AUKUS: Is this the start of WWIII?

[Vlad Tepes Stan Account]

The fight will have to happen eventually, it's pretty clear the PRC isn't going to continue to tolerate the status quo of Taiwan being legally theirs but nobody respecting that.

There necessarily having to be a fight doesn’t always imply that we necessarily have to fight in it.

It is not the moral obligation of the semicolonial subjects of an empire to defend the borders of that empire, and the American empire is no different from any other in that regard. If you want our young men to go off and die in some faraway foreign battlefield, well, what’s in it for us?

What was in it for us liberating Europe in the 1940's?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

What was in it for us liberating Europe in the 1940's?

The dismantlement of Western European colonial-preferential mercantilist systems and the subsequent paving of the way to a US-dominated Bretton Woods order. I mean, cold comfort to the young American men who did all the dying, but the American economic and political elite made off like absolute bandits from that war.

As I say from time to time: when we talk about the interests of an abstract entity, like ‘the American national interest’ or the ‘interest of the free world’, ninety nine times out of a hundred what is actually meant by that phrase is the interest of the handful of leaders who run that abstract entity, and not of the masses of ordinary people who do the bulk of the dying and working for them.

[Antipatros]

What was in it for us liberating Europe in the 1940's?

The dismantlement of Western European colonial-preferential mercantilist systems and the subsequent paving of the way to a US-dominated Bretton Woods order. I mean, cold comfort to the young American men who did all the dying, but the American economic and political elite made off like absolute bandits from that war.

As I say from time to time: when we talk about the interests of an abstract entity, like ‘the American national interest’ or the ‘interest of the free world’, ninety nine times out of a hundred what is actually meant by that phrase is the interest of the handful of leaders who run that abstract entity, and not of the masses of ordinary people who do the bulk of the dying and working for them.

That, plus a major tenet of US foreign policy theory is that we should never allow a land power to dominate Eurasia.

It's like a bigger scale version of the European balance of power. Instead of turtling up in the western hemisphere, the US projects power into the Eurasian littoral to prevent the rise of any foe powerful enough to threaten it.

From FDR's Four Freedoms speech:

Every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being' directly assailed in every part of the world--assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.

During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. The assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.

Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the Union," I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia will be dominated by the conquerors. Let us remember that the total of those populations and their resources in those four continents greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere-many times over.

In times like these it is immature--and incidentally, untrue--for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.

After WW2, this type of thought was integrated into US national security doctrine. International communism became the new enemy after the defeat of the fascists.

[Nolo gap]

it is highly unlikely that the demise of the human species will be brought about by anything as exciting, dramatic or entertaining as a war of any kind.

every bit as painful and unpleasant, yes, but not nearly as diverting from the slow misery of rapidly mutating forms of illness, piling one upon another,
with resistance to them diminished by mall nourishment.

creeping anti-democracy fascism is a thing though, and a major contributor to environment problems which are the real source of concern.
not dismissing war as a possibility, but the environment thing is a reality that's already here. (though nowhere near anything like what its going to be yet)

whatever anyone thinks fascism is going to do for them, they just must be walking backward with their eyes closed or something.

[Antipatros]

The dismantlement of Western European colonial-preferential mercantilist systems and the subsequent paving of the way to a US-dominated Bretton Woods order. I mean, cold comfort to the young American men who did all the dying, but the American economic and political elite made off like absolute bandits from that war.

As I say from time to time: when we talk about the interests of an abstract entity, like ‘the American national interest’ or the ‘interest of the free world’, ninety nine times out of a hundred what is actually meant by that phrase is the interest of the handful of leaders who run that abstract entity, and not of the masses of ordinary people who do the bulk of the dying and working for them.

That, plus a major tenet of US foreign policy theory is that we should never allow a land power to dominate Eurasia.

It's like a bigger scale version of the European balance of power. Instead of turtling up in the western hemisphere, the US projects power into the Eurasian littoral to prevent the rise of any foe powerful enough to threaten it.

From FDR's Four Freedoms speech:

Every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being' directly assailed in every part of the world--assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.

During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. The assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.

Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the Union," I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia will be dominated by the conquerors. Let us remember that the total of those populations and their resources in those four continents greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere-many times over.

