Well guys you have go understand that most of our China policy is contingent on what Xi Jinping does with an understanding that one day Xi Jinping will be dead or out of power. So we have to ask the question "just how far do we want to push our security strategy with China before that day comes?" As a result we have thus sort of slow moving iceberg we are hoping we can avoid hitting or reinforcement of our ship enough to withstand the strike. Reality is that China as a government is not transparent in anyway and we've seen repeatedly the rapid transition of Chinese policy to suit the political whims of whomever is in power. So right now we are trying to construct policy in such a way that it's flexible enough to deal with whatever the outcome happens to be. Of course in the tense situations we are in with China we are just begging for a black swan event that will eventually upend the apple cart especially in the absences of a hard policy direction we want to head in. We need a Truman doctrine equivalent to dealing with China and the long it takes DC to get their shit together a formulate one the more likely it is that events are going to steal away any and all flexibility. Xi will one day die this is true but that is a future that isn't currently here and now and it's the here and now that we need to deal with of we want to get to a point where maybe a new era of cooperation will arise with whomever Xi or whatever Xi's successor is.
China has observed the following pattern in US Foreign Policy. Since WWII, the United States has started 201 wars, overthrew 36 foreign leaders, killed or attempted to kill 50, dropped bombs in 30 countries, and interfered in 86 foreign elections. To make the world safe for democracy, the US has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people in its conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. The CIA was involved in covert operations that resulted in mass killings of communists in over 22 countries, 500,000 to 2,000,000 Indonesian civilians disappeared in 1965-1966. During the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, a reluctant Hillary Clinton was sent to Beijing to ask the Chinese government to increase China's purchasing of U.S. Treasury bills to bail the US out of its financial crisis. In 2011, Obama proposed the "Pivot to Asia" strategy, which shifted the focus of US foreign policy from the Middle East to Asia. This, along with the wargaming of a sea blockade of Chinese commercial ships on a global scale, the formation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which deliberately excluded China, the establishment of a 2500-strong US marine air-ground task force in Darwin, and an increase in the rotation of both US Air Force planes and US Navy vessels through Australian bases, alarmed the Chinese leadership. Knowing that they are the focus of US foreign policy and unable to remain passive, hide their strength, and bide their time, Xi Jinping was selected as the leader of China in 2013 to make China more secure. These included the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Belt and Road initiative, and the building of artificial islands in the South China Sea. In 2015 the "Made in China 2025" initiative was announced. These policies directly responded to the perceived threat posed by the "Pivot to Asia" strategy. No country is excluded from joining the AIIB or the Belt and Road Initiative. Obama's intentions were clarified when he responded to Xi Jinping's proposal on September 25, 2015, to make the South China Sea (SCS) a non-militarized zone by initiating freedom of navigation operations in the SCS on October 27, 2015. Meanwhile, back at the range, regardless of who is elected president, millions of Americans will continue to enjoy these long-standing benefits of democracy, freedom, and human rights: economic inequality, persistent inflation, stagnant wages, soaring healthcare costs, a student loan debt crisis nearing $1.7 trillion, and an education system burdened by increasingly unaffordable tuition. Inadequate public transportation, racial inequality, mass incarceration, militarized policing, deteriorating infrastructure, unaffordable housing, homelessness, the opioid epidemic, and rampant gun violence. The Godless Chinese government denies its citizens-and an increasing number of people in other countries-the chance to experience the "benefits" of the challenges that U.S. citizens face. Although the United States is the world's wealthiest nation with unmatched military power, it does not prioritize addressing these systemic problems. For many, the normalization of such inequality and hardship has become an accepted part of daily life, raising urgent questions about the government's role in fostering a more equitable and just society. When a government allows these persistent issues to remain unresolved, it risks losing legitimacy and trust in the eyes of its citizens. In the U.S., a waiter may chase you if you don’t tip, while in China, they might chase you to return a tip. If a country cannot care for its citizens, its leadership role in global affairs becomes questionable. It is imposing its will on the world through fear-either by the threat of violence, unilateral sanctions, or covert operations. Many of its vassals host U.S. troops and are required to contribute to part of their upkeep. The 'Arsenal of Democracy' produces 40 percent of the world's weapons. It is a very profitable