The new cold war with China

Towgunner

Kingfisher
Yes, China is at war with the US. Indeed its a "cold war" of sorts, but, the idea that China is not at odds with the US is highly unlikely and silly. There are two items that on their own are enough to create a condition of "irreconcilable wills". 1. the USD's status as the global reserve currency and 2. The New Silk Road initiative.

The USD global reserve status is the real lynchpin behind US dominance and power. And it is an exploitive and one-sided paradigm, effectively draining wealth from the rest of the globe and transferring it to the US. Its kind of like "tribute", but, the payouts don't have to be in sacks of money, rather, we provide the money. Odd for sure, but, so long as there is sufficient demand for our money we get to print it and, therefore, create debt and many other things, theoretically, ad infinitum. This paradigm makes it very difficult for new hegemonic upstarts and to lose such status would be devastating to the US. And so we'll protect this at all costs. China cannot allow this paradigm to continue and it also knows that if it destroys it they also destroy the US Empire and the US too.

The New Silk Road gets very little attention and I think that's deliberate. China wants to pave an eighth wonder of the world superhighway/high-speed railway system that connects Asia, Middle East, Africa and Europe. Practically the entire world and its population. All roads will lead from and to China, which will retain its massive industrial base to manufacturer the various goods demanded by these other regions. China's economy, which is servicing the growing middle class with skyrocket and so will its wealth. The US will do everything in its power to prevent this from happening. You have to wonder why we stayed so long in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1620669819677.png

Note the route directly through the Middle East. Also, note the geographic position of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether these are directly on-route or not, I suspect having the US military in the same theater where the Chinese want to start their New Silk Road served as a deterrent. And now we're leaving.

This project will ensure Chinese dominance for the next century. We know that. They know that. They know we know they know it. The war will happen not so much because of China's imperial aspirations, but rather, the US's. Namely, our desire to keep our hegemonic order intact.
 

YoungColonial27

Robin
Orthodox
war that will result in countless deaths of your fellow white brothers
I know right, let us destroy the west by not doing anything my fellow christians.

I hate to throw shade, but I already know for a fact this forum has been infiltrated considering I myself found a forum on some leftwing echochamber precisely for that purpose years ago -
That said, while I agree a war to weaken us is what those racing after power so desperately want, we are already at war with China, and have been for years. A war against the west is literally integrated into their very ideology and government, and China is getting more powerful while the West weakens, not the opposite. The longer you wait, the more will die. You seem to want to wait? Do you want China to win? You do realise Christians will be the first they persecute when that happens. Or perhaps you don't care?
 
Disingenuous post.

Was reading the Soros vs. Xi (China) thread not too long ago. It's unfortunate that we have seen a pretty steep decline in posting quality

From insightful analyses, first hand experiences and deep understandings of Chinese/CCP culture, history and mindset to reading neo-con garbage about 'preventive wars' and BoomerConProp induced emo-posting on how China-Bad mistreats its Christian minorities and how my 'indifference' is enabling this

I really can't find the spirit to write 1500 worded essays to refute all of this nonsense anymore. If anyone else can, props to them

And to be ahead of any misunderstandings, I am not talking about being pro or anti China, but about at least being aware how you are pushing flawed arguments or talk about stuff you have absolutely no idea about
 
Last edited:

Easy_C

Peacock
The USD global reserve status is the real lynchpin behind US dominance and power. And it is an exploitive and one-sided paradigm, effectively draining wealth from the rest of the globe and transferring it to the US. Its kind of like "tribute", but, the payouts don't have to be in sacks of money, rather, we provide the money.

Here is one point I think most analysts don’t quite realize.

That global reserve status is driven by two things: A strong consumer economy (which means there’s a huge depth of market for the USD) and a faith in at least short term USG bills (which means the Treasury notes can be a store of value).

Take those things away and the response to any attempt to coerce people to comply with the demands of that system will be a “so what? Why should We care?”; and that is going to be increasingly the case moving forward as US Consumer buying power crashes and Asian consumer buying power keeps rising.
 

LeoniusD

Pelican
You better hope a real war with China or Russia never happens:

Chine, Russia vs US army ad.


And you may say to that this is just for show and that there are still many masculine men in the armed forces. True, but you see - this is just the beginning. What will happen in 20 years when all those diverse, tri-gender, double-mommed recruits get promoted to the top? Add to it the development of China - heck even Russia which does not sleep. Then you have those women and trannies trying to fight supersexual men.

Note the heterosexual family-loving content in the Russian ad - also the guy having friends, wife who he fights for.

