Totally agreed on the whole condescending tone of, “Well, you just must not have understood what I said.”
There are still useful things to learn from [ed: CCP] propaganda/hackery. But there’s always this unmistakable “If you know what’s good for you…” mob boss attitude that’s NEVER going to play well in the West.
I think it also partly comes from a difference in the rhetoric popular in debate in China vs the West. Framing your opponent as ignorant, needing 'education' or 'correction' seems like a common tactic. While in the West it would be more popular to frame an opponent as disingenuous or acting with bad intentions (not caring/not freedom-loving etc).
The mob boss attitude seems to be highly appealing to a significant swathe of our electorate. Former Guy pretty openly acts like he thinks he's the Capo di tutti Capi, and the fawning over folks like Putin or Orban has the same flavor.
After three weeks in Hangzhou in 2014 finishing a doctorate, I came away extremely impressed with China's gleaming cities, spotless subways, and bullet trains. San Francisco on return looked small and shabby by comparison.
China will almost certainly move on Taiwan, triggering a regional war that will become global. WWIII. They haven't yet finished bulking up militarily; but will likely have sufficient muscle on or after 2031. As a distraction from a bad recession, or some deepening social unrest; but also as an expression of cultural obsession, historical grievance, and manifest destiny.
The only thing that will possibly deter them is a very strong global alliance led by the United States, that also includes Vietnam and India. Where an attack on one is an attack on all.
Then after China takes Taiwan, they will take Vietnam. Then India will stand alone against China. Who do you think will win?
Only a unified alliance will deter China from taking India, Vietnam, Taiwan. India's survival depends on being part of that alliance. Or do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. India may be militarily outmatched by China but any potential battle would be extremely costly in terms of human lives for both sides. Further, China mostly cares about an uninhabited piece of high-altitude terrain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksai_Chin) alongside an Indian state (but that's kinda impossible as it's culturally Indian). It's just not that important to the Chinese nationalist psyche as much as Taiwan is. India's survival doesn't really depend on foreign trade. It's a largely self-sufficient nation; even as imports are rising (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IND/india/trade-gdp-ratio), they mostly come from a different sea route with oil comprising the bulk of imports by value and the country, as evidenced with the Ukraine war, seems to want to not take sides in order to preserve trading relationships (https://www.statista.com/statistics/650670/import-share-by-source-country-india/). India wouldn't want to be cut off from Chinese exports given how important they are even if the two don't see eye to eye ideologically.
The US is too far and has not invested in its economic relationship with India for decades. What do most Indians do? They still farm. They need fertilisers and low-cost consumer goods (bikes, cars, phones, laptops), a large proportion of the intermediate inputs come from China even if it's a Samsung phone manufactured inside India by an Indian supplier.
India doesn't see itself as China's rival the way US does. Heck, that boat sailed a long time ago. India's best bet at achieving development is to court both sides and slowly grow out of poverty over the coming three decades.
Do leaders in the West see India as a strategic counterweight to China? Then they should order their corporate leaders to stop manufacturing in China and start manufacturing in India. There have been some early attempts but the results have been disappointing
Indian labour laws are stronger paradoxically than in communist China, the labour force is not as productive (for a variety of sociocultural reasons) and the most educated Indians emigrate because of falling births and ageing societies in developed countries opening a fast-track path to exponential family income growth.
As someone who has lived in India--over the course of six visits--for nearly two years beginning in 1988, and a deep admirer of Sanatana Dharma since 1980, my impression is that Indians are rightfully afraid of China's military. Especially in light of their increasingly close alliance to your old nemesis Pakistan, and their closeness with Sri Lanka.
And China's military strength is rapidly growing. Much faster than India's. And unfortunately, military weakness invites exploitation.
China is nationally obsessed with claiming Taiwan. In the same way many Indian Sikhs are still obsessed with the notion of Khalistan. A Chinese move on Taiwan sometime after 2031 is an almost certainty, once conditions are suitable for them. When they do, the United States will be at war with China. As will Japan, South Korea, and possibly much or all of ASEAN. It's unclear at this point if Russia/Iran/North Korea would join in on China's side. But IF China takes Taiwan--a likely possibility--and IF the US and allies after a year or two of aerial and naval warfare signs a peace treaty, then India and Vietnam are all alone. At China's mercy. Whether China would then move on these two countries is unknown. But the fact that China has had multiple episodes of low-grade military conflict with both is not a good sign.