business model in which other countries buy these weapons to fight each other. The key is maximizing profits without shedding US blood by inducing conflicts between and within countries outside the USA. One client is eager to spend AUD 368 billion to buy a few high-quality used nuclear-powered submarines. This business model's critical components are NATO, QUAD, ANZUS, Five Eyes, AUKUS, and MCC (Mutual Cross-Service Agreement). If the main duty of a government is the well-being of the majority of its citizens, then the greatest threat to the United States may lie in how it is governed. Instead of prioritizing the welfare of its people, the US meddles in other countries to spread its version of democracy. The question is whether the USA can continue to survive with its version of democracy, not whether it can have any leadership role in the global order. The concept of being a superpower reflects the Western scarcity-driven, win-lose mindset. At the same time, much of the Eastern worldview (excluding Japan) embraces abundance and win-win cooperation. Pursuing superpower status is costly and unnecessary in a framework focused on shared growth and collaboration. Scarcity-driven win-lose strategies reflect a narrow, short-term view that assumes limited resources and competition are necessary. In contrast, abundance-driven win-win strategies align with a broader, long-term perspective, recognizing that in a vast, interconnected universe, collaboration leads to greater and more sustainable rewards. The universe offers ample opportunities for mutual growth, making win-win strategies more effective in the long run. Anywhere in the world, if there is a border dispute, it is usually the result of a line drawn by an Englishman; if it is an internal dispute, it is usually the US fueling it. Difference in implementation of divide and conquer strategy. China is reacting to each U.S. action. It is considered impolite to not reciprocate. A clear vision of Victory? Their win-win mentality prioritizes cooperation rather than competition. The goal should be for everyone, including all lifeforms, to develop to their fullest potential sustainably. The last major U.S. victory against a peer was the Civil War, in which the United States defeated itself. Lawyers are playing Tic-Tac-Toe while engineers are playing GO.
Outstanding talk. Thank you.
Title of Jude’s book, please?
20:00 for the Chinese,the self reflection switch is, semipermanently, turned off.
Compared to Blinken and Sullivan, is Wang Yi smarter or not?
Yes
Wang is an adult, blinken and Sullivan are kids.
Well guys you have go understand that most of our China policy is contingent on what Xi Jinping does with an understanding that one day Xi Jinping will be dead or out of power. So we have to ask the question "just how far do we want to push our security strategy with China before that day comes?" As a result we have thus sort of slow moving iceberg we are hoping we can avoid hitting or reinforcement of our ship enough to withstand the strike.
Reality is that China as a government is not transparent in anyway and we've seen repeatedly the rapid transition of Chinese policy to suit the political whims of whomever is in power.
So right now we are trying to construct policy in such a way that it's flexible enough to deal with whatever the outcome happens to be.
Of course in the tense situations we are in with China we are just begging for a black swan event that will eventually upend the apple cart especially in the absences of a hard policy direction we want to head in.
We need a Truman doctrine equivalent to dealing with China and the long it takes DC to get their shit together a formulate one the more likely it is that events are going to steal away any and all flexibility. Xi will one day die this is true but that is a future that isn't currently here and now and it's the here and now that we need to deal with of we want to get to a point where maybe a new era of cooperation will arise with whomever Xi or whatever Xi's successor is.
Why does every sentence end with the same whiney inflection?
China has observed the following pattern in US Foreign Policy. Since WWII, the United States has started 201 wars, overthrew 36 foreign leaders, killed or attempted to kill 50, dropped bombs in 30 countries, and interfered in 86 foreign elections. To make the world safe for democracy, the US has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people in its conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. The CIA was involved in covert operations that resulted in mass killings of communists in over 22 countries, 500,000 to 2,000,000 Indonesian civilians disappeared in 1965-1966.
During the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, a reluctant Hillary Clinton was sent to Beijing to ask the Chinese government to increase China's purchasing of U.S. Treasury bills to bail the US out of its financial crisis. In 2011, Obama proposed the "Pivot to Asia" strategy, which shifted the focus of US foreign policy from the Middle East to Asia. This, along with the wargaming of a sea blockade of Chinese commercial ships on a global scale, the formation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which deliberately excluded China, the establishment of a 2500-strong US marine air-ground task force in Darwin, and an increase in the rotation of both US Air Force planes and US Navy vessels through Australian bases, alarmed the Chinese leadership.
