Interesting stat yesterday re: the collapse of Chinese venture capital, going from a peak 51,000 business startups in 2018 to only 1,200 in 2023.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Tbh, there seems to be some criticism towards that FT article.
Many high net worth individuals packing up and leaving offshore as well
It is true that China's property was already overpriced 10 years ago and hence there was a bubble back then.
Just that a bubble can last 10 years and it finally burst 2 years ago.
Property price of HK fallen 30% and mainland 30-50% already in last 2 years
on a side note, many chinese people are skeptical on the 5% growth number.
How is almost everyone in china not in massive negative equity? And HK as well?It is true that China's property was already overpriced 10 years ago and hence there was a bubble back then.
Just that a bubble can last 10 years and it finally burst 2 years ago.
Property price of HK fallen 30% and mainland 30-50% already in last 2 years
on a side note, many chinese people are skeptical on the 5% growth number.
Or are they?
I would be surprised if numbers from any government are completely accurate, especially from certain types. And countries like China would not just collapse overnight though even if it is being horribly managed for awhile.
https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2024/09/03/america-is-losing-southeast-asia/content.html
"In the poll this year, the majority of respondents picked China over the United States when asked whom ASEAN should align with if forced to choose between the two. This was the first time respondents picked China since the survey began posing this question in 2020."
"In the poll this year, the majority of respondents picked China over the United States when asked whom ASEAN should align with if forced to choose between the two. This was the first time respondents picked China since the survey began posing this question in 2020."
So it's paywalled, but can you cite which three muslim countries?
Am I right in assuming Malaysia, Indonesia and ???
As long as Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Phillippines are pro-west the above isn't all that concerning.
What I find absolutely remarkable is that to the countries surveyed, providing military aid to a country that is conducting genocide is somehow worse than supporting a country that has actively been genociding Muslims to the tune of millions for the past 5 years.
From Nikkei.
Among the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the possible alignment to China was most evident among respondents from Malaysia, at 75.1%, followed by Indonesia and Laos at 73.2% and 70.6%.
The argument cited by Bruno Macaes is, as far as I can tell, his interpretation, that language is not in any of the report summaries I've looked at so far.
Last edited:
Malaysia is no surprise as a huge percent of the population actively identify as Han Chinese.
Indonesia is an interesting one and I’d be grateful if you could post a none paywalled link to the report!
Quite well put by Macaes, not threatening or demanding in any way, just leaves people to draw their own conclusions.
I can't see past the paywall either though, maybe I'd think differently with more info.
Apparently this guy is a serious extremist crank
Also, I've just read snippets from his books:
Serious, serious CCP sympathizer, anti-west, praises China and says that China is inherently much more peaceful than the West.
https://debateus.org/pro-chinas-global-leadership-good/
Yeah no, I'm not going to take anything this guy says seriously.
EDIT - Also wrote a book in 2019 about how 1B1R initiative is the "greatest geopolitical endeavour of this age..." Yeah, how's that looking in 2024?
Bruno Maçaes is not anti-West. It is ridiculous to suggest such a thing. Unless your definition of anti-West is anyone who sometimes criticises some Western policies (including sick genocidal policies as we see now in Gaza).
As a Minister in the Portuguese government he tried to get the EU to divest from Russian Energy and got French and Italian governments onboard but Merkel wasn’t interested. How “pro CCP” of him to lobby for a closer EU-US relationships….
Maçaes in 2014:
“Today the European Union produces only a small portion of its energy needs, importing about 80% of its oil and some 60% of its gas. More than a third of this oil and 30% of the gas is of Russian origin. Only four countries in the EU—Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Sweden—are able to do without any Russian gas. By reducing European energy dependency on Russia, both the U.S. and Europe will be better able to defend and promote their values—while capturing the immense gains from greater economic integration between the world's two largest economies.”
https://archive.is/2022.04.04-13224...-with-a-trans-atlantic-energy-pact-1398209960
As a Minister in the Portuguese government he tried to get the EU to divest from Russian Energy and got French and Italian governments onboard but Merkel wasn’t interested. How “pro CCP” of him to lobby for a closer EU-US relationships….
Maçaes in 2014:
“Today the European Union produces only a small portion of its energy needs, importing about 80% of its oil and some 60% of its gas. More than a third of this oil and 30% of the gas is of Russian origin. Only four countries in the EU—Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Sweden—are able to do without any Russian gas. By reducing European energy dependency on Russia, both the U.S. and Europe will be better able to defend and promote their values—while capturing the immense gains from greater economic integration between the world's two largest economies.”
https://archive.is/2022.04.04-13224...-with-a-trans-atlantic-energy-pact-1398209960
Quite literally, in the above link, it contains extracts of him arguing that China as the global hegemon would be much better for everyone than a US led global hegemon. How is that being anything other than Pro CCP
2014 was before China's pivot in foreign policy. His actions then most likely didn't even have China in mind.
Maybe you should read your link again.
The argument you present is being made by Chinese officials… This perspective is discussed by Bruno Maçães in his book “Belt and Road”. He is not endorsing them at all.
