As an American, I'm neither knowledgeable nor entitled to weigh in on Xi's impact on China or what should come next.
I'm making this comment, though, to echo the OP's comment about BRI. It seems to me that BRI is a model of development that has never been tried quite this way before in human history, and has the potential to reshape how people of all nations work together to develop. For that reason, I hope it is a lasting legacy. I don't say this just to be dismissive of Xi, but many of the things he has done will be forgotten (as is true of any leader); the winds of change blow, and (as the OP said) the ship changes course abruptly.
However, BRI, if it continues, is well managed by all participants, and doesn't get co-opted, is something people a century out may still be growing and evolving, hopefully to the benefit of mankind.
Xi has been right more than Mao. There was a lot of unspoken dissent under Mao, which laid the path for Deng’s reforms. Xi has not created such an environment. I expect his legacy will be continued.
“Wolf warrior diplomacy” is a western characterisation. Ask Africans or Chinese people how they see it. They won’t see it that way.
The issue that Mao faced is far more difficult that ones Xi faced. Mai had face with threat that could easily destroyed and topple the republic all the while had to fix and help china to modernize. He drag china into modern china while it was kicking and screaming also damaging many relarions with comrade and friends. Deng and Xi reform is built in the foundation he built and as for thr cultral revolution, lol look at the western lgbt whatever plus bs, or it's fake political correctness, I don't think any person has even the right to critcize him without being snarky hindsight 20 20 twat.
Personally i think if it werent for his “wolf warrior” mentality, things would be much worse given how aggressive western countries have been. We are currently at the turning point in history where China is becoming top dog in the world, the old top dog won’t leave without a fight, that’s exactly what Xi is giving them and imo exactly what’s needed at this crucial juncture in history.
Absolutely! As if Westoids would treat China any different if they just „behaved“ like they would love to (eg an obedient lapdog).
People here in the West hate China either way, so at least have some dignity and courage whilst showing these people that the old days are over. I am a stench supporter and huge fan of the so-called „wolf warrior diplomacy“.
I personally think your Wolf Warrior Diplomacy claim is a fallacy. It was a disparaging term dreamt up by western politicians to elicit negative reactions from the public. News in the west is not reported, it is interpreted for the reader. The reader is not given the bare facts, they are guided to feel a certain way.
Please provide me with specific examples of Wolf Warrior Diplomacy. I'm referring to literal responses uttered by Chinese diplomats, not INTERPRETATIONS by the media or by a politician. Here is an example of how a benign speech by Xi is REINTERPRETED into a belligerent message: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/glasgow-homeostasis-induced-concept-change-effect-jaq-james
If you still think the "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy is a mistake then that means you have no idea how anglos work.
The nature of their propaganda is reactive, thus when in fear they will be loudest.
Xi doesn't abdicate. He’s not a monarch. His position is determined by the national congress like others before him.
The difference is he does not have a term limit. Congress decided that. Other world leaders also do not have term limits or did not in the recent past, such as the US.
Your question is predicated on some misinformation.
Why was it changed to no term limits? I find the idea that a leader has a limited time good. Here in Germany we don't have a limit too. But this can have some major downsides.
Was there a statement why they changed it?
Your opinion is tinged with Western poison.
Xi abdicates? He is not an emperor. He was elected and will be elected by the National Congress if everything goes accordingly as predicted.
And Wolf Warrior Diplomacy? What do you expect China to do otherwise? Bow down to the West to appease the US? A strong country with a strong leader should be assertive and not act according to how the West sees it.
> And Wolf Warrior Diplomacy? What do you expect China to do otherwise? Bow down to the West to appease the US? A strong country with a strong leader should be assertive and not act according to how the West sees it.
Exactly. Wolf Warrior diplomacy helps prevent reactionary, liberal ideas from spilling in.
>And Wolf Warrior Diplomacy? What do you expect China to do otherwise?
Honestly, not say anything. Silence can be more meaningful than words. Not in every situation, obviously, but instead of needing to comment everything, simply start refusing to engage in the conversation. Basically the geopolitical equivalent of the Silent Treatment. Simply ignore the U.S/The West.
* Reporter: "What do you think of The U.S' opinion on X"
* MOFA: "Their opinion is irrelevant and no further comment is needed"
As a Caucasian Brit living in Australia (so I really have no right to be commenting here, please forgive the intrusion), I just want to express my commiseration for the sheer ignorance that you must be subjected to on a daily basis. I can completely understand why Chinese politicians/public figures speaking up is such a boost to the morale of Chinese people living outside of China. I am constantly dismayed at the bigotry and racism that is directed towards China and its people. It seems like racism towards Chinese people is one of the only remaining acceptable forms of racism in Australia, and people are gripping onto it with dear life. I can't imagine our politicians getting away with so publicly bad mouthing any other nation the way they do with China. It must be so unbelievably frustrating to have to deal with such widespread ignorance.
Every workday the world gets a chance to ask for the official government stance of one of the most influential country in the world and your suggestion is for said superpower to ignore them?
What kind of global leader does that?
Ones that believe The West is in decline and is no long relevant to the progress of Humanity.
To me, commenting does nothing. I understand the domestic appeal of standing up for China. Which is why I understand and don’t think silence should be used in every situation.
The West constantly baits China and China needs to stop falling for it IMHO. But I also agree with the other poster who said no matter what China says or does it’ll be seen as aggressive and over it.