In times like these it is immature--and incidentally, untrue--for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.

After WW2, this type of thought was integrated into US national security doctrine. International communism became the new enemy after the defeat of the fascists.

To expand on this a bit, I think it's reasonable to divide the development of US imperialism into 5 rough stages.

1) Overland expansion towards the Pacific Ocean (Up to the 1850s)
2) Expansion in Latin America and the Pacific (1850s - 1930s)
3) World War 2 and the Cold War (1940s - 1980s)
4) Post Cold War Zenith (1990s - 2010s)
5) Confrontation with China (2020s - ?)

There is some overlap and bleed over between these periods. For example, you can trace US involvement in the Middle East to some oil ventures in the 1920s and 1930s. Expansion into the Caribbean and Pacific was also intimately connected with US "internal" expansion towards the West Coast.

You could also subdivide these periods differently. I'd be curious to hear what you guys think about that.

It has to be said that the biggest expansion by far happened in stage 3.

[Trivalve]

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/ch ... ar-AAPlS8I

[Bombadil]

I suppose the question is, in a world of advanced technology and surveillance, does a state have essentially unlimited power. No peasant’s revolution can hope to succeed in this day and age and if a government loses fear of a popular uprising, it then becomes so disconnected as to make theoretical yet horrific decisions.

This is as true of the US as it is of China. Dissent against vested interests can be crushed and messaged against. The right and left equally hold the Capitol attacks and BLM as either mindless hoodlums or people with a genuine grievance.

As individuals what part do we play, what power do we have to hold our leaders to account? What institutions genuinely give us the power to hold power to account?

Very little frankly.

The lines between power in the US and China are fine, in the US there’s a tiny bit more but that tiny bit makes a lot of difference. The very idea of giving the individual an increment of power is precious.

To lose Taiwan is 23M people lost to individual choice, more the advantage gained places Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, even Japan and South Korea in a very different position. That’s another 1B people lost to a particular ideology.

The world should firmly deny the ideology of Xi Jinpiing, and, just think, even writing just this given where I am places me against the law - just for writing an opinion.

That’s the stakes.

[Antipatros]

I suppose the question is, in a world of advanced technology and surveillance, does a state have essentially unlimited power. No peasant’s revolution can hope to succeed in this day and age and if a government loses fear of a popular uprising, it then becomes so disconnected as to make theoretical yet horrific decisions.

This is as true of the US as it is of China. Dissent against vested interests can be crushed and messaged against. The right and left equally hold the Capitol attacks and BLM as either mindless hoodlums or people with a genuine grievance.

As individuals what part do we play, what power do we have to hold our leaders to account? What institutions genuinely give us the power to hold power to account?

Very little frankly.

The lines between power in the US and China are fine, in the US there’s a tiny bit more but that tiny bit makes a lot of difference. The very idea of giving the individual an increment of power is precious.

To lose Taiwan is 23M people lost to individual choice, more the advantage gained places Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, even Japan and South Korea in a very different position. That’s another 1B people lost to a particular ideology.

The world should firmly deny the ideology of Xi Jinpiing, and, just think, even writing just this given where I am places me against the law - just for writing an opinion.

That’s the stakes.

Let's also be clear about what this ideology is: authoritarianism combined with state capitalism. I don't think that western leftists should look upon Chinese socialism with admiration.

[Port Caverton]

I suppose the question is, in a world of advanced technology and surveillance, does a state have essentially unlimited power. No peasant’s revolution can hope to succeed in this day and age and if a government loses fear of a popular uprising, it then becomes so disconnected as to make theoretical yet horrific decisions.

This is as true of the US as it is of China. Dissent against vested interests can be crushed and messaged against. The right and left equally hold the Capitol attacks and BLM as either mindless hoodlums or people with a genuine grievance.

As individuals what part do we play, what power do we have to hold our leaders to account? What institutions genuinely give us the power to hold power to account?

Very little frankly.

The lines between power in the US and China are fine, in the US there’s a tiny bit more but that tiny bit makes a lot of difference. The very idea of giving the individual an increment of power is precious.

To lose Taiwan is 23M people lost to individual choice, more the advantage gained places Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, even Japan and South Korea in a very different position. That’s another 1B people lost to a particular ideology.