What does the double-lesbian-raised girl fight for? For diversity pushing insanity which is mainly a hate-based ideology that tells you to despise the USA?

Short version - Russia vs US army ad:


Note how the Chinese even put some women into the ad - in supporting backoffice roles of course - way way out of harm's way - that is how it's supposed to be done.
 

The Beast1

Peacock
Gold Member
maomi.png
Frankly not scared of Russia at all.
Russia is a has-been empire with a dying native population whose soft power has relegated themselves to trolling Boomers in the west. Their threats to take over Ukraine are solely because of their abysmal birth ratios and desire to bring more ethnic Russians into the mix. They don't have the demographics or industry to sustain a long term conflict.

China on the other hand has both demographics (lots of dumb men) to throw into a meat grinder, has an axe to grind with the west, industrial base, and desires to be a global hegemon. I am very nervous about China.

I expect China to try and make a move on Siberia and the Russian far-east. Their, "marriage" or partnership with Russia is purely one driven by the West's responses to China's trolling. This will bring Russia back to the West.

The sooner boomers get out of politics, the sooner the west can reply back to Russia's trolling with more trolling and we can all share a laugh over vodka.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
China doesn't have "lebensraum" issues, its population is set to dive from 1.45 billion to 1 billion this century, due to the one child policy they've have for decades. This is their demographic "soft landing" long-term plan. So they don't need to settle Siberia, they only need access to Siberian resources (oil, gas, timber, coal, gold, copper, iron etc), which the Russians will gladly sell them.

If China became really greedy for land, they could just roll in and take over Mongolia, a huge landlocked undefended country with the lowest population density in the world, 3 million Mongols on a land nearly 3 times the size of Texas, a country packed to the brim with mineral wealth, gold, copper, coal, uranium, tungsten etc. They would have some historical justification for this, the Mongols having invaded China and killed off tens of millions of Chinese, many times over in history. As it is, China buys off almost all the minerals produced in Mongolia.

Russia has successfully tackled its demography problem, their fertility rate has risen from Italy/Spain levels of nearly 1 child per woman to 1.75 (and climbing) today, the same as the fertility rate of white women in the US. They've used some of the gameplan that Orban implemented in Hungary (financial incentives for marriage and childbearing, popularizing/glamorizing kids and childraising among young women), kind of the polar opposite of what's being done in the West and East Asia, where fertility rates are still diving.

Russia doesn't want conflict with the West, as long as its red lines are respected. It can be defeated on the road, but cannot be beat in a land war at home (ask Hitler and Napoleon). No western country will want to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers in that campaign, whereas the Russian would, if they were attacked in or very close to their motherland.
 

The Beast1

Peacock
Gold Member
China doesn't have "lebensraum" issues, its population is set to dive from 1.45 billion to 1 billion this century, due to the one child policy they've have for decades. This is their demographic "soft landing" long-term plan. So they don't need to settle Siberia, they only need access to Siberian resources (oil, gas, timber, coal, gold, copper, iron etc), which the Russians will gladly sell them.

If China became really greedy for land, they could just roll in and take over Mongolia, a huge landlocked undefended country with the lowest population density in the world, 3 million Mongols on a land nearly 3 times the size of Texas, a country packed to the brim with mineral wealth, gold, copper, coal, uranium, tungsten etc. They would have some historical justification for this, the Mongols having invaded China and killed off tens of millions of Chinese, many times over in history. As it is, China buys off almost all the minerals produced in Mongolia.

Russia has successfully tackled its demography problem, their fertility rate has risen from Italy/Spain levels of nearly 1 child per woman to 1.75 (and climbing) today, the same as the fertility rate of white women in the US. They've used some of the gameplan that Orban implemented in Hungary (financial incentives for marriage and childbearing, popularizing/glamorizing kids and childraising among young women), kind of the polar opposite of what's being done in the West and East Asia, where fertility rates are still diving.

Russia doesn't want conflict with the West, as long as its red lines are respected. It can be defeated on the road, but cannot be beat in a land war at home (ask Hitler and Napoleon). No western country will want to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers in that campaign, whereas the Russian would, if they were attacked in or very close to their motherland.
Disagree. Land != raw materials China has a water and raw materials problem. The Russians may be happy to sell them, but the Chinese want the middle men out. It's coming. And you are right, the Chinese will take Mongolia the same way they'll take Siberia.

