Pretty much all opinion (about China) this one. But some interesting news snippets that had passed me by.
Our man was out in the field all day yesterday and has My Sharona, so Lord knows where he found the time/energy to write this.
"The problem with playing the strongman game is that as soon as you are not able to play strongly you will seem weak.
Democracies do not really have that problem, they are sort of expected to be softer in the beginning and to try talking their way out of problems, but for a dictator there is just one answer.
To punch the living daylights out of any opposition.
And if that is not possible, punch someone else around them.
Russia used to be masters at that, argue with NATO and then go and give someone else a bloody nose as a warning to NATO.
But, this time they went to far with their threats to NATO and the West, so there was an imperative to help defend Ukraine as Russia tried to therapeutically beat them up.
I know, I sound cold here.
I am just trying to describe something here.
The top dog democracies tend to be faster to hitting at any threats to their power than lower rung democracies. Not rung as democratic level, rung as in hard power.
China
Let us now talk about the erstwhile second power of the planet, and the prospective future first power, China.
Well, at least in their own eyes.
I have other ideas really who is the real second power, and even third power, and also which countries will become the fourth power.
If we go on Hardpower the list is currently US, EU, China, India.
If we go on Softpower the list is changing a bit, EU, US, India and China.
Russia used to be number 3 on hardpower and number 4 on Softpower after China, with back then India as number 5 on Softpower and Hardpower.
On most things the US and the EU are working towards common goals, but like to siblings they now and then argue obscure points in life. But, if the **** hits the fan any other power would be up against both.
How powerful are the pair? Together they are at least twice as strong as the rest of the Globe put together.
The loser of the last year is obviously Russia, even counting them in any list today is just knee-jerk reflexes.
The only thing they have are nukes, and not even that for long.
The wheels are set in motion to defang them for a very very long time, they are no longer seen as worthy of having a large stash of nukes.
India is the clear winner.
It has shown itself to be a greater hardpower than expected, I will get back to this soon.
And as a neutral player it has now firmly taken the reigns on being the central neutral softpower.
In some aspects they fell into the old Swedish Neutral Softpower that we voided, plus their own considerable softpower.
India is really becoming interesting as a player.
Xi's Di-Lemma
Problem for Xi is that he has made the gravest error a strongman dictator can ever do.
And that is having a lack of testicular fortitude.
He has only managed to be strong inwards, by increased repression, and by removing inside political threats.
His Covid policy failed, and unlike Deng and Mao he did not use ultra-violence to strike down the immense protests in China. He was to soft to send in the tanks, so instead he folded and blamed local governors for everything.
Obviously everyone noticed, both inside and outside of China, that he did not crack down.
It also did not really make a huge difference on the protests, they are still ongoing.
He has also ****ed up the economy, thusly breaking the deal between CCP and the citizens. You obey, instead you get more tosh in your wallet. Carrot and stick if you will.
This has also been noticed.
But, let us talk about hardpower now.
China is supposed to be a budding superpower.
Even in it's weakened state nobody is giving Russia a bloodied nose for any other reason than Ukraine. Note the lack of other countries settling scores.
Why? Because everyone knows that Russia would do whatever they can to punch back as hard as possible, and even if they fail now they would be back at a later date settling the bill. Because Russia has always done that, so on this they are credible even in their current watered down state.
China has rapidly failed 3 times to respond against external losses in a single week.
In the general media flood it was missed that China lost control of 5 Island in the China Sea to no less than 3 different countries.
China has been pushing hard for Island domination here for two decades, but at first push they just went home without firing a single bullet.
Also, China forgot to maintain their newly built island fortresses, so they are sinking.
Huge hardpower loss that everyone missed.
India decided that the Arunachal Pradesh border dispute should be settled and attacked China in some rather major clashes.
After bloodying up the Chinese and pushing a bit forward the Indians called up the Chinese commanders and forced them to accept a seizefire.
Note that it was India that attacked, and India that got the seizefire on their side.
The entire conflict has gone like this, India in the driver seat, China getting stung.
And on top of that the Taliban felt that it was a good idea to blow up a Chinese compound in Kabul.
Ostensibly the Chinese was there to help the Taliban building up the country, so it is quite telling that the Taliban attacked them.
If anything the Taliban in specific, and Afghans in general, have been good at playing the strongman attack anything that moves game.
So, how have 3 real superpowers in history dealt with this?
Well, the English sent in troops to squash them. This did not work, but the Afghans left them fairly alone after that having learned that the English will fight back.
Strongmen tend to respect getting attacked.
Russia was over the border with an army so fast that the Taliban are still feeling the breeze under their skirts.
Once again the Taliban won in the end, but they learned that any stupidity would be met with force. So, they left the Soviet Union and later the Russians alone.
US? Same thing... Note how well behaved the Taliban are to the west now? They do not want the West back again, even though they won in the end.
So, when China was attacked one would have assumed a Chinese army to meander in and deal with it. At least an English style in and out affair. Nothing, not even harsh words.
If we do not talk about it, it does not exist.
The Taliban noticed, and they will now push forward their positions.
Expect terror-acts in China, or even aid in armed Uigur uprising inside of China.
So, let us compare Xi with Deng, Mao and the other Chinese leaders.
Invade into Korea to fight directly with the US. Check.
Send an army into India. Check.
Attack the Soviet Union. Check.
Belt the living Schnabel out of any neighbour that is out of turn. Check.
Xi, smile like a wellwishing panda in a menacing fashion. Talk the talk, but not walk the walk. Check.
If you in a single week chicken out of 3 different wars, you have lost any respect you had and you will be seen as a pushover papertiger.
And he would not have even needed to risk a full on war.
A new division to Indian border and a couple of artillery barrages, and a new seize fire instigated by China this time. No war as such.
Sending a few warships and planted back the flags on the islands. No war.
A dozen or so cruise missiles over Kabul. No war.
All of it would have been seen as a measured, but strong response worthy of a budding superpower.
He did not even have to go to the excesses of his predecessors, that would have been enough.
Now he has put China in a very tough spot, and if he ever find his testicles he will have to go much much further as a response.
I do not think Xi will survive this for long.
China will get rid of him in the next few years.
As a final note.
China did not in any way go against the West in regards of Russia. They talked Russia friendly, but they walked like directed by the West.
I am starting to suspect that Xi was afraid of both parties, but decided that of the two West is the bigger bully and that he did not want a wedgie.
I do not any longer think China under Xi will be a real threat against Taiwan due to him being a weakling."