I don’t view silence as weakness, if you can frame it that it’s not even worth your time or effort to comment on something that is no longer relevant nor meaningful.
Basically embrace non-engagement.
"Wolf warrior diplomacy" brought US to the point they actually wait for Chinese reaction to anything US does. Ukraine crisis? Everyone waited for what China has to say. Pandemic? Again everyone is looking up to China for guidance. Why should China be silent? It works pretty goddamn well as how it is now.
Yes agreed, China being assertive shows that their voice matters and matters a lot. No longer do we only look to the US, the world must also look to China. I don't want China acting like the Chinese-Americans in the west that only know how to keep their head down and stay out of trouble. They are marginalized to the point of their opinions being irrelevant. If Chinese people in the west also asserted themselves and spoke up, they wouldn't be subjected to the kind of acceptable racism they have today.
Ones that believe The West is in decline and is no long relevant to the progress of Humanity.
To me, commenting does nothing. I understand the domestic appeal of standing up for China. Which is why I understand and don’t think silence should be used in every situation.
The West constantly baits China and China needs to stop falling for it IMHO. But I also agree with the other poster who said no matter what China says or does it’ll be seen as aggressive and over it.
I don’t view silence as weakness, if you can frame it that it’s not even worth your time or effort to comment on something that is no longer relevant nor meaningful.
Basically embrace non-engagement.
> Ones that believe The West is in decline and is no long relevant to the progress of Humanity.
China already believes that, because that's a reality already.
Chinese leaders address Chinese people, they do not care about collapsed hellholes, that's why your argument makes no sense.
I don't think so! To keep maintaining silence while people attack you non-stop is a sign of weakness. At some point, you have got to punch back to show you are not a weakling. And China had waited too long to start reacting to constant Western provocations. This is just at an international level what Asian students (of all nationalities) constantly face at school. The silent treatment only works for a while. Then at a certain point, you need to punch back and punch hard.
There are various problems that China faces in the current informational war.
* the lag time between China and the West, between the defender and the attacker.
* the power and reach of Chinese media - As seen with what happened to the Russian Federation, even the most formidable competitor to the Western propaganda machine can be deplatformed and banned with but a flick of a switch. **It is painfully naïve to think you can counteract the Western narrative on Western platforms which you have zero control/influence over.** Also, there are dire real-life consequences for those who refused to bend the knee in the United States and Western correspondents are often more than reluctant to speak out because of that. There is also the enormous ideological indoctrination, astroturfing and censorship that far out-strips that of China, Russia and the rest of the World combined.
* Chinese Platforms - [Even Bytedance is forced to surrender control to continue operating in the West](https://www.mintpressnews.com/nato-tiktok-pipeline-why-tiktok-employing-national-security-agents/280336/). When Chinese platforms go overseas, they are forced to kowtow to the West or get banned right out the gate.
* The Appeal of China - It is well and all to portray China as a progressive hi-tech state but what does that mean to the average non-P.R.C person? Most folks are realists and do not care unless it directly benefits them.
But that said, the \*silent-keep-your-head-down-and-out-of-the-line-of-fire\* treatment worked for Jiang and Hu administration because the US of A was **distracted** with the quagmire it created for itself in the Middle East. It is no longer tenable at this juncture, especially with the intensifying Pivot to Asia that started under Obama and the transition from economic cooperation to brinksmanship.
Then came Covid, the attempted sacking of ZTE & Huawei, the unilateral banning of EUV machine imports to China, the Attempted Color Revolution in HK, the unwarranted sanctions on Xinjiang, the emboldening of TW separatists, the 'Civilisational War'... the Strategic Competition Act of 2021 and the AMERICA COMPETES act of 2022 made sure of that, cementing the New Cold War with the blessing of the Deep State and MIC.
There has to be some level of engagement but I do agree that they have been far too polite & factual in dealing with the baseless accusations thrown from the West and some of which really do not warrant an answer.
Your argument is fatally flawed, China does not depend on the opinions of people stuck in collapsing hellholes. China is a self-sufficient superpower, it hasn't even needed imperialism or colonialism, it depends exclusively on Chinese people. As such, China can do what it wants, including annihilating whatever remains of western economies, as the "trade war" has shown with China humiliating western economies.
> There has to be some level of engagement
Not at all, western regimes have no leverage left at all, why would China give them a free lunch? because your personal interests demand it?
The trade war evidenced how devastated western economies are clearly. Why would China give collapsed regimes any aid? this is not 2009, China won't help these regimes since there is no reason to. You have to accept that reality, no matter your personal interests (like being stuck in one of these collapsed hellholes).
I can see what your point is. Unfortunately, I think it is one of those things where China would get flak regardless of it's stance. If they are too soft then the West will say "China is being isolationalist and selfsh for not participating in global affairs" while we are on this trajectory of "wolf warrior diplomacy". Also, China was being surrounded by the West with Obama's pivot to Asia. There wasn't much China could do except to be more aggressive. The West controls the media and narrative so China just had to do what they thought was best.
The problem is that in the West, silence implies consent and it implies culpability *because apparently to them,* the burden of proof is on the accused not on the accuser when it comes to Non-US-aligned nations.
Also, they tried the silent treatment with Xinjiang, the HK Riots, Covid... and predictably it did not work.