That may be true but the two quotes I replied to were still well-judged, whatever his background or intentions may be.
Seen from Beijing, the new world order would be replacing a model whose failures have become all too obvious. State Councilor Yang Jiechi observed in November 2017 that it had become “increasingly difficult for Western governance concepts, systems, and models to keep up with the new international situation. Western-led global governance, he argued, had “malfunctioned,” and the accumulation of “various ills” showed the system had reached a point “beyond redemption.”
Humanity is facing huge natural, technological, economic, social, and security challenges. Solutions to these problems will require us to pool resources, plans, and development mechanisms across the world, but existing models seem increasingly unable to deliver them. Collective decisions to fight climate change are weak and insufficient. Many countries have entered long periods of state failure or civil wars and the international community seems closer to giving up on peace efforts altogether than to brokering a negotiated solution. As a result, terrorism has become an existential threat to many societies and the number of refugees worldwide keeps growing. Western efforts arguably made things worse, as in the case of recent military interventions in the Middle East.
Global tensions are as high as in the worst moments of the Cold War, with the difference that we now lack an adequate framework to address and minimize them. Chinese authorities thus have some ground to argue that the world as a whole is facing a dire governance crisis, that the West has run out of ideas and therefore that it is perhaps time for others to take up the task. Western countries have frequently been limited by their own theories of international cooperation, either believing it requires the presence of a hegemon to be viable, or that it can only take place under the auspices of Western democratic models. The model of international cooperation that China advances, meanwhile, is naturally non-hegemonic and open to a diversity of political systems.
How is the last statement, in italics, anything other than an endorsement to China's Internationalist approach ?
Only 2 CSG's mission ready at this moment.
This is turning into a bit of a crisis - what the hell are the boys across the pond doing?
What is a CSG?
Carrier Strike Group
How many carrier strike groups are there in total that only 2 operating is a crisis? Britain and France have carriers too right?
Not sure where the 2 number came from. There are about 10 or so in total.
The US has 11 Carrier Strike Groups, mandated by law. It's essentially illegal for the country to have less than that number.
The standard number of actively deployed CSG's is usually around 3-5, with the others in port being serviced, under refurbishment/repair/resupply or in duty break.
Having 2 CSG's on deployment is a woeful display of combat readiness.
Big step forward here - atleast the air force and naval aviation have somewhat got their shit together.
LRASM's on F-35's have successfully passed testing recently. Aerial SM-6 + LRASM on F-35 makes a huge difference.
https://gcaptain.com/us-navy-oiler-...ng-carrier-strike-group-to-scramble-for-fuel/
Seriously, what is going on with the US Navy. At this point some leadership restructuring needs to be done - this is kind of outrageous.
Seriously, what is going on with the US Navy. At this point some leadership restructuring needs to be done - this is kind of outrageous.
I may be missing something here (in terms of the earlier conversation re China and Taiwan) but it seems clear to me that in a conflict at the moment, China is pretty hemmed in with regards to it's navy by countries ostensibly allied to the usa....whereas Taiwan would give it unfettered access to the Pacific?
Something the USA has of course across 2 oceans.
Something the USA has of course across 2 oceans.
Kind of, what you're referring to is the Island chain strategy.
US losing Taiwan as an ally / China regaining Taiwan puts a huge hole in the 1st Island chain strategically.
Taiwan is basically the piece which holds a lot of this together.
The first island chain now is basically Japan + Okinawa + South Korea + Taiwan + US bases in Phillippines
Kind of, what you're referring to is the Island chain strategy.
US losing Taiwan as an ally / China regaining Taiwan puts a huge hole in the 1st Island chain strategically.
Taiwan is basically the piece which holds a lot of this together.
The first island chain now is basically Japan + Okinawa + South Korea + Taiwan + US bases in Phillippines
Yep exactly. If you zoom into the map, there are Japanese islands almost up to Taiwan and Philippines islands almost up to the south (though I'm not sure how militarised the Philippines islands are.
Obviously at the moment China can pass without issue but for them, any conflict in the future where they wish to project power, they may find themselves hemmed in before they can even get out of the south China sea. Or the flip side, struggling to get supplies in.
So the conversation about how this is pure nationalism seems to slightly miss the point of how strategically important this factor is.
Of course, China doesn't help itself by generally aggravating many of it's neighbours, who it could try to turn into close allies instead.
If you are a nation who has no intention of becoming a global hegemon, power projection is no longer an issue for you.
Therein lies the problem. Many nations with strong economies are more than happy to operate within the established order, following the same standards of trade, development and operational modus operandi as everyone else.
China, on the other hand, wants to flip the system upside down and twist it entirely to the benefit of themselves.
It's why it truly has no ally. Rather than work multi-laterally with the rest of the world, China's goal is "How do I twist it to be unilaterally in my favour."
So China wants to do what the US is literally doing at his backyard
The USA operates as a global hegemon, with unrestricted access to the 2 most important oceans in the world and following the rules (and expecting the same of it's allies) only when it suits it.
