to link to things, so feel free to ignore. Just giving my impression:
In the articles that google recommends to me, there are at least 2-3 articles about evil China every day. Among liberal commentators I see on twitter, there is a lot of anti-China rhetoric. Over here the same. That in itself suggests a ruling class and nation headed to confrontation, but nothing more than that.
It's all this combined with the moralistic tone that US FP has re-acquainted with since Russia's invasion of Ukraine that is chilling. The cold calculation that usually drives countries is no longer considered, in fact it's wrong to consider it: it's about freedom, democracy, good and evil, dictatorship, communism, and the moral obligation to help the good guy. You combine this moralism with aggression and I don't see how it ends well.

Moralistic anti-Communism worked great in the 80s once the USSR was isolated and economically stagnant. But to bring it to that point, it needed cold amoral politics: SALT, Nixon going to China, Operation Cyclone, apart from the more moralistic stuff in Korea, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

e - a lot of good v evil and moral talk in the 2000s too.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

That in itself suggests a ruling class and nation headed to confrontation, but nothing more than that.

A ruling class? Seems to me that the ruling class (savage capitalists and greedy entrepeneurs) has been whoring itself for too long with dictators for way too long and that people are choosing to not turn a blind eye anymore.

It's all this combined with the moralistic tone that US FP has re-acquainted with since Russia's invasion of Ukraine that is chilling. The cold calculation that usually drives countries is no longer considered, in fact it's wrong to consider it: it's about freedom, democracy, good and evil, dictatorship, communism, and the moral obligation to help the good guy. You combine this moralism with aggression and I don't see how it ends well.

Moralistic anti-Communism worked great in the 80s once the USSR was isolated and economically stagnant. But to bring it to that point, it needed cold amoral politics: SALT, Nixon going to China, Operation Cyclone, apart from the more moralistic stuff in Korea, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

Have you ever considered that such distorted view of pragmatism is exactly what created the many gray areas for dictatorships to exploit in recent years? The so-called cold calculation served for some time but also met its expiry date. The can of worms was opened as soon as the West turned blind eyes to abuses from certain dictatorships, so much that abuses became more overt and that anti-democracy became mainstream worldwide as well.

If democratic countries stood taller and stronger by their own principles over the last decade, would major dictatorships have become any stronger since? Would democratically elected governments from Myanmar and Senegal have been kicked out in such a violent manner without serious backing from China and Russia respectively? Would Ukraine have been invaded? Now that we can't repair the past, all there is left is to do whatever necessary to protect democratic institutions against autocratic influence.

If you don't like the way things are going within Western and European political circles towards China or the likes, then it is too bad. This new cold war has already begun between democracy and autocracy instead of simply capitalism against communism. Autocrats already made the first move across the world, so it's up to believers of democracy to respond with a solid share of strength through principles. Personally, I want nothing less than all autocratic regimes to fall flat on their faces down the road. Call me crazy all you want; I don't care anymore.

 

[TwoSheds]

It's anecdotal and yes I chose the low hanging fruit by picking him, and I'm not going to bother to link to things, so feel free to ignore. Just giving my impression:
In the articles that google recommends to me, there are at least 2-3 articles about evil China every day. Among liberal commentators I see on twitter, there is a lot of anti-China rhetoric. Over here the same. That in itself suggests a ruling class and nation headed to confrontation, but nothing more than that.
It's all this combined with the moralistic tone that US FP has re-acquainted with since Russia's invasion of Ukraine that is chilling. The cold calculation that usually drives countries is no longer considered, in fact it's wrong to consider it: it's about freedom, democracy, good and evil, dictatorship, communism, and the moral obligation to help the good guy. You combine this moralism with aggression and I don't see how it ends well.

Moralistic anti-Communism worked great in the 80s once the USSR was isolated and economically stagnant. But to bring it to that point, it needed cold amoral politics: SALT, Nixon going to China, Operation Cyclone, apart from the more moralistic stuff in Korea, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

e - a lot of good v evil and moral talk in the 2000s too.

I actually think if we're to save ourselves from climate change it's the Chinese who will do it, but Xi is also a destabilising and dangerous ruler. The time to take a stand against Russia was long passed, and China's time has come too you feel. The earlier you draw the lines, the less dangerous the battleground is likely to be IMO. Trade war > nuclear war.

When we've turned a blind eye to these people they keep pushing, so although economic ties and such like are important, so is having clear boundaries of acceptable behaviour.