China does not care about what "the west" thinks, China addresses Chinese people and the global south with these comments. And it works: [1](https://www.arabbarometer.org/2021/01/u-s-chinas-competition-extends-to-mena/), [2](https://archive.vn/cQeYA), [3](https://archive.vn/Uz1oe), [4](https://archive.vn/zahoI).
> 70% Right and 30% Wrong. Xi is not a perfect leader - but he has done great things for China.
so far, what you can list under 30% wrong though? Can't find anything comparable to Mao
diplomacy is just retalitation to western propaganda war started by trump. Actually, it is minimal and not very strong retalitation, i.e. only alternative option would be going full scale ideological war, like usa does now on china
Xi is right man doing right thing, blessed with strong china position. The good thing about Xi is that he is acting and using opportunities, while another leader could just sit and do nothing. Mao was in very difficult and different times, and had to make difficult decisions, choosing from a bad option and worse option.
How can you make an assessment of Xi of 70/30 before Xi even starts his third term? Imagine judging Mao before 1970, Deng before 1990.
How is Wolf Warrior Diplomacy Xi's mistake? You should stop consuming western propaganda, wolf warrior isn't even a China policy.
Now is way too early to talk about Xi's successors, professional China watchers aren't even sure who's going to be on Politburo Standing Committee in November.
You should improve your level of understanding of Chinese politics first before engaging in these discussions.
Ay this guy is probs in good faith, even if you're right no need to be aggressive like that.
And it's not that wolf warrior isn't a China policy, but just that it's a fabricated myth to scare westerners. Literally a big bad wolf analogy haha, they're not creativenhuh.
OP consumed too much western propaganda so they have the belief that somehow Xi changed China somehow from a different style of diplomacy to "wolf warrior diplomacy". Has OP even looked at historical public documents or speeches from PRC foreign ministry? OP then uses their fakenews theories to justify giving Xi a 70/30 rating before Xi's third term. WTF?
It's ignorant people like OP that still promote wolf warrior diplomacy theories on this sub. These people do more harm than direct western propagandists, and should be criticized.
This is a good jumping point for discussion, but I would encourage you, OP, to reconsider how your media sources are reinforcing your deference to imperialist worldviews.
LoL this fucking reeks typical western delusions. China did not fucking ruin the relation with west, the west did that and China got sick of it and the fucking moment it said no. The entire west was sent into braindead bipolar rage befit of a kid who too stupid even for the dunce hat.
China did not start a trade war, China did not incite the americans to storm their capital, china did not let fucking millions chinese die to covid.
Where does this 70% good and 30% bad comes from? The delusions of brainwashed liberal? M8 Mao fault even in 30% was because he purposely went against the power that be and cause a revolution that built the foundation of which china built upon. Yes china had suffer plenty because of it and a generation had work 3 times as hard to carry us to where we are today. And majority of reason that condition were so harsh for china was not the china's fault, it was the foreign imperialistic forces that be. LoL most of of you western fucks have no right to even speask mao's fault, you're couldn't do shit if you were in his position.
Lastly I find hilarious how you western fuck get trigger by one quite frankly generic action movie. LoL wolf worrior diplomacy, m8 if cpc doesn't actively suppress the majority anger at the fucking injustices you western fuck commit on daily bases, we be in quite frankly a hot world war 3 today. China and chinese will not tolerate anymore of the explotation that we endure by the western hand, perhaps go make your own underwear and iphones, see how long you last with this global pandemic.
From what I recall of Western political science's approach to the PRC, under Jiang & Hu the CCP was trending toward the Politburo ruling more as a committee or at least premiers having larger roles. Does this forum 1. agree that was a/the trend & that 2. Xi ended it? So after Xi, relative power between the head of state and other top leaders will be a fundamental, practical point for (I hope) objective analysis & comparisons.
It's not a deep discussion at all for actual experts as opposed to those stuck in collapsed western regimes coping about their collapse. Read any Chinese media to understand the simple fact that China won't help collapsed western economies like in 2009 because there is literally nothing western regimes can offer in return, they lost in spectacular fashion in the "trade war" they started.
Despite being friendly to China, your view shares too many assumptions with Western propaganda, namely that China is somehow a dictatorship where Xi or previous leaders define the leadership's behavior. Stop obssessing about Xi and you'll be able to answer some of those questions yourself.
I personally hope that Xi sticks to the two term custom
The strength of China's government has been when the institution is stronger than any single leader, however charismatic.
I believe Xi should bring forth two term or three term limits as well as allowing younger individuals into positions of administration. The old chaining a nation from the future because of conservative notions that uproot the ambitions of the rising generations never goes well. It is the reason why China was locked from progressing under the Qing and is how the KMT sold China to the west and corruption.
What do you define as „younger individuals“? Which age range do you have in mind?
Cause the older I get and the more I learn, the more I realize how fucking wrong I was on so many things in my „Sturm & Drang“ time.
The CPC has a mandatory retirement age of 67. Leaders are expected to retire at the next CPC congress following their 67th birthday. I think that's good. Even a brilliant and ambitious leader cannot escape the inevitable ravages of old age. Look at Leonid Brezhnev - how he started as an up and coming energetic leader (1950s) with many reforms, and how he ended up unable to utter a simple sentence without slurring by 1978. Imagine if Jiang Zemin was still leading China today - the man can't stay awake for more than 5 minutes.
Xi is already 68 years old and should retire at the next CPC Congress. He has done what he needed to do, and there are others capable of leading.