The world should firmly deny the ideology of Xi Jinpiing, and, just think, even writing just this given where I am places me against the law - just for writing an opinion.

That’s the stakes.

Let's also be clear about what this ideology is: authoritarianism combined with state capitalism. I don't think that western leftists should look upon Chinese socialism with admiration.

Unfortunately most Western leftists are more focused on "owning" the US government than doing something for the working class

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

I do not accept your premise that China will necessarily succeed in exporting its own statist-totalitarian way of governance to countries within its sphere of influence, and I consequently can not agree with your conclusion that permitting the expansion of that sphere of influence would be deleterious to the cause of democracy.

It is my belief that Chinese foreign policy is aimed at the restoration of the international order as it existed before New Imperialism; that is to say, an international order in which it is the recognised hegemon at the centre of global trade and wielding unparalleled military power, and demanding from its neighbouring powers subservience and tribute, in whatever forms those will take in 21st Century reality.

That is to say, I believe that China wants to take over the role that the United States currently plays in the world stage.

Do you know what the first foreign policy action that our President did after he got into office was? It was to fly to Washington D.C. with a multibillion dollar investment package from our leading corporations and promises that the new administration here will of course do its very best to assist in then-President Trump’s crusade to bring jobs back to the United States. After all, a new leader of a subject state should go to the imperial capital to kowtow to the emperor, should he not? And if that emperor likes money, as Trump did, then it should be money that we send along with him, no? Just like our government sent troops when the emperor wanted something done about unrest in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and just like our government tortured dissidents in black sites when the emperor was concerned about socialist infiltration in his realm.

You want to know what ‘tribute’ looks like in the 21st Century? Well there it is. Would it have made any great difference to our lives had that flight been to Beijing instead? I doubt it.

The idea that it matters to a subject people what the internal political arrangement of the subjugating power looks like is to me ridiculous. The United States have rarely seriously attempted to spread its way of politics and society to other countries, and even when it did care enough to try the results have generally not been convincing, as the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan can attest. The United States have, rather, done everything in its power to replace governments hostile to it with governments more willing to bow to its demands and serve as cannon fodder against its rivals, even when that meant replacing a regime similar to the American style of governance with a regime very different from the American style of governance.

It did not matter a whit to democratic activists fighting to defend and expand freedom in the western sphere of influence that the leading powers in that sphere - the United States, Britain, France - were liberal democracies. The interest that those leading powers had in democracy abroad was tepid at best and at no point did democracy at home lead to a pro-democracy stance in their diplomats, businessmen, and military generals.

Based on what I believe to be China’s ultimate foreign policy objectives, I do not believe that China will make a serious effort to spread its style of politics and governance abroad, except as part of a process to overthrow governments unsupportive of it, any more than the Americans have made a serious effort to spread its style of politics and governance, except as part of a process to overthrow governments unsupportive of it. I do not believe that a Chinese victory in the coming geopolitical struggle means the victory of totalitarian authoritarianism, any more than American victory in the Cold War was the victory of liberal democracy.

After all, what sort of government sits in Russia today?

Democracy may very well collapse in the 21st Century, for exactly those reasons that you outline, and liberalism as an idea may very well wither and die. But if it does, it would be because the internal structures of our democratic states could not adapt to the burdens that new technology places on it, not because some foreign power enforced on us some sort of inherent hatred for democratic governance.

The idea that we should sacrifice our blood and our treasure to defend the frontiers of the American sphere of influence is ridiculous. If anything, this sort of blindly pro-American colour politics is one of those ideological threats facing my country’s liberalism and democracy today.

It does not matter to me what sort of country serves as the hegemon of the sphere of influence in which our country sits. It matters only how much autonomy we can defend from the imperialistic overreach of that hegemon. No matter what happens, we will continue to struggle to defend our liberal democracy from so-called ‘friendly’ foreign interests as we always have, regardless of whether that interest happens to be American or Chinese.

I believe in the values of the enlightenment and I have faith in liberal democracy and social progress. I want to speak up for democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwan. I want to struggle in defence of the free world. But before I can do that, there must be such a thing as a genuine free world for me to struggle, not an imperialistic American hegemony masquerading as one.