This would be China's strategic approach if I were Xi Jinping: take Taiwan and after a year or two peace out with the American alliance. THEN subjugate diplomatically "neutral" India and Vietnam. Preferably in separate wars. Divide and conquer. OR, India and Vietnam can willingly submit to China now, become obedient satrapies, and spare themselves trouble later. India would likely have to give China the disputed territories in the Himalayas; and likely give Pakistan Kashmir. As well as recognize Nepal and Sri Lanka as formally part of China's sphere of influence. A small price to pay for peace, yes?
OR India will need to take the initiative and support a coalition of allies to defend herself if China decides to play rough. Let's hope Modi has the necessary skills to ensure India's safety.
It's great that you have experience of life in India so you'd know how poor the country is and the pacifist worldview most Indians espouse. The main security concerns most people have are around Islamic fundamentalism and a potential fourth unprovoked border conflict with Pakistan.
It's hard to forecast nine months from now so who knows what will happen in 2031. I don't think Indian generals would be foolhardy enough to tell civilian leaders they can match Chinese military hardware in the event of a war. What weapons are being made available by the West are limited even as defence regimes are getting closer (but it could inflame tensions further).
If you really think China will feel emboldened after a military victory over Taiwan to attack India then then it will be a Crime-like situation with some territory lost. There really isn't an appetite in Indian policymaking circles for war. We're the Mexico to China. The current administration prioritises a Hindu nationalist identity and economic development.
At least, that's my view. I maintain India's unlikely to defend Taiwan. Bangladesh and Nepal are somewhat within its sphere of influence but even that could change with time simply because Chinese companies are the biggest investors and trading partners.
In 2023, a study by Li concluded that local government debt in China was 50% higher than previously estimated by the IMF and World Bank.[9] The study found that the majority of debts were for infrastructure, and the level of debt was unsustainable without central government support.
Why Li did not edit his own book is a mystery. One wonders if his American publisher W. W. Norton & Company was allowed or able to make any editorial suggestions in any significant way.
It means that we need to read between the lines. Tyler says this is a good book for explaining China, but I suspect what he really means is that this is a good book for gaining insight into the worldview of China's ruling elite. Which I think it is.
Tyler is recommending the book not because the author is necessarily correct, but because the authors misconceptions and flaws in thinking are the same as China's people and decision makers.
It's something the intelligent speaker says to a group when saying to the group what the speaker really thinks would be damaging in some way. The speaker is thus speaking in somewhat coded language to those in the audience who can decode it. As such, it gives listeners great leeway in forgiving speakers for saying really dumb things.
Behold! A reading of the book 1984 tells a story of a man living in a society controlled by a totalitarian dictatorship. A "Straussian" reading of 1984 indicates that the author (George Orwell) believes that there is a danger of that kind of totalitarian control being wreaked upon the democratic nations of our world, and the means by which such control could be achieved.
“ In the late 1930s, Strauss called for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching."[21] In 1952 he published Persecution and the Art of Writing, arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning.”
I agree that we should (and do) have a negative view of CCP governance and many aspects of its economic management, too. It is not so clear what the full implication for US policies should be.
It is surely the case, however, that a more negative view of the CCP should prompt the US at least to remove obstacles to our own economic growth: fiscal deficits, restriction of immigration of skilled and entrepreneurial workers, trade restrictions outside of dependence on China or China-interdictable strategic imports (for example, not EV’s), inefficient incentives for reducing net CO2 emissions instead of taxing them, taxing income instead of taxing consumption.
I do hope the US doesn't move towards a regressive consumption tax. I think our social problems are bad enough without the budget deficits or middle- and working-class tax increases that would create.
I would favor a progressive consumption tax to go along with a VAT. We just make saving/investment deductible and raise rates. True this will leave Warren buffet with more to invest, but I'm OK with that. And yes there will be disputes about what is really investment just as there is about what is income.
As a lay history fanatic, I find it distressing that in almost 100% of cases where politicians invoke history it is with the intent of justifying some egregious action that in a civilized world would have no justification.
I have not read the book, and based upon this, I will not rush to do so.
However, I think that importance of history to the Chinese is, indeed, something that could be covered in a short chapter. And, in that regard, it is not so very different from the US -- academic (that is actual, factual history) requires myriad pages and sifting. (And I find it fascinating!) But in and of itself it holds little power over the present. In fact, I find it rather scary how little people in general seem to know about the past.