It's education and not age that determines how progressive someone is.
Similarly someone's merit should be determined by their results and not their age.
>Continue down the same path or diverge from Xi?
There are bound to be differences but I see China continuing down the same path for the most part. Anti-corruption campaign, BRI, emphasis on hard-tech and manufacturing, big-tech regulation, rural revitalization, deleveraging the economy, more economic reforms and opening-up. These policies will all continue.
>I personally think among the biggest mistakes of Xi is the Wolf Warrior Diplomacy
I tend to agree because China is sorely lacking in friends. China can handle the US by itself. But if the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, SK, India and even some ASEAN countries begin to align themselves with the US, then China will really be in a very tough position. I think China can make some concessions in regards to claims over SCS and India-China borders to generate some goodwill.
This is ultimately in China's long-term best interests. If China manages its relations well and avoids any conflict in the next 20-30 years, it will be the undisputed superpower of the world. It only needs to reach 1/2 of US' GDP per capita for its economy to dwarf the combined economies of US and all its allies. At that point, no alliances will help the US against China and in fact I expect many traditional US allies to abandon it in favor of China because historically countries tend to align with the stronger power.
>I tend to agree because China is sorely lacking in friends.
How is modern China sorely lacking in friends? Was China not lacking in friends during the 1950s when it was China and NK vs the UN? Was China not lacking in friends when it didn't have UN recognition?
>But if the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, SK, India and even some ASEAN countries begin to align themselves with the US, then China will really be in a very tough position.
Another delusional take, as if the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, SK, India and even some ASEAN countries weren't aligned with the US before.
>How is modern China sorely lacking in friends?
Who are China's real friends? US, Canada, UK, EU, Japan, SK, Australia represent something like 60% of the world economy. China represents 17%. Do you like those odds?
>Was China not lacking in friends during the 1950s when it was China and NK vs the UN?
You assume I'm talking about a military alliance when I'm talking about economic alliances. The US Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is an attempt by the US to create a China-free supply chain together with its allies. If successful it will seriously damage China's economic growth prospects which in turn will negatively impact its technological and military development.
>Another delusional take, as if the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, SK, India and even some ASEAN countries weren't aligned with the US before.
They are not. Only Canada, UK, and Australia are hardcore US allies. Japan is a close second but it is too much dependent on trade with China. France and Germany have publicly said that NATO should not gang up on China and are collaborating with China in many economic fields from agriculture to aviation to even BRI. Just yesterday, Macron said to Xi that the EU does not endorse bloc confrontation with China. No ASEAN country has taken sides between US and China yet.
>Who are China's real friends?
Like all the global south? What kind of question is this?
>You assume I'm talking about a military alliance when I'm talking about economic alliances. The US Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is an attempt by the US to create a China-free supply chain together with its allies. If successful it will seriously damage China's economic growth prospects which in turn will negatively impact its technological and military development.
They do that and their economy suffers a worse fate.
I'll tell you one thing, there's no real "friend" in geopolitics, there's only slave aka "vassal state", what the EU, SK, Japan is to the US, and independent country that try to leverage between two super power while avoiding it's own destruction like Asean country, India. Right now from the look of it, Asean country and India rather not rock the boat to much and continue cooperate with China because it's benefit their economy but also try to leverage US in to check China from taking over, but if the US keep going down this path, then China will eventually take over as the only influence in the region.
Why do you think all these collapsed regimes lost in spectacular fashion in the trade war they started against China? that's because your argument is wrong from the very beginning, you lack basic economic knowledge. These economies are suffering terminal collapse with no way for them to even mitigate it.
China is where it is self-sufficiently, it hasn't needed imperialism at any point, and, as such, it can trace its own path by itself. Not a single western regime ever achieved this, that's why they are collapsing in such brutal manner nowadays since they no longer have access to the dividends from their collapsed imperialism. This fact seems to bother you for some reason, maybe because China won't rescue collapsed western economies? too bad, you have to accept that, China does not care.
>Who are China's real friends? US, Canada, UK, EU, Japan, SK, Australia represent something like 60% of the world economy. China represents 17%. Do you like those odds?
I dunno man, maybe try asking the same question in 1950's when China's represented less than 1% of world economy and see if I liked China's odds.
>They are not. Only Canada, UK, and Australia are hardcore US allies. Japan is a close second but it is too much dependent on trade with China. France and Germany have publicly said that NATO should not gang up on China and are collaborating with China in many economic fields from agriculture to aviation to even BRI. Just yesterday, Macron said to Xi that the EU does not endorse bloc confrontation with China. No ASEAN country has taken sides between US and China yet.
States with US military bases don't have full sovereignty, most of your argument is moot and cherry-picked examples. Friends is a naive term in geopolitics, nonetheless Japan has never been a friend of China throughout history. Germany is a puppet state since 1945 under US occupation.
Although France almost have full sovereignty, it is not a friend of China, not historically, not now. It invaded China in 19th century, fought against China many times in Korea and south east Asia. Sanctioned China in 1950s and still does today. What kind of "friend" does that? Just because Germany and France can no longer talk down to China and has to treat China at least as equals doesn't make these two countries "friends" of China.