Good to hear about their birthrate though I don't know how much good that it will do. They haven't been at replacement since 1989. The population is still drastically shrinking and aging at a quick rate.
They'd get their birth rate numbers higher if 3/4th of their country wasn't a decrypt and rotting hell of its former self.
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
China doesn't have "lebensraum" issues, its population is set to dive from 1.45 billion to 1 billion this century, due to the one child policy they've have for decades. This is their demographic "soft landing" long-term plan. So they don't need to settle Siberia, they only need access to Siberian resources (oil, gas, timber, coal, gold, copper, iron etc), which the Russians will gladly sell them.

If China became really greedy for land, they could just roll in and take over Mongolia, a huge landlocked undefended country with the lowest population density in the world, 3 million Mongols on a land nearly 3 times the size of Texas, a country packed to the brim with mineral wealth, gold, copper, coal, uranium, tungsten etc. They would have some historical justification for this, the Mongols having invaded China and killed off tens of millions of Chinese, many times over in history. As it is, China buys off almost all the minerals produced in Mongolia.

Russia has successfully tackled its demography problem, their fertility rate has risen from Italy/Spain levels of nearly 1 child per woman to 1.75 (and climbing) today, the same as the fertility rate of white women in the US. They've used some of the gameplan that Orban implemented in Hungary (financial incentives for marriage and childbearing, popularizing/glamorizing kids and childraising among young women), kind of the polar opposite of what's being done in the West and East Asia, where fertility rates are still diving.

Russia doesn't want conflict with the West, as long as its red lines are respected. It can be defeated on the road, but cannot be beat in a land war at home (ask Hitler and Napoleon). No western country will want to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers in that campaign, whereas the Russian would, if they were attacked in or very close to their motherland.
Disagree. Land != raw materials China has a water and raw materials problem. The Russians may be happy to sell them, but the Chinese want the middle men out. It's coming. And you are right, the Chinese will take Mongolia the same way they'll take Siberia.

Good to hear about their birthrate though I don't know how much good that it will do. They haven't been at replacement since 1989. The population is still drastically shrinking and aging at a quick rate.
They'd get their birth rate numbers higher if 3/4th of their country wasn't a decrypt and rotting hell of its former self.

Adding to this - if China didn't have land issues, why are they getting into fishing quarrels with Ecuador? For ANY country, gaining arable land is always a net benefit. Since before humanity even existed, groups of living beings have fought over land and resources, and wars are just the latest iteration of that. If what I'm predicting happens to the economy and we get a major inflationary commodity boom over the next decade, then China will want to own those resources rather than having to trade their hard work and labor (via manufactured goods) for them.
They may have declining demographics, but imagine what they could do to their birthrates if they put a clamp on feminism and had a bunch of new land to settle? Lack of pressure on young women to settle down and have kids (due to changing social mores, female economic empowerment making the male role redundant, and widely available birth control) is the main factor causing lower birth rates in China and elsewhere. With the right social environment, that can be reversed, and if there's a major conflict in the next decade and golobohomo fades, Chinese birth rates will go back up and all that land and protein will be necessary. Russia can also perk up its birth rate as well with the right incentive structure. Western media has an incentive to overly portray Russia, China, and Japan as hopelessly greying and in desperate need of diversity immigration.

Mongolia may make a better target, but if there was a situation in which China could roll through Siberia will little consequence then they could very likely take it. When was the last time in history that a strong power resisted the temptation to subdue a weaker neighbor rich in resources when there were no consequences?
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Mongolia may make a better target, but if there was a situation in which China could roll through Siberia will little consequence then they could very likely take it. When was the last time in history that a strong power resisted the temptation to subdue a weaker neighbor rich in resources when there were no consequences?

Are you kidding me? The last time in history this happened was... in China, in Chinese history. They were a regional superpower in East Asia for the past 1500 years and could have steamrolled Japan, Korea, and Vietnam easily, but last I checked all of those nations are still de jure independent and speaking their own national languages. The conquest dynasties of China were the Yuan and the Qing which were both ruled by barbarian warriors (Mongols, Manchurians), not the Han. The Chinese historically were content with being respected as #1 empire of the universe and even sent sailing ships to North America with Zheng He, but they didn't nearly engage in the warfare and conquest as other countries did.

You even have examples of Chinese history, which are ridiculous by European standards, where the emperor wanted to be respected, so when the Japanese delegation gives a small gift, he would bestow an even larger gift just to show he's better than you. This is the type of world we are talking about. Meanwhile, the Spanish went to the Aztec kings and destroyed their entire civilization to steal some gold and silver.
 
