Geopolitics

A great one-hour interview with Prof. Stephen Kotkin from Stanford’s Hoover Institution about China-US relations. My own TL;DW:

https://youtu.be/4aQfzDs7RzI

1/7 China is first and foremost characterized by its Leninist regime, in that the CCP has a monopoly on power and inserts itself into all institutions both public and private. Previous regime attempts to bring the private sector to the CCP by allowing business people to become ranking members failed; so now the policy is to have CCP presence in every private companies' boards and executive teams.

2/7 Whether China is also a Marxist regime is subject to interpretation, given the latitude extended to the private sector which generates wealth and employment.

3/7 The regime’s primary goal is its own perpetuation, which limits how much it can open up both economically and politically. The Pygmalion approach of expecting China to embrace the international order is, therefore, naive and unrealistic. China would rather reshape the international order.

Aviator, diver, Etherean, nexialist, PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

6/7 Prof. Kotkin sees the continuation of the Cold War approach as a necessity. It should not be won — last time the US won the Cold War, Russia re-emerged years later much smaller (territorially, demographically, economically, militarily) but also much more bellicose (cf. Ukraine). The chief benefit of a Cold War is that it is not a hot war; and, it doesn't preclude collaboration / cooperation on topics other than politics and territorial claims, such as space, science, sports, etc.

7/7 My personal take is that I'd rather the political differences (which are the driver for this confrontation) be put aside as unresolvable in the short to medium term, and shift the Cold War idea of strategic competition to one of strategic "coopetition" — which entails the US and China working hand in hand and integrating their economic interests to such a degree as to make war unthinkable (much like what Europe did post-WW2). Tariffs and abrasive rhetoric that portray China as a foe (as seen now) clearly go against that.

4/7 The CCP's secondary goal is to restore China's greatness, which may imply territorial expansion. China was historically a superpower before the US existed, lost its footing for a while, and now that it's back, the newly risen United States as a free and open hegemon challenges that ambition.

5/7 The US have four options from here. One is a hot war — unthinkable because at this scale, there is too much to lose, even for the winner. Two is appeasement — which historically also leads to war because "the hunger grows with the eating" (the appeased keeps making larger demands until they are unacceptable). Three is the Pygmalion approach — unrealistic for the reason I mentioned in #3. Four is maintaining the status quo of "strategic competition" (i.e., a Cold War) with China — i.e., shaping international alliances to be more favorable to the US without going so far as to trigger military action by China (e.g., on Taiwan).

I agree that CCP’s survival comes first. But it’s still fascinating how much innovation and dynamism can emerge even in a system where the Party’s reach is so suffocating. China’s story isn’t just about oppression, it’s also about relentless adaptation

Also on the Lenin side of things, another way China is aligned with leninism is that Lenins big thing post revolution was we need capitalism to an extent, with how revisionist deng was( all though I don't feel in a bad way) and where China started from, a period of "capitalism" is needed, from the steps Xi is taking in his common prosperity plan i do expect over the next 10 years to see a lot of changes politically in China, and really do belive they'll reach their goal of fully socialist by 2050