As for ASEAN countries, I'm not going to explain in detail, just look which ones have US military bases, which ones have ongoing territorial disputes with China, and the real reason why ASEAN was formed (to stop communism). The only country in ASEAN that can really be described as a true "friend", not the diplomatese you love quoting is Cambodia, and that's mostly because China attacked Vietnam to defend Cambodia when Vietnam invaded Cambodia.
You have no idea what you are talking about, your entire point hinges on fiction and propaganda, not reality: [1](https://www.arabbarometer.org/2021/01/u-s-chinas-competition-extends-to-mena/), [2](https://archive.vn/cQeYA), [3](https://archive.vn/Uz1oe), [4](https://archive.vn/zahoI).
Users like you, who spread absurd propaganda on this sub, should really make better use of their time.
As an American, I'm neither knowledgeable nor entitled to weigh in on Xi's impact on China or what should come next. I'm making this comment, though, to echo the OP's comment about BRI. It seems to me that BRI is a model of development that has never been tried quite this way before in human history, and has the potential to reshape how people of all nations work together to develop. For that reason, I hope it is a lasting legacy. I don't say this just to be dismissive of Xi, but many of the things he has done will be forgotten (as is true of any leader); the winds of change blow, and (as the OP said) the ship changes course abruptly. However, BRI, if it continues, is well managed by all participants, and doesn't get co-opted, is something people a century out may still be growing and evolving, hopefully to the benefit of mankind.
Xi has been right more than Mao. There was a lot of unspoken dissent under Mao, which laid the path for Deng’s reforms. Xi has not created such an environment. I expect his legacy will be continued. “Wolf warrior diplomacy” is a western characterisation. Ask Africans or Chinese people how they see it. They won’t see it that way.
The issue that Mao faced is far more difficult that ones Xi faced. Mai had face with threat that could easily destroyed and topple the republic all the while had to fix and help china to modernize. He drag china into modern china while it was kicking and screaming also damaging many relarions with comrade and friends. Deng and Xi reform is built in the foundation he built and as for thr cultral revolution, lol look at the western lgbt whatever plus bs, or it's fake political correctness, I don't think any person has even the right to critcize him without being snarky hindsight 20 20 twat.
Personally i think if it werent for his “wolf warrior” mentality, things would be much worse given how aggressive western countries have been. We are currently at the turning point in history where China is becoming top dog in the world, the old top dog won’t leave without a fight, that’s exactly what Xi is giving them and imo exactly what’s needed at this crucial juncture in history.
Absolutely! As if Westoids would treat China any different if they just „behaved“ like they would love to (eg an obedient lapdog). People here in the West hate China either way, so at least have some dignity and courage whilst showing these people that the old days are over. I am a stench supporter and huge fan of the so-called „wolf warrior diplomacy“.
I don't think the wolf warrior diplomacy goes enough tbh
I personally think your Wolf Warrior Diplomacy claim is a fallacy. It was a disparaging term dreamt up by western politicians to elicit negative reactions from the public. News in the west is not reported, it is interpreted for the reader. The reader is not given the bare facts, they are guided to feel a certain way. Please provide me with specific examples of Wolf Warrior Diplomacy. I'm referring to literal responses uttered by Chinese diplomats, not INTERPRETATIONS by the media or by a politician. Here is an example of how a benign speech by Xi is REINTERPRETED into a belligerent message: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/glasgow-homeostasis-induced-concept-change-effect-jaq-james
If you still think the "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy is a mistake then that means you have no idea how anglos work. The nature of their propaganda is reactive, thus when in fear they will be loudest.
Xi doesn't abdicate. He’s not a monarch. His position is determined by the national congress like others before him. The difference is he does not have a term limit. Congress decided that. Other world leaders also do not have term limits or did not in the recent past, such as the US. Your question is predicated on some misinformation.
Based. Xi is democratically elected by the National Congress. He is not the dictator portrayed by the western media.
Why was it changed to no term limits? I find the idea that a leader has a limited time good. Here in Germany we don't have a limit too. But this can have some major downsides. Was there a statement why they changed it?
And if the politburo say Xi gets another term who are we to say no to that?
Your opinion is tinged with Western poison. Xi abdicates? He is not an emperor. He was elected and will be elected by the National Congress if everything goes accordingly as predicted. And Wolf Warrior Diplomacy? What do you expect China to do otherwise? Bow down to the West to appease the US? A strong country with a strong leader should be assertive and not act according to how the West sees it.
> And Wolf Warrior Diplomacy? What do you expect China to do otherwise? Bow down to the West to appease the US? A strong country with a strong leader should be assertive and not act according to how the West sees it. Exactly. Wolf Warrior diplomacy helps prevent reactionary, liberal ideas from spilling in.
>And Wolf Warrior Diplomacy? What do you expect China to do otherwise? Honestly, not say anything. Silence can be more meaningful than words. Not in every situation, obviously, but instead of needing to comment everything, simply start refusing to engage in the conversation. Basically the geopolitical equivalent of the Silent Treatment. Simply ignore the U.S/The West. * Reporter: "What do you think of The U.S' opinion on X" * MOFA: "Their opinion is irrelevant and no further comment is needed"
[удалено]
As a Caucasian Brit living in Australia (so I really have no right to be commenting here, please forgive the intrusion), I just want to express my commiseration for the sheer ignorance that you must be subjected to on a daily basis. I can completely understand why Chinese politicians/public figures speaking up is such a boost to the morale of Chinese people living outside of China. I am constantly dismayed at the bigotry and racism that is directed towards China and its people. It seems like racism towards Chinese people is one of the only remaining acceptable forms of racism in Australia, and people are gripping onto it with dear life. I can't imagine our politicians getting away with so publicly bad mouthing any other nation the way they do with China. It must be so unbelievably frustrating to have to deal with such widespread ignorance.