Rather, it's a nation's historical narrative -- one part truth, one part lies, one part forgetfulness, and then a huge dollop of simplification -- which is important. And yes, I gather it is overwhelmingly important in China. Which considered itself to comprise the civilized world for a lot longer than the Roman Empire existed. Ending in extreme humiliation at the hands of western nations and the Japanese, that did not just include military subjugation, but also overwhelming assumptions of racial inferiority. This occurring recently enough to be remembered by a few people still alive, and by the parents and grandparents of much of the population.
Imagine that the USA actually does devolve into civil war, then we are torn apart and massacred for decades by rivals, and new generations in powerful countries come to see people who look like us as obviously inferior. You can imagine how important our "history" would be to us, if decades later we were rebuilding, and becoming one of the primary world powers again.
So although I take all the other criticisms of this book seriously, I would hope that no one misunderstands the claim that history is of prime importance to the Chinese, nor that this really requires detailed explication.
I think that if an author tells us that history is important to the Chinese, but doesn't tell us which history or why, he hasn't really told us much! What do we do with the knowledge that "history is important to the Chinese", if we don't know which history is important, or how it's important? It's just words.
Thanks for writing this. "China has deep history and understanding her history is key to <<X>>, because the Chinese people / elites think that way" is such a cliched canard, relentlessly being pushed by smart-mouthed pundits like Dalio who themselves know little. It's hilarious because the historical and cultural root for an average contemporary Chinese is severed by none other than CPC.
This doesn't sound like a very good book for understanding the Chinese perspective, but I have been looking for a good book explaining Chinese elites perceptions, including and especially any delusional beliefs they may have about history, geopolitics and the West. Let me know if you have any recommendations!
From the US perspective, if you have an accurate stock of facts about the world, modern China looks increasingly aggressive. But many statements from Chinese leadership and thinkers, assert that China is acting defensively and is actually deeply concerned about what is perceives as western belligerence. Taking these statements at face-value (rather than a reflexive propaganda campaign aimed at third parties), it paints a picture of a delusionally paranoid Chinese leadership with limited awareness of what the West is really like or what its intentions are. We know Xi doesn't read English. We can say who cares what excuses China makes for aggression, but I think it does matter for negotiating the China relationship.
For instance, a recent essay published on ChinaTalk argues that China's specific ideology of moralism and paranoia is a highly exploitable faultline in the China-Russia relationship:
We need to understand if this is the case or if Xi really is just "Putin in bad Winnie the Pooh cosplay". We also need to understand if Xi's power is truly absolute or if he is implicitly constrained by a small circle of opinionated CCP elites.
Similarly, is China actually just really afraid of Taiwan abruptly declaring independence and is happy to maintain the status quo of functional independence? They appear to have a genuine belief that Taiwan is gravitating towards Chinese mainland influence, but what will they do when they realize that perception is false? Do they invade militarily under the theory that the US must have done something underhanded, or do they double-down on a failing influence strategy? How could we go about bursting their bubble in an politically advantageous way?
Imperial Japan and Wilhelmine Germany also thought they were acting defensively. Sadly, mistaking offense for defense is almost universal among expansionist states...
The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy by Daniel Bell (2016) is an excellent read. I'd like to recommend it as an alternative for those seeking to understand China. However, I similarly don't know that it will "win hearts & minds" if they are already made up.
Repeating a point that's been reinforced by the latest humiliation, the fact that Russia's much-feared Black Sea Fleet has been driven back into the shelter of Russian ports, with losses every time its ships venture within range of Ukrainian drones and missles, demonstrates the impossibility of most of the scenarios for the PRC to recapture Taiwan, most obviously seaborne invasion and blockade.
History is important to Xi Jinping Thought in much the same way it is important to Vladimir Putin Thought. Which is to say, the Great Man has a very high opinion of his own historical knowledge, but in fact has a thoroughly distorted view of the history. It's just that anyone who questions the distortions will be dismissed as an enemy of the state.
Totally agreed on the whole condescending tone of, “Well, you just must not have understood what I said.”
There are still useful things to learn from [ed: CCP] propaganda/hackery. But there’s always this unmistakable “If you know what’s good for you…” mob boss attitude that’s NEVER going to play well in the West.
I think it also partly comes from a difference in the rhetoric popular in debate in China vs the West. Framing your opponent as ignorant, needing 'education' or 'correction' seems like a common tactic. While in the West it would be more popular to frame an opponent as disingenuous or acting with bad intentions (not caring/not freedom-loving etc).
That probably goes a long way towards the wokes-and-reactionaries-both obsession with personal morality and conversion.
