<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpe5c7b2d7yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">There is one thing about China which I find very concerning. China is willing to wait as long as necessary for an opportunity.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">For years there was international discussion about some tiny islands in the South China Sea. Then one day, a fleet of Chinese ships arrived and started dredging, building a runway and other military facilities. Before anyone else could respond, they had a permanent base on what was previously a reef that was barely above water at high tide.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Or look at Hong Kong. There were many assurances about "One China, Two Systems". It took 2 decades, but now China has seriously limited any dissent in Hong Kong. During that time there were 5 different presidents in the US. </div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Paul</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp9c3e2aa5yahoo_quoted_3803458174" class="ydp9c3e2aa5yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 08:53:30 PM PDT, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Quoting Steve Litt (slitt@troubleshooters.com):<br clear="none"><br clear="none">[ <a shape="rect" href="https://ecumenico.org/the-myth-of-multipolarity-american-powers-staying-power-stephen-g-brooks-april-2023-foreign-affairs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://ecumenico.org/the-myth-of-multipolarity-american-powers-staying-power-stephen-g-brooks-april-2023-foreign-affairs</a> ]<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> I don't know the history of Rick's and Ruben's debate, but the<br clear="none">> preceding link's article is 5000 words that parse down to nothing. The<br clear="none">> phony intellectual author passionately argues both sides of every point.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">You will probably be unsurprised to hear that I don't concur.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">I don't particularly care who qualifies as an "intellectual", but will<br clear="none">mention without further comment that Stephen G. Brooks is a very<br clear="none">resepected academic, currently Prof. of Government at Dartmouth, Ph.D. <br clear="none">from Yale, expert in international relations, the global political<br clear="none">economy, and American strategy. So, if he's a phony intellectual, I<br clear="none">sure hope some day to meet the towering polymath who, by you, _isn't_<br clear="none">one.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">More to the direct point, I cannot see him having "argued both sides of<br clear="none">every point" (passionately or not).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Brooks's main point is the one he gets to directly, which is to debunk<br clear="none">the currently fashionable notion that we've entered an era of<br clear="none">"multipolar" geopolitics. He points out that this is false by every<br clear="none">credible metric of either hard or soft power, but that the metric that<br clear="none">has mattered most post-Cold War is "resources, especially military might<br clear="none">and economic heft". <br clear="none"><br clear="none">This is not jingoism. It's just observation. I often _greatly dislike_<br clear="none">the USA's ongoing ability to largely dictate key parts of world affairs,<br clear="none">but cannot even remotely deny it exists.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Brooks contrasts both Cold War bipolarity and the _pre_-WWII world's<br clear="none">_true_ multipolarity with what we have now, which is one dominant power,<br clear="none">one junior aspiring power, and then a lot of others who're third-rank or<br clear="none">lower by any metric.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">He acknowledges that China, the aspiring power, has had an impressive<br clear="none">rise in both economic and (to a degree) military terms, but is in no way<br clear="none">a peer, nor likely to be for the foreseeable future. And then Brooks <br clear="none">argues why the many claiming we're heading for a dual US/China hegemony <br clear="none">by pointing just to GDP and military spending are wrong, because neither<br clear="none">is a decisive metric, _and_ because China's official econometric data<br clear="none">has long been known to be shamelessly, fraudulently cooked, to (greatly)<br clear="none">inflate it.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Moreover, just comparing X dollars of US military spending with Y Yuan<br clear="none">of China military spending utterly misses difference in _effect_ -- <br clear="none">that the US applies force glabally, while China can do so only just<br clear="none">offshore (able to contest the "first island chain" of Taiwan, Japan, and<br clear="none">the Philippines) as a regional power. Again, not comparable.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Brooks acknowledges that power relations shift, and are sure to keep<br clear="none">doing so, but the result is still at most unipolarity with an asterisk<br clear="none">or two.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Last, Brooks points out that China's means for gaining a winning<br clear="none">advantage by conquest (the Axis Powers WWII trick) aren't likely to be a<br clear="none">game-changer even if China were to try to emulate Imperial Japan, and<br clear="none">cites solid reasons -- and also that a China that tried that would able<br clear="none">to have its entire economy kneecapped by the US Navy from a distance,<br clear="none">with ease.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">He closes with some sober advice to US policy-makers about how to not be<br clear="none">stupid through arrogance or otherwise.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">So, you think he "passionately argues both sides of every point"? I<br clear="none">just don't see it.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The reason I brought this essay to (specifically) Ruben's attention is<br clear="none">that he shares his far-right MAGA crowd's fixation with the alleged<br clear="none">imminent national threat of China, and I keep trying (and failing) to <br clear="none">give him some broader and better-informed perspective from actual<br clear="none">experts who are not just spewing ideology.<div class="ydp9c3e2aa5yqt4397872921" id="ydp9c3e2aa5yqtfd70806"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">conspire mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="mailto:conspire@linuxmafia.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">conspire@linuxmafia.com</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire</a><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>