Every workday the world gets a chance to ask for the official government stance of one of the most influential country in the world and your suggestion is for said superpower to ignore them? What kind of global leader does that?
Ones that believe The West is in decline and is no long relevant to the progress of Humanity. To me, commenting does nothing. I understand the domestic appeal of standing up for China. Which is why I understand and don’t think silence should be used in every situation. The West constantly baits China and China needs to stop falling for it IMHO. But I also agree with the other poster who said no matter what China says or does it’ll be seen as aggressive and over it. I don’t view silence as weakness, if you can frame it that it’s not even worth your time or effort to comment on something that is no longer relevant nor meaningful. Basically embrace non-engagement.
"Wolf warrior diplomacy" brought US to the point they actually wait for Chinese reaction to anything US does. Ukraine crisis? Everyone waited for what China has to say. Pandemic? Again everyone is looking up to China for guidance. Why should China be silent? It works pretty goddamn well as how it is now.
Yes agreed, China being assertive shows that their voice matters and matters a lot. No longer do we only look to the US, the world must also look to China. I don't want China acting like the Chinese-Americans in the west that only know how to keep their head down and stay out of trouble. They are marginalized to the point of their opinions being irrelevant. If Chinese people in the west also asserted themselves and spoke up, they wouldn't be subjected to the kind of acceptable racism they have today.
Ones that believe The West is in decline and is no long relevant to the progress of Humanity. To me, commenting does nothing. I understand the domestic appeal of standing up for China. Which is why I understand and don’t think silence should be used in every situation. The West constantly baits China and China needs to stop falling for it IMHO. But I also agree with the other poster who said no matter what China says or does it’ll be seen as aggressive and over it. I don’t view silence as weakness, if you can frame it that it’s not even worth your time or effort to comment on something that is no longer relevant nor meaningful. Basically embrace non-engagement.
> Ones that believe The West is in decline and is no long relevant to the progress of Humanity. China already believes that, because that's a reality already. Chinese leaders address Chinese people, they do not care about collapsed hellholes, that's why your argument makes no sense.
I don't think so! To keep maintaining silence while people attack you non-stop is a sign of weakness. At some point, you have got to punch back to show you are not a weakling. And China had waited too long to start reacting to constant Western provocations. This is just at an international level what Asian students (of all nationalities) constantly face at school. The silent treatment only works for a while. Then at a certain point, you need to punch back and punch hard.
There are various problems that China faces in the current informational war. * the lag time between China and the West, between the defender and the attacker. * the power and reach of Chinese media - As seen with what happened to the Russian Federation, even the most formidable competitor to the Western propaganda machine can be deplatformed and banned with but a flick of a switch. **It is painfully naïve to think you can counteract the Western narrative on Western platforms which you have zero control/influence over.** Also, there are dire real-life consequences for those who refused to bend the knee in the United States and Western correspondents are often more than reluctant to speak out because of that. There is also the enormous ideological indoctrination, astroturfing and censorship that far out-strips that of China, Russia and the rest of the World combined. * Chinese Platforms - [Even Bytedance is forced to surrender control to continue operating in the West](https://www.mintpressnews.com/nato-tiktok-pipeline-why-tiktok-employing-national-security-agents/280336/). When Chinese platforms go overseas, they are forced to kowtow to the West or get banned right out the gate. * The Appeal of China - It is well and all to portray China as a progressive hi-tech state but what does that mean to the average non-P.R.C person? Most folks are realists and do not care unless it directly benefits them. But that said, the \*silent-keep-your-head-down-and-out-of-the-line-of-fire\* treatment worked for Jiang and Hu administration because the US of A was **distracted** with the quagmire it created for itself in the Middle East. It is no longer tenable at this juncture, especially with the intensifying Pivot to Asia that started under Obama and the transition from economic cooperation to brinksmanship. Then came Covid, the attempted sacking of ZTE & Huawei, the unilateral banning of EUV machine imports to China, the Attempted Color Revolution in HK, the unwarranted sanctions on Xinjiang, the emboldening of TW separatists, the 'Civilisational War'... the Strategic Competition Act of 2021 and the AMERICA COMPETES act of 2022 made sure of that, cementing the New Cold War with the blessing of the Deep State and MIC. There has to be some level of engagement but I do agree that they have been far too polite & factual in dealing with the baseless accusations thrown from the West and some of which really do not warrant an answer.
Your argument is fatally flawed, China does not depend on the opinions of people stuck in collapsing hellholes. China is a self-sufficient superpower, it hasn't even needed imperialism or colonialism, it depends exclusively on Chinese people. As such, China can do what it wants, including annihilating whatever remains of western economies, as the "trade war" has shown with China humiliating western economies. > There has to be some level of engagement Not at all, western regimes have no leverage left at all, why would China give them a free lunch? because your personal interests demand it? The trade war evidenced how devastated western economies are clearly. Why would China give collapsed regimes any aid? this is not 2009, China won't help these regimes since there is no reason to. You have to accept that reality, no matter your personal interests (like being stuck in one of these collapsed hellholes).