Last edited:

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
Are you kidding me? The last time in history this happened was... in China, in Chinese history. They were a regional superpower in East Asia for the past 1500 years and could have steamrolled Japan, Korea, and Vietnam easily, but last I checked all of those nations are still de jure independent and speaking their own national languages. The conquest dynasties of China were the Yuan and the Qing which were both ruled by barbarian warriors (Mongols, Manchurians), not the Han. The Chinese historically were content with being respected as #1 empire of the universe and even sent sailing ships to North America with Zheng He, but they didn't nearly engage in the warfare and conquest as other countries did.

You even have examples of Chinese history, which are ridiculous by European standards, where the emperor wanted to be respected, so when the Japanese delegation gives a small gift, he would bestow an even larger gift just to show he's better than you. This is the type of world we are talking about. Meanwhile, the Spanish went to the Aztec kings and destroyed their entire civilization to steal some gold and silver.

None of those regions were teeming in resources that China desperately needed AND easy to steamroll at the time. Invading Japan wouldn't have been easy, and China has fought countless wars with Vietnam over the years. Korea was a vassal state without much resources so no need for China to occupy outright.

We've debated this idea countless times on the thread, but the strong dominate the weak and seize resources when it's easy and in their interests. Has happened since before civilization and will continue long after humanity is gone.
 

Hansel

Robin
I don't know why people are so hellbent on this idea that China is going to turn against Russia simply for its land in the next 20 years. It probably has something to do with the wishful thinking that China and Russia are going to fight amongst themselves suddenly before they've finished dealing with the US so they keep thinking the West can swoop in and reap all the benefits without paying for them. Not sure why they have to fight each other's only strong ally though.

Seriously it is not difficult to do an Internet search. Seasons in the Far East of Russia The Russian Far East is a tundra with some of the worst winters in the world (Nov to Apr), with an average of -7 degrees and sometimes even to -58. The snow are known to accumulate to 10 feet in the inland regions there.

And below is the Stanovoy Range, a mountain range spanning from Kamchatka all the way into Siberia. Tell me that is arable land. It is certainly land with minerals, but it's as enticing as Aspen at most. There's a reason why China never expanded that much northwards historically but opted to go for the southern lands. 85% of the Russian population live on the western side of the Urals, in converse proportion to the land area.

compressed-2.png


People here need to look to some basic facts before speaking with conviction. If you're so anxious on Chinese expansion for lebensraum, you should probably be thinking about Australia and the West Coast instead. I'll trade Yukon and Siberia for Perth and Washington any day of the week. Surfing after mining in the Australian iron mines sounds much more attractive than building igloos in the permafrost.

Plus there will be no shortage of land and resources after they defeat the US and they can partition the world in whatever way they want so no way they will be fighting for a 3 when there is a pool of 8s in the horizon.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
None of those regions were teeming in resources that China desperately needed AND easy to steamroll at the time. Invading Japan wouldn't have been easy, and China has fought countless wars with Vietnam over the years. Korea was a vassal state without much resources so no need for China to occupy outright.

We've debated this idea countless times on the thread, but the strong dominate the weak and seize resources when it's easy and in their interests. Has happened since before civilization and will continue long after humanity is gone.

You have already decided what you want to believe which is why you are incapable of examining the evidence for contradictory positions. As soon as someone presents another alternative, you will just say "the history is mistaken" or "this is human nature" or "the resources weren't good enough" or "maybe they had some nefarious long term strategy".

This worldview, which you are blinded by, is called the neo-realist theory of international relations which has become incredibly popular in the past few decades and is essentially a secular religion. I wonder, who is it exactly who benefits from godless materialistic reductionism in which merciless cruelty is actually "logical" and "mathematically justified"? Surely it can't be the upper-crust war-loving stakeholders who profit from all of these battles and who control not only the interpretation of past history but also the goalposts of academic discourse?

The simple and obvious answer is that the Han Chinese had a vastly reduced desire to outright conquer people, which is clearly evidenced
by the fact that conquest dynasties operated by Mongols and Manchurians, seated with the exact same political infrastructures and national resources, decided of their own volitions to dominate and terrorize other countries which the Chinese had long been contented to ignore.

Furthermore, the actual even more obvious answer is that peaceful countries really exist, and warfare is a conscious choice which is undertaken by the rulers of civilizations who decide using their own human reason whether or not they want to approve of the slaughtering of thousands of people. It is not a mathematical inevitability and it isn't a fully-rational free market. Humans are very capable of being materialistically irrational by pursuing the path of peace.
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
You have already decided what you want to believe which is why you are incapable of examining the evidence for contradictory positions. As soon as someone presents another alternative, you will just say "the history is mistaken" or "this is human nature" or "the resources weren't good enough" or "maybe they had some nefarious long term strategy".