*towards explaining
The mob boss attitude seems to be highly appealing to a significant swathe of our electorate. Former Guy pretty openly acts like he thinks he's the Capo di tutti Capi, and the fawning over folks like Putin or Orban has the same flavor.
TFG grew up when the Mob still ran NYC. It’s just hero worship.
After three weeks in Hangzhou in 2014 finishing a doctorate, I came away extremely impressed with China's gleaming cities, spotless subways, and bullet trains. San Francisco on return looked small and shabby by comparison.
China will almost certainly move on Taiwan, triggering a regional war that will become global. WWIII. They haven't yet finished bulking up militarily; but will likely have sufficient muscle on or after 2031. As a distraction from a bad recession, or some deepening social unrest; but also as an expression of cultural obsession, historical grievance, and manifest destiny.
The only thing that will possibly deter them is a very strong global alliance led by the United States, that also includes Vietnam and India. Where an attack on one is an attack on all.
India will never defend Taiwan
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/05/business/taiwan-minister-apology-indian-skin-tones/index.html
Then after China takes Taiwan, they will take Vietnam. Then India will stand alone against China. Who do you think will win?
Only a unified alliance will deter China from taking India, Vietnam, Taiwan. India's survival depends on being part of that alliance. Or do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. India may be militarily outmatched by China but any potential battle would be extremely costly in terms of human lives for both sides. Further, China mostly cares about an uninhabited piece of high-altitude terrain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksai_Chin) alongside an Indian state (but that's kinda impossible as it's culturally Indian). It's just not that important to the Chinese nationalist psyche as much as Taiwan is. India's survival doesn't really depend on foreign trade. It's a largely self-sufficient nation; even as imports are rising (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IND/india/trade-gdp-ratio), they mostly come from a different sea route with oil comprising the bulk of imports by value and the country, as evidenced with the Ukraine war, seems to want to not take sides in order to preserve trading relationships (https://www.statista.com/statistics/650670/import-share-by-source-country-india/). India wouldn't want to be cut off from Chinese exports given how important they are even if the two don't see eye to eye ideologically.
The US is too far and has not invested in its economic relationship with India for decades. What do most Indians do? They still farm. They need fertilisers and low-cost consumer goods (bikes, cars, phones, laptops), a large proportion of the intermediate inputs come from China even if it's a Samsung phone manufactured inside India by an Indian supplier.
India doesn't see itself as China's rival the way US does. Heck, that boat sailed a long time ago. India's best bet at achieving development is to court both sides and slowly grow out of poverty over the coming three decades.
Do leaders in the West see India as a strategic counterweight to China? Then they should order their corporate leaders to stop manufacturing in China and start manufacturing in India. There have been some early attempts but the results have been disappointing
(https://restofworld.org/2023/foxconn-india-iphone-factory/). Western executives care about profit maximisation and can't change supply chains overnight.
Indian labour laws are stronger paradoxically than in communist China, the labour force is not as productive (for a variety of sociocultural reasons) and the most educated Indians emigrate because of falling births and ageing societies in developed countries opening a fast-track path to exponential family income growth.
As someone who has lived in India--over the course of six visits--for nearly two years beginning in 1988, and a deep admirer of Sanatana Dharma since 1980, my impression is that Indians are rightfully afraid of China's military. Especially in light of their increasingly close alliance to your old nemesis Pakistan, and their closeness with Sri Lanka.
And China's military strength is rapidly growing. Much faster than India's. And unfortunately, military weakness invites exploitation.
China is nationally obsessed with claiming Taiwan. In the same way many Indian Sikhs are still obsessed with the notion of Khalistan. A Chinese move on Taiwan sometime after 2031 is an almost certainty, once conditions are suitable for them. When they do, the United States will be at war with China. As will Japan, South Korea, and possibly much or all of ASEAN. It's unclear at this point if Russia/Iran/North Korea would join in on China's side. But IF China takes Taiwan--a likely possibility--and IF the US and allies after a year or two of aerial and naval warfare signs a peace treaty, then India and Vietnam are all alone. At China's mercy. Whether China would then move on these two countries is unknown. But the fact that China has had multiple episodes of low-grade military conflict with both is not a good sign.