Knowing that they are the focus of US foreign policy and unable to remain passive, hide their strength, and bide their time, Xi Jinping was selected as the leader of China in 2013 to make China more secure. These included the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Belt and Road initiative, and the building of artificial islands in the South China Sea. In 2015 the "Made in China 2025" initiative was announced. These policies directly responded to the perceived threat posed by the "Pivot to Asia" strategy. No country is excluded from joining the AIIB or the Belt and Road Initiative. Obama's intentions were clarified when he responded to Xi Jinping's proposal on September 25, 2015, to make the South China Sea (SCS) a non-militarized zone by initiating freedom of navigation operations in the SCS on October 27, 2015.
Meanwhile, back at the range, regardless of who is elected president, millions of Americans will continue to enjoy these long-standing benefits of democracy, freedom, and human rights: economic inequality, persistent inflation, stagnant wages, soaring healthcare costs, a student loan debt crisis nearing $1.7 trillion, and an education system burdened by increasingly unaffordable tuition. Inadequate public transportation, racial inequality, mass incarceration, militarized policing, deteriorating infrastructure, unaffordable housing, homelessness, the opioid epidemic, and rampant gun violence.
The Godless Chinese government denies its citizens-and an increasing number of people in other countries-the chance to experience the "benefits" of the challenges that U.S. citizens face.
Although the United States is the world's wealthiest nation with unmatched military power, it does not prioritize addressing these systemic problems. For many, the normalization of such inequality and hardship has become an accepted part of daily life, raising urgent questions about the government's role in fostering a more equitable and just society. When a government allows these persistent issues to remain unresolved, it risks losing legitimacy and trust in the eyes of its citizens.
In the U.S., a waiter may chase you if you don’t tip, while in China, they might chase you to return a tip.
If a country cannot care for its citizens, its leadership role in global affairs becomes questionable. It is imposing its will on the world through fear-either by the threat of violence, unilateral sanctions, or covert operations. Many of its vassals host U.S. troops and are required to contribute to part of their upkeep.
The 'Arsenal of Democracy' produces 40 percent of the world's weapons. It is a very profitable business model in which other countries buy these weapons to fight each other. The key is maximizing profits without shedding US blood by inducing conflicts between and within countries outside the USA. One client is eager to spend AUD 368 billion to buy a few high-quality used nuclear-powered submarines. This business model's critical components are NATO, QUAD, ANZUS, Five Eyes, AUKUS, and MCC (Mutual Cross-Service Agreement).
If the main duty of a government is the well-being of the majority of its citizens, then the greatest threat to the United States may lie in how it is governed. Instead of prioritizing the welfare of its people, the US meddles in other countries to spread its version of democracy. The question is whether the USA can continue to survive with its version of democracy, not whether it can have any leadership role in the global order.
The concept of being a superpower reflects the Western scarcity-driven, win-lose mindset. At the same time, much of the Eastern worldview (excluding Japan) embraces abundance and win-win cooperation. Pursuing superpower status is costly and unnecessary in a framework focused on shared growth and collaboration.
Scarcity-driven win-lose strategies reflect a narrow, short-term view that assumes limited resources and competition are necessary. In contrast, abundance-driven win-win strategies align with a broader, long-term perspective, recognizing that in a vast, interconnected universe, collaboration leads to greater and more sustainable rewards. The universe offers ample opportunities for mutual growth, making win-win strategies more effective in the long run.
Anywhere in the world, if there is a border dispute, it is usually the result of a line drawn by an Englishman; if it is an internal dispute, it is usually the US fueling it. Difference in implementation of divide and conquer strategy.
China is reacting to each U.S. action. It is considered impolite to not reciprocate.
A clear vision of Victory? Their win-win mentality prioritizes cooperation rather than competition. The goal should be for everyone, including all lifeforms, to develop to their fullest potential sustainably.
The last major U.S. victory against a peer was the Civil War, in which the United States defeated itself.
Lawyers are playing Tic-Tac-Toe while engineers are playing GO.
Is China a police state?
@@JJ-sv9nr The US portrays itself as the world's policeman
@@JJ-sv9nr The US is the world's policeman, I have seen the movie.
Is China a surveillance state?
…
Actually you avoided the most important question. Compared to Trump or to Harris, is Xi more capable?
the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade… The U.S. bomber flew from Missouri all the way to Europe for an accident.😅
As a person in the region I ask USA to stay out of our region, wherever you go chaos unfolds. Please stay away from us.
The US has always been in “the region”
@@mozdy7457 yes, but it was too small and insignificant. But of it expands then it will cause more trouble
👍👍🇧🇷🇷🇺🇮🇳🇨🇳🇿🇦➕️👏👏✌️✌️