So about the Nancy Pelosi situation

submitted by Rakean93Identitarian socialist from self.debatealtright

Let's address the elephant in the room. This one was an American-zog victory. They called the Chinese's bluff, and the Chinese decided to let them do their show without serious consequences. Maybe it's not a major win, but it's still a win - something that can partially redeem the loss in Ukraine.

Daily stormer is in hard cope mode, but that's a major sign that the Chinese won't engage in effective measures. If they are not willing to fight over Taiwan, which is literally China, they are surely not willing to fight over Europe. What's your take on the matter?

all 17 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]NeoRail 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

I have seen some people claim that the Chinese lost to America or that they have been outshined by Russia as a beacon of resistance against NATO. I don't necessarily agree. The Chinese just have a brain. Who would benefit from a US-China war? Maybe the US elite, if they can win. China on the other hand has time on its side, and it is better for it to keep its commercial links to the rest of the world and continue growing its economy and military. China will only grow stronger and the US will only grow weaker. There is no reason to force a conflict now. Besides, US officials explicitly confirmed that they are not attempting to undermine the One China policy, so objectively speaking, there is nothing for China to lose. I think the sober, intelligent thing to do was not escalate the situation, and for the most part this is precisely the course the Chinese pursued. Russia did not have this privilege because of the nature and importance of its relationship with Ukraine, but China simply has nothing to gain from fighting a war with the US now.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    To my knowledge, the chief officials did not threaten war. It was mostly journalists and other insignificant figures who were blustering. I think the minister of defence said that the army is "ready to fight", but he did not directly call for war either. My impression is that the Chinese wanted to bluff America into admitting its feebleness and inability to act by having them voluntarily give up on something as basic as a visit to a foreign state. Given that America has been losing on almost every front for a very long time now, I think that strategy was worth a shot. If successful, it would have perhaps completely discredited the very idea of an American world order. It didn't work this time, mainly because the American regime approaches foreign politics with invincible arrogance and carelessness. Still, I think that in the long term this will probably inconvenience America more than it inconvenienced China, because China has not really lost anything, but will certainly remember the insult.

    [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I mean, we all know it's not a big deal by itself. A woman landed on Taiwan - that's literally it. I'm with you with that. But the Chinese did threaten reaction, and I think at least something symbolic should have happened.

    [–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I think the fact that they warned the Americans not to set foot on Taiwan and mobilised a large number of troops and equipment for extensive exercises is already sufficient. To be honest, considering the massive scale of their mobilisation, at one point I thought that a war might genuinely break out. I think it should be very clear to the Americans that they will have to take the Chinese into account in order to avoid making a tremendous mistake in the Pacific. Many people in the US administration are already aware of this - Biden apparently commented that the military believed that Pelosi's visit was "not a good idea". I think the Chinese response is good confirmation of that, and really drives the message home.

    [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah that's exactly my point of view. They could have downplayed this from the beginning saying "very rude but not much a big deal" or, on the other side, at least try to make some noise, like asking the US plane to leave the Chinese airspace. Threatening a reaction and doing actually nothing is a sign of weakness.

    [–]oligarchracy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Who would benefit from a US-China war? Maybe the US elite, if they can win.

    What would a win even look like? I cant imagine any scenario where the US could prevent a Chinese takeover of Taiwan, and China has a large nuclear arsenal. There's also zero chance the US could invade or take over China, and economically China holds most of the cards. A war would almost certainly result in a long term economic depression in the US. So what a win even mean?

    Seems to me China has already won. They are in an infinitely better long term economic and strategic position than the US is, even with their many flaws. Time is completely on their side. All they have to do at this point is run out the clock.

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    What would a win even look like?

    Regime change.

    [–]oligarchracy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Do you know how difficult that would be? The Chinese are among the most conformist people on earth. Their government not only has absolute power, but the vast majority of the population are of the same ethnic group as those who lead their government, and generally agree with what their government does and see an attack on it as an attack on them. You'd be far more likely to succeed with Russia than China. Most Chinese would back their government to the bitter end. You might be able to force out a particular leader at best, only to be replaced by someone with more or less the same mindset.

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    More unlikely things have happened before - the collapse of the Soviet Union, for instance. I don't think regime change is a likely outcome for China, but it is most probably the ultimate hope and goal of the US.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't think China is ready to take over Taiwan, but it's inevitable that they will.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

    China cucked. You don't have to be the biggest USA fan to understand what China did made them look toothless.

    North Korea next door is much more poor and less developed, yet Kim Jong Un still throws his weight around or launches rockets at other countries when he feels like it.

    I'm also reminded of a funny 4chan quote yesterday about this situation:

    Chads are always willing to go to war, only effeminate niggers puss out and make excuses. Now you understand why Chinese Women are not interested in their Men and would rather run into the arms of BWC whenever possible.

    [–]oligarchracy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It made china look toothless how? Did anyone think they would shoot down her plane? Of course not. They obviously could have, and they could militarily take taiwan tomorrow if they wanted.

    The chinese dont have to do a thing but watch Americas accelerating collapse, and they know this. The old military saying that you never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake comes to mind.

    [–]oligarchracy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    So now China will be more likely to militarily seize Taiwan and will be even more friendly towards Russia. So the only loser in all this is ZOG.

    [–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    China prefers economic warfare over military warfare.

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Which is smart.

    [–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Daily stormer is in hard cope mode, but that's a major sign that the Chinese won't engage in effective measures. If they are not willing to fight over Taiwan, which is literally China, they are surely not willing to fight over Europe.

    These people who think Russia or China are going to 'save' them are delusional. They know that the West is run by megalomaniacs and psycopaths, and they start grasping at straws, looking at Russia and China for salvation. Putin and Xi may be enemys of the Globalists, but that does not make them our saviors. If it comes right down to it, they will nuke us.

    [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't think they will save us, but rather that they will try to fight over geopolitical and economical spaces in order to further extend the reach of their own power. This practically means creating a separation between America and Europe. What I was trying to say is that if the Chinese aren't willing to fight for Taiwan, it's very unlikely that they will go for a confrontation against America over Europe. If that's the case a bipolar order is about to return, where Europe is the official feud of America, Russia is the official feud of China and Africa and South America is where they will try to get as much advantage as possible.