[Torrocca]

Let's also be clear about what this ideology is: authoritarianism combined with state capitalism. I don't think that western leftists should look upon Chinese socialism with admiration.

Unfortunately most Western leftists are more focused on "owning" the US government than doing something for the working class

What benefit is there to the working class of the United States to parrot the sound of the US government's war drums toward a foreign country?

[Bombadil]

-snip-

I do not accept your premise that China will necessarily succeed in exporting its own statist-totalitarian way of governance to countries within its sphere of influence, and I consequently can not agree with your conclusion that permitting the expansion of that sphere of influence would be deleterious to the cause of democracy.

It is my belief that Chinese foreign policy is aimed at the restoration of the international order as it existed before New Imperialism; that is to say, an international order in which it is the recognised hegemon at the centre of global trade and wielding unparalleled military power, and demanding from its neighbouring powers subservience and tribute, in whatever forms those will take in 21st Century reality.

That is to say, I believe that China wants to take over the role that the United States currently plays in the world stage.

Well, for all its ills, I'd prefer a strong US than a strong China. The US is less likely to arrest me for stating my opinion.

*snip*

It does not matter to me what sort of country serves as the hegemon of the sphere of influence in which our country sits. It matters only how much autonomy we can defend from the imperialistic overreach of that hegemon. No matter what happens, we will continue to struggle to defend our liberal democracy from so-called ‘friendly’ foreign interests as we always have, regardless of whether that interest happens to be American or Chinese.

I believe in the values of the enlightenment and I have faith in liberal democracy and social progress. I want to speak up for democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwan. I want to struggle in defence of the free world. But before I can do that, there must be such a thing as a genuine free world for me to struggle, not an imperialistic American hegemony masquerading as one.

Did you know that under China law, no matter where you are, if you transgress that law you can be brought to trial in China. I can certainly see, down the line, China using its strength to bully countries into silence over China. Part of the reason why HK kicked off was an extradition law that meant anyone landing in HK, who had criticised China previously, could be extradited and put on trial in China. And let's just say if you're on trial you're de facto already guilty.

As it is, I don't think, really, we care too much about who's in power, just that we be left alone to determine our own future. I'd say the same for Taiwan, the US is an end to a means because having China control us sucks.. it sucks.

[Novus America]

I do not accept your premise that China will necessarily succeed in exporting its own statist-totalitarian way of governance to countries within its sphere of influence, and I consequently can not agree with your conclusion that permitting the expansion of that sphere of influence would be deleterious to the cause of democracy.

It is my belief that Chinese foreign policy is aimed at the restoration of the international order as it existed before New Imperialism; that is to say, an international order in which it is the recognised hegemon at the centre of global trade and wielding unparalleled military power, and demanding from its neighbouring powers subservience and tribute, in whatever forms those will take in 21st Century reality.

That is to say, I believe that China wants to take over the role that the United States currently plays in the world stage.

Well, for all its ills, I'd prefer a strong US than a strong China. The US is less likely to arrest me for stating my opinion.

*snip*

It does not matter to me what sort of country serves as the hegemon of the sphere of influence in which our country sits. It matters only how much autonomy we can defend from the imperialistic overreach of that hegemon. No matter what happens, we will continue to struggle to defend our liberal democracy from so-called ‘friendly’ foreign interests as we always have, regardless of whether that interest happens to be American or Chinese.

I believe in the values of the enlightenment and I have faith in liberal democracy and social progress. I want to speak up for democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwan. I want to struggle in defence of the free world. But before I can do that, there must be such a thing as a genuine free world for me to struggle, not an imperialistic American hegemony masquerading as one.

Did you know that under China law, no matter where you are, if you transgress that law you can be brought to trial in China. I can certainly see, down the line, China using its strength to bully countries into silence over China. Part of the reason why HK kicked off was an extradition law that meant anyone landing in HK, who had criticised China previously, could be extradited and put on trial in China. And let's just say if you're on trial you're de facto already guilty.

As it is, I don't think, really, we care too much about who's in power, just that we be left alone to determine our own future. I'd say the same for Taiwan, the US is an end to a means because having China control us sucks.. it sucks.