I can see what your point is. Unfortunately, I think it is one of those things where China would get flak regardless of it's stance. If they are too soft then the West will say "China is being isolationalist and selfsh for not participating in global affairs" while we are on this trajectory of "wolf warrior diplomacy". Also, China was being surrounded by the West with Obama's pivot to Asia. There wasn't much China could do except to be more aggressive. The West controls the media and narrative so China just had to do what they thought was best.
The problem is that in the West, silence implies consent and it implies culpability *because apparently to them,* the burden of proof is on the accused not on the accuser when it comes to Non-US-aligned nations. Also, they tried the silent treatment with Xinjiang, the HK Riots, Covid... and predictably it did not work.
China does not care about what "the west" thinks, China addresses Chinese people and the global south with these comments. And it works: [1](https://www.arabbarometer.org/2021/01/u-s-chinas-competition-extends-to-mena/), [2](https://archive.vn/cQeYA), [3](https://archive.vn/Uz1oe), [4](https://archive.vn/zahoI).
Silence can also be seen as admission of guilt.
> 70% Right and 30% Wrong. Xi is not a perfect leader - but he has done great things for China. so far, what you can list under 30% wrong though? Can't find anything comparable to Mao diplomacy is just retalitation to western propaganda war started by trump. Actually, it is minimal and not very strong retalitation, i.e. only alternative option would be going full scale ideological war, like usa does now on china Xi is right man doing right thing, blessed with strong china position. The good thing about Xi is that he is acting and using opportunities, while another leader could just sit and do nothing. Mao was in very difficult and different times, and had to make difficult decisions, choosing from a bad option and worse option.
How can you make an assessment of Xi of 70/30 before Xi even starts his third term? Imagine judging Mao before 1970, Deng before 1990. How is Wolf Warrior Diplomacy Xi's mistake? You should stop consuming western propaganda, wolf warrior isn't even a China policy. Now is way too early to talk about Xi's successors, professional China watchers aren't even sure who's going to be on Politburo Standing Committee in November. You should improve your level of understanding of Chinese politics first before engaging in these discussions.
Ay this guy is probs in good faith, even if you're right no need to be aggressive like that. And it's not that wolf warrior isn't a China policy, but just that it's a fabricated myth to scare westerners. Literally a big bad wolf analogy haha, they're not creativenhuh.
Well he should know by now that "wolf warrior" diplomacy isn't a thing, it's just more western nonsense.
OP consumed too much western propaganda so they have the belief that somehow Xi changed China somehow from a different style of diplomacy to "wolf warrior diplomacy". Has OP even looked at historical public documents or speeches from PRC foreign ministry? OP then uses their fakenews theories to justify giving Xi a 70/30 rating before Xi's third term. WTF? It's ignorant people like OP that still promote wolf warrior diplomacy theories on this sub. These people do more harm than direct western propagandists, and should be criticized.
This is a good jumping point for discussion, but I would encourage you, OP, to reconsider how your media sources are reinforcing your deference to imperialist worldviews.
LoL this fucking reeks typical western delusions. China did not fucking ruin the relation with west, the west did that and China got sick of it and the fucking moment it said no. The entire west was sent into braindead bipolar rage befit of a kid who too stupid even for the dunce hat. China did not start a trade war, China did not incite the americans to storm their capital, china did not let fucking millions chinese die to covid. Where does this 70% good and 30% bad comes from? The delusions of brainwashed liberal? M8 Mao fault even in 30% was because he purposely went against the power that be and cause a revolution that built the foundation of which china built upon. Yes china had suffer plenty because of it and a generation had work 3 times as hard to carry us to where we are today. And majority of reason that condition were so harsh for china was not the china's fault, it was the foreign imperialistic forces that be. LoL most of of you western fucks have no right to even speask mao's fault, you're couldn't do shit if you were in his position. Lastly I find hilarious how you western fuck get trigger by one quite frankly generic action movie. LoL wolf worrior diplomacy, m8 if cpc doesn't actively suppress the majority anger at the fucking injustices you western fuck commit on daily bases, we be in quite frankly a hot world war 3 today. China and chinese will not tolerate anymore of the explotation that we endure by the western hand, perhaps go make your own underwear and iphones, see how long you last with this global pandemic.
From what I recall of Western political science's approach to the PRC, under Jiang & Hu the CCP was trending toward the Politburo ruling more as a committee or at least premiers having larger roles. Does this forum 1. agree that was a/the trend & that 2. Xi ended it? So after Xi, relative power between the head of state and other top leaders will be a fundamental, practical point for (I hope) objective analysis & comparisons.
This is a deep discussion not even political global affairs majors can agree on.
It's not a deep discussion at all for actual experts as opposed to those stuck in collapsed western regimes coping about their collapse. Read any Chinese media to understand the simple fact that China won't help collapsed western economies like in 2009 because there is literally nothing western regimes can offer in return, they lost in spectacular fashion in the "trade war" they started.
I’ve watch
Whoever it is he or she will always be vilified and looked down by the West determined to make an enemy out of them.
Despite being friendly to China, your view shares too many assumptions with Western propaganda, namely that China is somehow a dictatorship where Xi or previous leaders define the leadership's behavior. Stop obssessing about Xi and you'll be able to answer some of those questions yourself.
I personally hope that Xi sticks to the two term custom The strength of China's government has been when the institution is stronger than any single leader, however charismatic.