This would be China's strategic approach if I were Xi Jinping: take Taiwan and after a year or two peace out with the American alliance. THEN subjugate diplomatically "neutral" India and Vietnam. Preferably in separate wars. Divide and conquer. OR, India and Vietnam can willingly submit to China now, become obedient satrapies, and spare themselves trouble later. India would likely have to give China the disputed territories in the Himalayas; and likely give Pakistan Kashmir. As well as recognize Nepal and Sri Lanka as formally part of China's sphere of influence. A small price to pay for peace, yes?
OR India will need to take the initiative and support a coalition of allies to defend herself if China decides to play rough. Let's hope Modi has the necessary skills to ensure India's safety.
It's great that you have experience of life in India so you'd know how poor the country is and the pacifist worldview most Indians espouse. The main security concerns most people have are around Islamic fundamentalism and a potential fourth unprovoked border conflict with Pakistan.
It's hard to forecast nine months from now so who knows what will happen in 2031. I don't think Indian generals would be foolhardy enough to tell civilian leaders they can match Chinese military hardware in the event of a war. What weapons are being made available by the West are limited even as defence regimes are getting closer (but it could inflame tensions further).
If you really think China will feel emboldened after a military victory over Taiwan to attack India then then it will be a Crime-like situation with some territory lost. There really isn't an appetite in Indian policymaking circles for war. We're the Mexico to China. The current administration prioritises a Hindu nationalist identity and economic development.
At least, that's my view. I maintain India's unlikely to defend Taiwan. Bangladesh and Nepal are somewhat within its sphere of influence but even that could change with time simply because Chinese companies are the biggest investors and trading partners.
I'm surprised he even went to print with that term limit stuff and real estate stuff still in there. He had 3-5 years to remove it!
I just found this in the Wikipedia article on Li!
In 2023, a study by Li concluded that local government debt in China was 50% higher than previously estimated by the IMF and World Bank.[9] The study found that the majority of debts were for infrastructure, and the level of debt was unsustainable without central government support.
Why Li did not edit his own book is a mystery. One wonders if his American publisher W. W. Norton & Company was allowed or able to make any editorial suggestions in any significant way.
That's interesting.
Can I ask a dumb question - what does it mean for praise to be Straussian?
It means that we need to read between the lines. Tyler says this is a good book for explaining China, but I suspect what he really means is that this is a good book for gaining insight into the worldview of China's ruling elite. Which I think it is.
Tyler thinks the book is bad. But it is good because it shows the truth by being a bad book.
Or perhaps not *bad*, just not necessarily good at the thing the author hoped it was good for.
I interpret it as meaning read between the lines.
Tyler is recommending the book not because the author is necessarily correct, but because the authors misconceptions and flaws in thinking are the same as China's people and decision makers.
Exactly.
It's something the intelligent speaker says to a group when saying to the group what the speaker really thinks would be damaging in some way. The speaker is thus speaking in somewhat coded language to those in the audience who can decode it. As such, it gives listeners great leeway in forgiving speakers for saying really dumb things.
Behold! A reading of the book 1984 tells a story of a man living in a society controlled by a totalitarian dictatorship. A "Straussian" reading of 1984 indicates that the author (George Orwell) believes that there is a danger of that kind of totalitarian control being wreaked upon the democratic nations of our world, and the means by which such control could be achieved.
No. That is the surface meaning.
What does that have to do with Strauss?
“ In the late 1930s, Strauss called for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching."[21] In 1952 he published Persecution and the Art of Writing, arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
I agree that we should (and do) have a negative view of CCP governance and many aspects of its economic management, too. It is not so clear what the full implication for US policies should be.
It is surely the case, however, that a more negative view of the CCP should prompt the US at least to remove obstacles to our own economic growth: fiscal deficits, restriction of immigration of skilled and entrepreneurial workers, trade restrictions outside of dependence on China or China-interdictable strategic imports (for example, not EV’s), inefficient incentives for reducing net CO2 emissions instead of taxing them, taxing income instead of taxing consumption.
Indeed!
I do hope the US doesn't move towards a regressive consumption tax. I think our social problems are bad enough without the budget deficits or middle- and working-class tax increases that would create.
I would favor a progressive consumption tax to go along with a VAT. We just make saving/investment deductible and raise rates. True this will leave Warren buffet with more to invest, but I'm OK with that. And yes there will be disputes about what is really investment just as there is about what is income.
As a lay history fanatic, I find it distressing that in almost 100% of cases where politicians invoke history it is with the intent of justifying some egregious action that in a civilized world would have no justification.
That was indeed a master class in mostly factually correct, but complete misreading of the history - and the doofus Tucker ate it up at face value.