Gui Minhai Says hi.
For those who do no know he is a Swedish citizen who was kidnapped off the streets of Thailand for selling books critical of the PRC. Being under PRC domination means the PRC can and will censor your press, kidnap dissidents off your streets.

The US is the lesser evil for anyone who cares remotely about having any sort of political freedom.
And the PRC is quite successful in exporting its model already:
https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-re ... ccelerated
The more the PRC rises, the more global freedom declines. Which is simply logical. So I do not understand why so many are in denial when it is already empirically demonstrated.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

[...] was kidnapped off the streets of Thailand for selling books critical of the PRC.

To be clear, we are talking about that same country that hosts American detention facilities where the United States tortures foreign prisoners without bothering with things like due process or legal rights?

Americans calling the PRC out on how bad red China is to the future of global democracy is just... pot meet kettle time. "Lesser evil" ha!

[Diahon]

[...] was kidnapped off the streets of Thailand for selling books critical of the PRC.

To be clear, we are talking about that same country that hosts American detention facilities where the United States tortures foreign prisoners without bothering with things like due process or legal rights?

Americans calling the PRC out on how bad red China is to the future of global democracy is just... pot meet kettle time.

will the pot please allow the kettle to boil as well?

[Salus Maior]

[...] was kidnapped off the streets of Thailand for selling books critical of the PRC.

To be clear, we are talking about that same country that hosts American detention facilities where the United States tortures foreign prisoners without bothering with things like due process or legal rights?

Americans calling the PRC out on how bad red China is to the future of global democracy is just... pot meet kettle time. "Lesser evil" ha!

Or, maybe Americans would also have a problem with their government doing that sort of thing.

I do.

[Diahon]

now, now, if the americans do it, then the chinese should be allowed to do it too

fair is fair

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Or, maybe Americans would also have a problem with their government doing that sort of thing.

And I wish them the absolute best of luck.

But until and unless those people actually control US government policy, the criticism that Americans level at their own government doesn't do anything to make said government less awful to the non-Americans in their sphere of influence. Until and unless that happens, as a non-American in the US sphere of influence I will continue to advocate for treating the US as nothing more than an ally of convenience.

As I said. It is not the moral duty of the semicolonial subjects of an empire to fight to defend the frontiers of that empire. If the US and China really want to come to blows over influence in this corner of the world, well... I say: let you and him fight. It doesn't concern us.

[Novus America]

[...] was kidnapped off the streets of Thailand for selling books critical of the PRC.

To be clear, we are talking about that same country that hosts American detention facilities where the United States tortures foreign prisoners without bothering with things like due process or legal rights?

Americans calling the PRC out on how bad red China is to the future of global democracy is just... pot meet kettle time. "Lesser evil" ha!

Those people in said detention are not in for selling books. We are still the lesser evil, but yes we are still evil, obviously. But you know that is the difference. You and I can complain about the US outsourcing detention of terror suspects to nasty regimes. It is not illegal to do so.

But under the new HK “National Security Law” essentially any criticism of the PRC anywhere can be construed as a crime.
The US government is much more open to both internal and external criticism and our record on due process, checkered as it may be is still better than a regime that opposes the very concept.

I will not be fired for criticizing the US government. Even government workers can criticize the US government.

It is quite different, your false equivalency BS is well BS.

[Novus America]

Or, maybe Americans would also have a problem with their government doing that sort of thing.

And I wish them the absolute best of luck.

But until and unless those people actually control US government policy, the criticism that Americans level at their own government doesn't do anything to make said government less awful to the non-Americans in their sphere of influence. Until and unless that happens, as a non-American in the US sphere of influence I will continue to advocate for treating the US as nothing more than an ally of convenience.

As I said. It is not the moral duty of the semicolonial subjects of an empire to fight to defend the frontiers of that empire. If the US and China really want to come to blows over influence in this corner of the world, well... I say: let you and him fight. It doesn't concern us.

Who wins absolutely will impact you. Withe the rise of the PRC democracy and freedom are in dramatic decline world wide. If you really think the PRC winning will not be a major blow to these very concepts you are quite mistaken.
If the PRC wins, then its system will have proven to be the winning one.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Those people in said detention are not in for selling books. We are still the lesser evil, but yes we are still evil, obviously. But you know that is the difference. You and I can complain about the US outsourcing detention of terror suspects to nasty regimes. It is not illegal to do so.