Multiple of it's allies, European and otherwise, also project power, on both a regional and international level.
That's fine but China is not doing anything differently in this regard.
The European powers and western allies benefit multilaterally from US hegemony.
Up until 2000s the top 5 largest, richest and most thriving economies were the closest US allies, two of which were under technical military occupation.
Countries who were former soviet countries or Asian nations who aligned themselves and were willing to follow the international rule set not only thrived but were trusted on the international stage both diplomatically and in terms of power projection.
Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, South Korea, Estonia, the list gets pretty extensive. By co operating with the US led world order there was mutual strategic benefit that allows these countries to thrive economically.
The US attempted to bring china into the fold, with the hope that liberalization of its economy would cause liberalisation of its political system and eventually democracy. Obviously that has not happened.
With its complete flaunting of the concept of mutual based interest sharing and the unwillingness to be a multilateral partner to its neighbours, china has put itself in this position.
The island chains wouldn’t have been a problem if they didn’t go down the road it did. Taiwan would have willingly unified, and china would have carrier groups doing joint exercises with USA in the pacific.
Instead, it decided to firmly alienate everyone around them and here we stand. They are geopolitical rivals with the west because it chose to position itself as such.
Of course, the allies of US benefited of US hegemony, i benefited of this. If i have to choose, i chose US because i live in the area of influence. As you US said (I think) paraphrasing about Noriega: " is a son of a bitch but is our son of a bitch"
But lets not forget that you US only brings people to the fold that cant cast a shadow over its hegemony. US had been spying on his allies and sabotage them constantly if needed. To its enemies, brought them to their knees, through proxy wars, coups and more. US is not the nice guy as long ans only place ball if you are a "nice guy" and it has a benefit to US. Nothing more. In the 80s Japan was seen as a technological rival and the shit that was verted was pathetic but Japan wanting to play ball and the stagnation of their economy in the 90s made them cool again.
China wants to control its area and a country that is at thousands of km besides a few islands doesnt like it and it has allies in japan s.korea and in PH for convenience because they are useful. PH fell in grace a few decades ago bc was not useful anymore. Abandoning bases and with crazy Duterte closing positions with China, they decided to make use of PH again and recopening bases and building new ones.
Then thr initial point of US allies benefitting of US success. True. But China still needs to grow and take its population from its poverty. I few hundred millions left. Meanwhile, I know that you are not a big fan of 1B1R but certainly brought some advantadges to some countries on supply chain logostics. Some neighbouring countries starting to see some chinese companies outsourcing production there like it happen several decades with US neighbours and european neighbours.
US only brought desistabilization to the middle east. China is at least neutral and seems that achieved the closest relationship between S.A. and Iran halting the Yemen destruction (which US, France and UK sold billions in arms)
The neighbours are starting to benefit and will benefit more in the future and china is becoming a menace for the established order spearheaded by US and that is something that US cant accept. The most aggressive country is the US, not China. Everywhere in the world. And i benefit about that, but many other people are paying the price in blood and misery
Not much of this is incorrect but it's a different point from what I'm saying.
Nobody denied that most of the countries ostensibly in the American fold have benefitted from doing so. Though it's worth pointing out that none of them, with the exception of Japan for a brief period, ever had any potential of challenging the USA's status so have either fallen in line almost pathetically (UK) or tried to band together on a continental level (France).
But it is completely without doubt that the Americans and it's allies project power as they wish, regionally and globally, mostly under the international rules they themselves set and similarly flout them when it's not to their liking.
The underlying principle here is that the only country that should ever be allowed to project power is the USA. This is of course great if you're western European (generally), often less so in other parts of the world. And most of us on this board benefit from this global system.
It's fine to think that the USA should be the only one able to do so because we benefit from that in the west (which is an argument I think you've made in the past),another to seemingly suggest that it should only ever be the USA for other reasons? I may be mistaken.
A fully democratic China may still find itself at odds with a democratic USA (same with a democratic India) and looking to project power globally.
I agree though as I said that China's diplomacy has aggravated its neighbours unnecessarily.
And arming and encouraging ethnic (and Chinese speaking) groups in a neighboring country to ensure the country is never exactly unified and civil war to go on until they get what they want from that country. In short, same shit, different country and scale (at least for now).
When the "rules based international order" has never been more obviously a byword for American hegemony (which it always was), does anyone really wonder at China's general stance with respect to the next century? They are, if you accept the general consensus, attempting a Monroe doctrine: to become the hegemonic force in their "own back yard". Time is on their side (as it is with India and several other Asian nations and indeed Middle Eastern nations). The best thing, for all involved, is to reach a series of agreements (firm) regarding the scope and scale of economic and military expansion over a given period of time. In a logical universe, this is what we, collectively, would be doing. De-escalating tensions and attempting mutually assured de-escalation in general. It's the only path forward which doesn't see a reprise of cold war "politics" (complete ideological gibberish).
It won't matter in the coming years since nation states themselves are slowly going away. In fact, we are now in a slow motion disintegration of the post WW2 order. There will probably be many more wars in the near future as the system comes under pressure.