Kann China beim Rücktritt die USA das Ruder übernehmen?
Kann China beim Rücktritt die USA das Ruder übernehmen?
20 Kommentare
With the U.S. deliberately breaking relationships and stepping back from important affairs, a political vacuum is emerging. China can be seen as a potential power to fill that void — this article explores whether they are ready and capable to do so.
No. That’s one evil to another.
We need to see an example of them being able to project power (edit : military power) outside their region first
Agree with the article.
Outlines the bigger concern. Decades of geopolitical moves by the US to „contain“ China (China’s words) and maintain the US at the top of the hegemony of the rules based world „order“ I think persists (in spite of current administration’s efforts to retract) largely due to China’s approach to international relations.
China’s BRI (and their lending track record as a whole) is incredibly predatory. Many smaller nations/economies aren’t willing to engage China due to those risks. Couple that with China’s territorial disputes with smaller neighbors in the face of internationally recognized territories, sovereignty, and rights paints China as a less desirable international partner.
Until China re-evaluates their image and how they approach trade, and international diplomacy (meanin; all deals must put China firmly on top) America will enjoy manageable challenges to its global power position for the foreseeable future. This is absolutely the time for China to persuade nations away from America, because the current administration is almost certainly putting the US’s relationships at risk for exploitation from adversaries with the political rhetoric and desires for US retraction.
Outside international investment or trade deals, no not really.
China dosen’t care about what happens in Europe or Africa even when it effects there investments. And is focused on conquering Taiwan.
If Xi wants to get back into the good graces of the West, especially with Europe, he should stop supporting Russia and support Ukraine. China never liked Russia anyway, but this kind of move would definitely shake things up.
When US was in charge, they had something to sell to everyone: a free world, human rights, embracing liberty.
China has nothing to sell in this regard.
No, China is still too young and immature to replacing USA in anything worldwide.
Also, despite many setbacks recently in the US, her foundation is too deep and grand to be toppled in just 4 short years of Trump’s term.
So, unless the next USA president is also a nut job likes Trump, USA would still going strong for a long time.
China would have less interest to woo US former allies than to form a WWIII Axis Power of BMW (Beijing, Moscow, Washington
>As the U.S. Withdraws, Can China Take the Helm?
No.
PRC/Xi can’t even manage North Korea/Kim Jong-Un. Not credible.
I think there’s another set of related questions that need asked before: why did the US deem their previous position unsustainable? what’s their new plan? what comes after this current liberal world order is gone, and how does the Empire plan to navigate it?
Communist China to protect democratic regions over the world
/s
God… We don’t hate journalists enough sometimes
Prepared or not, leadership isn’t something granted or awarded when you are ready. You step up to fill a void and claim leadership. Your actions grant you sufficient claim to leadership. There are wars, famines, and other catastrophes happening all the time – China can step up and be the leader any time it wants.
[removed]
No because China expressed that they have no interest in becoming the world’s police.
Uh…That’s the plan, isn’t it?
And Trump is one part of that plan.
This kind of a question betrays a false equivalence that seems prevalent in Western media outlets and in the Western countries‘ general mindsets as well (both in the citizens and in the leaders). You see this even in current conversations about how Europe has to become the „new leader“ of the world, or that it has „take charge of things“ wrt global affairs. And then they superimpose this mindset onto the world. The reason this is a false equivalence, is because other parts of the world don’t think of these things like that. Or even if they do, the way they perceive their own domination or them becoming a „global superpower“, is radically different from how the US or the EU perceive it. These countries have completely different perceptions wrt these things, and completely different approaches to go about such things. And the West as a whole, clearly don’t bother to, or simply can’t fathom these nuances.
China ofc wants to dominate globally, yes, and it also wants to become a world leader in some cases, but the way it wants to do that is completely different from how the US or the EU want to do it. Because guess what, it’s a completely different culture, with its own history, and its own system. The same goes for other major powers such as India.
Even when it comes to other aspects, the West as a whole is guilty of this kind of random juxtaposition of Western historicity, ideals, aims, and perceptions, onto other drastically different countries and their aims, ideals, histories, and systems. Be it domestic politics, geopolitics, society, or the international relations or strategies of these countries.
So no, if you’re expecting China to become a like-to-like substitute for the US on the world stage and wrt world leadership, then that’s not gonna happen. Simply because the way it views itself and its relationship with the world, is completely different than how the US or the EU view themselves and their place in the world. China’s philosophy, aims, and approaches are significantly different from those of the Western countries. The same goes for countries like India.
As the Indo-Pacific has become the central focus of this century’s global world order, the West would do itself a huge favour if it devoted itself exponentially more dedicatedly, in trying to *accurately* understand Asia, especially China, India, and Southeast Asia, as well as Africa. They’ve already made similar mistakes in their understanding of India, China, Western Asia/the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America in modern history.
The West needs to internalise and normalise this obvious and common sense fact that the rest of the world doesn’t think like them, and doesn’t have the same philosophies, cultures, priorities, or aims as them. And that this is not a negative, but a positive, and an opportunity for those with curiosity from within their part of the world, to not only explore new aspects of parts of the world outside their own corner, but also to use that knowledge to accurately understand these parts of the world, so as to interact with them in a way that will help both sides to navigate the challenges and capitalise upon the genuine opportunities.
For example, if the West wants to understand truly understand India and China, you know what would be one of the best ways to do that? It’d be to read extensively about how they view and understand each other, and how they’ve done so for millenia. Because these two countries have histories and civilizations, going back to many millenia, out of which they’ve traded and had some major cultural exchanges for a significant period. They also have a rich history of being world powers, and they also thrived simultaneously for a substantial amount of time. Another great perspective would be that of Southeast Asia, and how the countries/powers within this region view India and China not just today, but also how they viewed these two going back many millenia as well. But there are hardly any efforts being put into such things in the West.
These things will also obviously help the EU and the US to have much more effective counters against China on the global stage in different parts of the world. Otherwise, the West will continue misunderstanding the dynamics of the current world order, the new major countries in this world order, what their aims and approaches are, and how their strategies work
Not while they have imperialist ambitions against democratic countries they can’t.
Although if they ever DID give up their desire for Taiwan, they actually probably could work to positions themselves as new hegemon. They won’t obviously, it doesn’t fit their beliefs, but it’s interesting to think about.
Betraying all your allies is a pretty stupid way of “shifting to China”for the US because at the end of the day no one cares if the US is an enemy of China if it has no allies or influence in the world. That’s just a personal beef at that point. Realistically, since the Trump administration wants to abandon all influence in the world why even oppose China? Chinese expansionism doesn’t matter if you don’t care about your allies. Chinese influence among other nations doesn’t matter if you don’t care about other nations.
„do nothing, win.“
why would China come running around to Ukraine to wipe everyone else’s ass? Ukraine has next to zero geopolitical value to them.