Some of my former classmates are involved in the recent protest movements in Thailand, and I can assure you that the parallels to the Hong Kong situation are quite striking. The United States is both willing and able to have their puppet governments crush criticism with brute force, just as the PRC has been willing to do with their patsies in Hong Kong.

What protects my country's democracy is ultimately the economic and diplomatic weight that we carry, not any American unwillingness to destroy that democracy, and that economic and diplomatic weight will continue to stand even if our country slides into the Chinese sphere of influence in the future.

I suspect that, as long as we kowtow in their direction and agree with their hypocritical diplomatic stances, the Chinese will find it more costly than is worth to crush my country's democratic liberties, just as the US concluded, 30 years ago, that it would be more costly than is worth to crush my country's democratic liberties as long as we kowtow in their direction and agree with their hypocritical diplomatic stances.

---

If the PRC wins, then its system will have proven to be the winning one.

Which is why a liberal-democratic government managing an open market economy sits in Moscow today after American liberal capitalism demonstrated its superiority in the Cold War, of course.

Oh wait.

[Novus America]

Those people in said detention are not in for selling books. We are still the lesser evil, but yes we are still evil, obviously. But you know that is the difference. You and I can complain about the US outsourcing detention of terror suspects to nasty regimes. It is not illegal to do so.

Some of my former classmates are involved in the recent protest movements in Thailand, and I can assure you that the parallels to the Hong Kong situation are quite striking. The United States is both willing and able to have their puppet governments crush criticism with brute force, just as the PRC has been willing to do with their patsies in Hong Kong.

What protects my country's democracy is ultimately the economic and diplomatic weight that we carry, not any American unwillingness to destroy that democracy, and that economic and diplomatic weight will continue to stand even if our country slides into the Chinese sphere of influence in the future.

I suspect that, as long as we kowtow in their direction and agree with their hypocritical diplomatic stances, the Chinese will find it more costly than is worth to crush my country's democratic liberties, just as the US concluded, 30 years ago, that it would be more costly than is worth to crush my country's democratic liberties as long as we kowtow in their direction and agree with their hypocritical diplomatic stances.

---

If the PRC wins, then its system will have proven to be the winning one.

Which is why a liberal-democratic government managing an open market economy sits in Moscow today after American liberal capitalism demonstrated its superiority in the Cold War, of course.

Oh wait.

The difference is the US is not using Thailand to crush opposition to the US. We are ignoring their crushing domestic opposition to their own government. Nobody from the US is going to go abduct a Swedish citizen just for criticizing the US.

And the more powerful the PRC becomes, and the more your rely on it economically, the less power you have.

The US is not the one racking up trade surpluses to de-industrialize other places.

I am sure if you are willing to accept a high degree of “Finlandization” they will not occupy you directly, but that still requires you surrender a certain degree of freedom. The PRC does not ask you government merely align with its foreign policies, it ALSO demands your private media and businesses refrain from criticizing its foreign and domestic policies.
Something the US does not really do. We do not care if foreign governments criticize our domestic policies or private citizens criticize any of our policies. They do.

We also did not force all our allies to support our Iraq invasion but the PRC demands even diplomatic relations and trade relations, not even alliances depend on supporting its imperialist claims on Taiwan. And threatens them if you do not. The US never did that with Iraq.

And one would logically think the PRC would prioritize preserving their diplomatic and economic relationship with Sweden over abducting a Swedish citizen for criticizing PRC domestic policy. But obviously the PRC did not do the logical thing in that case. In many cases their aversion to any criticism overrides any good logic. They will often hurt their diplomatic and economic ties in the name of crushing such criticism. We have proof of that

After the Soviet Union fell, world freedom did actually increase. There was more democracy and less dictatorship.
Now obviously it was not perfect, far from it. But many dictatorships did fall, and became more free.

Sure dictatorships did still survive, although many did feel the need to become less obviously oppressive than they would have otherwise.

So I am not saying the PRC winning means the end of all liberal concepts, but it certainly will result in many democracies falling, the people of Taiwan being placed under dictatorship, and many of the surviving democracies becoming less free, and dictatorships everywhere being emboldened. Do you think those are good things?