This worldview, which you are blinded by, is called the neo-realist theory of international relations which has become incredibly popular in the past few decades and is essentially a secular religion. I wonder, who is it exactly who benefits from godless materialistic reductionism in which merciless cruelty is actually "logical" and "mathematically justified"? Surely it can't be the upper-crust war-loving stakeholders who profit from all of these battles and who control not only the interpretation of past history but also the goalposts of academic discourse?

The simple and obvious answer is that the Han Chinese had a vastly reduced desire to outright conquer people, which is clearly evidenced
by the fact that conquest dynasties operated by Mongols and Manchurians, seated with the exact same political infrastructures and national resources, decided of their own volitions to dominate and terrorize other countries which the Chinese had long been contented to ignore.

Furthermore, the actual even more obvious answer is that peaceful countries really exist, and warfare is a conscious choice which is undertaken by the rulers of civilizations who decide using their own human reason whether or not they want to approve of the slaughtering of thousands of people. It is not a mathematical inevitability and it isn't a fully-rational free market. Humans are very capable of being materialistically irrational by pursuing the path of peace.
Realism is popular? Are you on planet Earth, where we spent most of the last few decades antagonizing Russia and spreading globohomo while our companies outsourced our entire industrial base to China while Israel & Saudi dictate our Middle East policy? Doesn't sound like realism to me. Just look at this thread and ask yourself if realism is so popular, then why is so much effort on this thread devoted to whether China is a tool of the globalists or a counter to them?

Maybe the Chinese weren't as aggressive as other nations in the past, but it was under very different conditions in which they 1) weren't in active competition with foreign rivals so could stay content 2) didn't suffer resource shortages at home and 3) didn't have easily accessible foreign lands to conquer and occupy with the technology of that time.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
China could have easily taken over Australia and NZ in the late middle ages and Renaissance, they already had a huge population, enormous boats and fleets that covered the Indo-Pacific region (see Zheng He's fleet) and military tech like mass-produced crossbows that would have wiped out the Aboriginals and Maoris in a week or two. They could have also taken over the Philippines and other places a couple of centuries before Spain and the US did. The reason they didn't is that they were always an inwards looking, isolationist continental culture that didn't have any interest in colonizing other countries. It's just not in their cultural DNA.

Zheng_He.png

1622092577827.png
Zheng-Hes-Fleet-Oil-Painting.jpg

1622093058372.png

Zheng-He%E2%80%99s-ship-vs-Vasco-De-Gama%E2%80%99s-Ship.jpg

Zheng He’s Command ship compared with Vasco De Gama’s ship.
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
China could have easily taken over Australia and NZ in the late middle ages and Renaissance, they already had a huge population, enormous boats and fleets that covered the Indo-Pacific region (see Zheng He's fleet) and military tech like mass-produced crossbows that would have wiped out the Aboriginals and Maoris in a week or two. They could have also taken over the Philippines and other places a couple of centuries before Spain and the US did. The reason they didn't is that they were always an inwards looking, isolationist continental culture that didn't have any interest in colonizing other countries. It's just not in their cultural DNA.

Zheng_He.png

View attachment 31168
Zheng-Hes-Fleet-Oil-Painting.jpg

View attachment 31169

Zheng-He%E2%80%99s-ship-vs-Vasco-De-Gama%E2%80%99s-Ship.jpg

Zheng He’s Command ship compared with Vasco De Gama’s ship.

Zheng He's treasure fleets are well known, and things could have easily gone the other way if they didn't have to deal with the Mongol threat and the successor emperor didn't burn the fleet.

I'm not disagreeing that China does have something different about them - they don't have Christianity which would make them feel an obligation to spread their culture and religion abroad, and they weren't under constant competition like the European countries were. As the leading civilization in the East, there was no pressure on them to settle new lands to gain leverage over their competitors like the Europeans had.

Put yourself in the shoes of the government at the time - there was no pressing reason to colonize Australia or other lands. Totally different from modern day - now China has an overwhelming military advantage over its neighbors and a ravenous appetite for energy and protein resources that it can only secure with foreign adventurism. I'm skeptical when one says that colonization isn't part of their DNA - Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet weren't part of traditional Han Chinese territory, but it's not like they were willing to give it up. If China wasn't trying to establish greater military footholds overseas and aggressively deploy their fishing fleet then I would be more sympathetic to the idea of an inward looking China that won't be a threat.
 
Top