I have not read the book, and based upon this, I will not rush to do so.
However, I think that importance of history to the Chinese is, indeed, something that could be covered in a short chapter. And, in that regard, it is not so very different from the US -- academic (that is actual, factual history) requires myriad pages and sifting. (And I find it fascinating!) But in and of itself it holds little power over the present. In fact, I find it rather scary how little people in general seem to know about the past.
Rather, it's a nation's historical narrative -- one part truth, one part lies, one part forgetfulness, and then a huge dollop of simplification -- which is important. And yes, I gather it is overwhelmingly important in China. Which considered itself to comprise the civilized world for a lot longer than the Roman Empire existed. Ending in extreme humiliation at the hands of western nations and the Japanese, that did not just include military subjugation, but also overwhelming assumptions of racial inferiority. This occurring recently enough to be remembered by a few people still alive, and by the parents and grandparents of much of the population.
Imagine that the USA actually does devolve into civil war, then we are torn apart and massacred for decades by rivals, and new generations in powerful countries come to see people who look like us as obviously inferior. You can imagine how important our "history" would be to us, if decades later we were rebuilding, and becoming one of the primary world powers again.
So although I take all the other criticisms of this book seriously, I would hope that no one misunderstands the claim that history is of prime importance to the Chinese, nor that this really requires detailed explication.
I think that if an author tells us that history is important to the Chinese, but doesn't tell us which history or why, he hasn't really told us much! What do we do with the knowledge that "history is important to the Chinese", if we don't know which history is important, or how it's important? It's just words.
Thanks for writing this. "China has deep history and understanding her history is key to <<X>>, because the Chinese people / elites think that way" is such a cliched canard, relentlessly being pushed by smart-mouthed pundits like Dalio who themselves know little. It's hilarious because the historical and cultural root for an average contemporary Chinese is severed by none other than CPC.
Nice burn at the end :) kudos
This doesn't sound like a very good book for understanding the Chinese perspective, but I have been looking for a good book explaining Chinese elites perceptions, including and especially any delusional beliefs they may have about history, geopolitics and the West. Let me know if you have any recommendations!
From the US perspective, if you have an accurate stock of facts about the world, modern China looks increasingly aggressive. But many statements from Chinese leadership and thinkers, assert that China is acting defensively and is actually deeply concerned about what is perceives as western belligerence. Taking these statements at face-value (rather than a reflexive propaganda campaign aimed at third parties), it paints a picture of a delusionally paranoid Chinese leadership with limited awareness of what the West is really like or what its intentions are. We know Xi doesn't read English. We can say who cares what excuses China makes for aggression, but I think it does matter for negotiating the China relationship.
For instance, a recent essay published on ChinaTalk argues that China's specific ideology of moralism and paranoia is a highly exploitable faultline in the China-Russia relationship:
https://www.chinatalk.media/p/sino-soviet-split-20
We need to understand if this is the case or if Xi really is just "Putin in bad Winnie the Pooh cosplay". We also need to understand if Xi's power is truly absolute or if he is implicitly constrained by a small circle of opinionated CCP elites.
Similarly, is China actually just really afraid of Taiwan abruptly declaring independence and is happy to maintain the status quo of functional independence? They appear to have a genuine belief that Taiwan is gravitating towards Chinese mainland influence, but what will they do when they realize that perception is false? Do they invade militarily under the theory that the US must have done something underhanded, or do they double-down on a failing influence strategy? How could we go about bursting their bubble in an politically advantageous way?
Imperial Japan and Wilhelmine Germany also thought they were acting defensively. Sadly, mistaking offense for defense is almost universal among expansionist states...
Thanks for saving me a few yuan!
The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy by Daniel Bell (2016) is an excellent read. I'd like to recommend it as an alternative for those seeking to understand China. However, I similarly don't know that it will "win hearts & minds" if they are already made up.
Repeating a point that's been reinforced by the latest humiliation, the fact that Russia's much-feared Black Sea Fleet has been driven back into the shelter of Russian ports, with losses every time its ships venture within range of Ukrainian drones and missles, demonstrates the impossibility of most of the scenarios for the PRC to recapture Taiwan, most obviously seaborne invasion and blockade.
History is important to Xi Jinping Thought in much the same way it is important to Vladimir Putin Thought. Which is to say, the Great Man has a very high opinion of his own historical knowledge, but in fact has a thoroughly distorted view of the history. It's just that anyone who questions the distortions will be dismissed as an enemy of the state.
Loved "Chinasplaning"