Again your false equivalency does not hold up to an scrutiny. The US is bad in many ways, but one the whole much less bad.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

The difference is the US is not using Thailand to crush opposition to the US. We are ignoring their crushing domestic opposition to their own government.

Opposition to a US-aligned government to a large degree is opposition to US interests.

As much as I talk about it, anti-Americanism isn’t a central tenet of any major political movement. I, for example, concern myself far more with internal economic and social policies than I do with what my government is doing to appease the US this year. Anti-Americanism is just part of that general not-happy-with-the-status-quo parcel.

Note that in Hong Kong, the protests didn’t flare up until the Lam puppet government there started stepping on HK’ers civil and social rights. The hegemonic influence China has over Hong Kong was never the problem; only what that influence means in terms of domestic life in Hong Kong.

Despite this, we say that these protests have a strong anti-Chinese character, and we would be entirely correct in doing so - China, after all, cares a great deal about retaining its political stranglehold over Hong Kong and these protests threaten that stranglehold, and the protesters there are very much aware that China is the force that compels the HK government to adopt increasingly repressive measures.

Which is the exact same reason why the US tends to give tacit silent approval for its puppet states to crush internal dissent that threatens to replace that puppet with a less US-aligned government, when at the same time it makes a great deal of noise against US-unfriendly governments that crush internal dissent seeking to put a more pro-American government in power.

It’s defence of the American sphere of influence, for all that the dissent being crushed is internal and not foreign-relations in nature.

And the more powerful the PRC becomes, and the more your rely on it economically, the less power you have.

Well yes obviously, but that goes for the US as well; open access to the US market, on which our economic fortune depended, is one of the big positive perks we got out of our semicolonial relationship with the US. Countries opposed to the US don’t have that, and how prosperous is Cuba these days?

As the Chinese market grows, access to that market would be a big carrot that draws countries into its sphere of influence, just like access to the American market is a carrot for that sphere of influence.

I am sure if you are willing to accept a high degree of “Finlandization” they will not occupy you directly, but that still requires you surrender a certain degree of freedom.

But we already do surrender a certain degree of freedom being a part of the American sphere. After all, just to point out one example, the US military has complete strategic and operational control over ours in the case of war.

Considering that our economic and political establishments are very closely tied - certainly more like China than the US in that sense - and that political establishment is extremely
pro-US, one wonders how free our business leaders actually are to express any anti-American sentiments. Certainly I’ve never heard any in the press.

And, well, even with decades of political and economic concessions the iconic and name-coining example of Finlandisation - the Kekkonen administration’s relationship with the Soviet Union - did not succeed in dismantling Finnish democracy, and you can’t tell me that the Soviets weren’t antidemocratic.

We also did not force all our allies to support our Iraq invasion but the PRC demands even diplomatic relations and trade relations, not even alliances depend on supporting its imperialist claims on Taiwan. And threatens them if you do not. The US never did that with Iraq.

One is reminded of the Palme crisis where the US cut off diplomatic relations with Sweden because the Swedish government pointed out that the US bombing of North Vietnam constituted an atrocity. Oh, and I do recall that the US government put diplomatic pressure on our administration to contribute troops, back then.

What the US - and China - does to minor powers like us, Thailand, or even Sweden for that matter is quite different from the more hands-off approach they take to substantive regional powers like Britain or France.

[Novus America]

The difference is the US is not using Thailand to crush opposition to the US. We are ignoring their crushing domestic opposition to their own government.

Opposition to a US-aligned government to a large degree is opposition to US interests.

As much as I talk about it, anti-Americanism isn’t a central tenet of any major political movement. I, for example, concern myself far more with internal economic and social policies than I do with what my government is doing to appease the US this year. Anti-Americanism is just part of that general not-happy-with-the-status-quo parcel.

Note that in Hong Kong, the protests didn’t flare up until the Lam puppet government there started stepping on HK’ers civil and social rights. The hegemonic influence China has over Hong Kong was never the problem; only what that influence means in terms of domestic life in Hong Kong.

Despite this, we say that these protests have a strong anti-Chinese character, and we would be entirely correct in doing so - China, after all, cares a great deal about retaining its political stranglehold over Hong Kong and these protests threaten that stranglehold, and the protesters there are very much aware that China is the force that compels the HK government to adopt increasingly repressive measures.

Which is the exact same reason why the US tends to give tacit silent approval for its puppet states to crush internal dissent that threatens to replace that puppet with a less US-aligned government, when at the same time it makes a great deal of noise against US-unfriendly governments that crush internal dissent seeking to put a more pro-American government in power.

It’s defence of the American sphere of influence, for all that the dissent being crushed is internal and not foreign-relations in nature.

And the more powerful the PRC becomes, and the more your rely on it economically, the less power you have.

Well yes obviously, but that goes for the US as well; open access to the US market, on which our economic fortune depended, is one of the big positive perks we got out of our semicolonial relationship with the US. Countries opposed to the US don’t have that, and how prosperous is Cuba these days?

As the Chinese market grows, access to that market would be a big carrot that draws countries into its sphere of influence, just like access to the American market is a carrot for that sphere of influence.

I am sure if you are willing to accept a high degree of “Finlandization” they will not occupy you directly, but that still requires you surrender a certain degree of freedom.

But we already do surrender a certain degree of freedom being a part of the American sphere. After all, just to point out one example, the US military has complete strategic and operational control over ours in the case of war.

Considering that our economic and political establishments are very closely tied - certainly more like China than the US in that sense - and that political establishment is extremely
pro-US, one wonders how free our business leaders actually are to express any anti-American sentiments. Certainly I’ve never heard any in the press.

And, well, even with decades of political and economic concessions the iconic and name-coining example of Finlandisation - the Kekkonen administration’s relationship with the Soviet Union - did not succeed in dismantling Finnish democracy, and you can’t tell me that the Soviets weren’t antidemocratic.

We also did not force all our allies to support our Iraq invasion but the PRC demands even diplomatic relations and trade relations, not even alliances depend on supporting its imperialist claims on Taiwan. And threatens them if you do not. The US never did that with Iraq.

One is reminded of the Palme crisis where the US cut off diplomatic relations with Sweden because the Swedish government pointed out that the US bombing of North Vietnam constituted an atrocity. Oh, and I do recall that the US government put diplomatic pressure on our administration to contribute troops, back then.

What the US - and China - does to minor powers like us, Thailand, or even Sweden for that matter is quite different from the more hands-off approach they take to substantive regional powers like Britain or France.

You ignored much of what I said, and pointed out. Especially that the PRC’s willingness to crush foreign opposition far more extreme. In the Palme crisis the US did not kidnap Swedish private citizens for criticizing the US.
And the PRC will take such aggressive action even against criticism of its domestic policy.

The situation is still quite different. The US is simply ignoring the bad actions of a authoritarian regime, not requesting they allow us to seize people off their streets.

Even in economic matters it is different as the PRC’s trade policies are quite different. And much more one sided, the PRC market is much more restrictive. You will never get a similar level of access to their market. Because for them they only want access for your technology long enough to replace it. The US does not engage in the same level of state sponsored industrial espionage.

Again not that the US is always good, but objectively we are quite different in our policies and our execution of them.
That matters.

And Finlandization did not dismantle Finland’s democracy true, but it was not good for it. It came at a price. They would have rather not had to do it and certainly prefer the current situation to the way it was before the Soviet Union fell.

The point is not that you will be reduced to a direct PRC colony, but that the situation will be worse for you. Economically (given their extreme protectionism and industrial espionage) and politically.
That you failed to address.

Again it is a simple fact. According to basically every index global freedom improved from the 1990s and is now in dramatic decline with the rise of the PRC. Again what do you think will happen to Taiwan, its people and all if the US loses? And do you really think that will have no negative impact on you?

Seeing a democracy and relatively open to you economically nearby crushed certainly not going to benefit you. In anyway.

You could say “yes it will be worse if the PRC wins but still not so much worse as to warrant us take sides”.
But drop the false equivalency crap. The US and PRC are in fact quite different in how we deal with foreign criticism, particularly private criticism, amongst many other things,

And morale for a system matters. Plus what do you think happens to Ukraine, Taiwan, etc? I guess you do not care? Because in no way can you say things will be better for them.

[Stellar Colonies]

Would one prefer their superpower next door or across an ocean?