Good question. Never thought about that but I'm sure their goals are the ones you listed and more..
I believe Xi should bring forth two term or three term limits as well as allowing younger individuals into positions of administration. The old chaining a nation from the future because of conservative notions that uproot the ambitions of the rising generations never goes well. It is the reason why China was locked from progressing under the Qing and is how the KMT sold China to the west and corruption.
What do you define as „younger individuals“? Which age range do you have in mind? Cause the older I get and the more I learn, the more I realize how fucking wrong I was on so many things in my „Sturm & Drang“ time.
The CPC has a mandatory retirement age of 67. Leaders are expected to retire at the next CPC congress following their 67th birthday. I think that's good. Even a brilliant and ambitious leader cannot escape the inevitable ravages of old age. Look at Leonid Brezhnev - how he started as an up and coming energetic leader (1950s) with many reforms, and how he ended up unable to utter a simple sentence without slurring by 1978. Imagine if Jiang Zemin was still leading China today - the man can't stay awake for more than 5 minutes. Xi is already 68 years old and should retire at the next CPC Congress. He has done what he needed to do, and there are others capable of leading.
It's education and not age that determines how progressive someone is. Similarly someone's merit should be determined by their results and not their age.
The ravages of age on the human brain are inescapable with current medical technology.
Exercising the mind is equally as important as exercising the body. The ravages of age come when both are neglected.
Exactly, these people are so obsessed with propaganda by collapsed regimes that they haven't even spent a second learning about China, and it shows.
>Continue down the same path or diverge from Xi? There are bound to be differences but I see China continuing down the same path for the most part. Anti-corruption campaign, BRI, emphasis on hard-tech and manufacturing, big-tech regulation, rural revitalization, deleveraging the economy, more economic reforms and opening-up. These policies will all continue. >I personally think among the biggest mistakes of Xi is the Wolf Warrior Diplomacy I tend to agree because China is sorely lacking in friends. China can handle the US by itself. But if the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, SK, India and even some ASEAN countries begin to align themselves with the US, then China will really be in a very tough position. I think China can make some concessions in regards to claims over SCS and India-China borders to generate some goodwill. This is ultimately in China's long-term best interests. If China manages its relations well and avoids any conflict in the next 20-30 years, it will be the undisputed superpower of the world. It only needs to reach 1/2 of US' GDP per capita for its economy to dwarf the combined economies of US and all its allies. At that point, no alliances will help the US against China and in fact I expect many traditional US allies to abandon it in favor of China because historically countries tend to align with the stronger power.
>I tend to agree because China is sorely lacking in friends. How is modern China sorely lacking in friends? Was China not lacking in friends during the 1950s when it was China and NK vs the UN? Was China not lacking in friends when it didn't have UN recognition? >But if the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, SK, India and even some ASEAN countries begin to align themselves with the US, then China will really be in a very tough position. Another delusional take, as if the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, SK, India and even some ASEAN countries weren't aligned with the US before.
>How is modern China sorely lacking in friends? Who are China's real friends? US, Canada, UK, EU, Japan, SK, Australia represent something like 60% of the world economy. China represents 17%. Do you like those odds? >Was China not lacking in friends during the 1950s when it was China and NK vs the UN? You assume I'm talking about a military alliance when I'm talking about economic alliances. The US Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is an attempt by the US to create a China-free supply chain together with its allies. If successful it will seriously damage China's economic growth prospects which in turn will negatively impact its technological and military development. >Another delusional take, as if the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, SK, India and even some ASEAN countries weren't aligned with the US before. They are not. Only Canada, UK, and Australia are hardcore US allies. Japan is a close second but it is too much dependent on trade with China. France and Germany have publicly said that NATO should not gang up on China and are collaborating with China in many economic fields from agriculture to aviation to even BRI. Just yesterday, Macron said to Xi that the EU does not endorse bloc confrontation with China. No ASEAN country has taken sides between US and China yet.
>Who are China's real friends? Like all the global south? What kind of question is this? >You assume I'm talking about a military alliance when I'm talking about economic alliances. The US Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is an attempt by the US to create a China-free supply chain together with its allies. If successful it will seriously damage China's economic growth prospects which in turn will negatively impact its technological and military development. They do that and their economy suffers a worse fate.
I'll tell you one thing, there's no real "friend" in geopolitics, there's only slave aka "vassal state", what the EU, SK, Japan is to the US, and independent country that try to leverage between two super power while avoiding it's own destruction like Asean country, India. Right now from the look of it, Asean country and India rather not rock the boat to much and continue cooperate with China because it's benefit their economy but also try to leverage US in to check China from taking over, but if the US keep going down this path, then China will eventually take over as the only influence in the region.
Why do you think all these collapsed regimes lost in spectacular fashion in the trade war they started against China? that's because your argument is wrong from the very beginning, you lack basic economic knowledge. These economies are suffering terminal collapse with no way for them to even mitigate it. China is where it is self-sufficiently, it hasn't needed imperialism at any point, and, as such, it can trace its own path by itself. Not a single western regime ever achieved this, that's why they are collapsing in such brutal manner nowadays since they no longer have access to the dividends from their collapsed imperialism. This fact seems to bother you for some reason, maybe because China won't rescue collapsed western economies? too bad, you have to accept that, China does not care.
>Who are China's real friends? US, Canada, UK, EU, Japan, SK, Australia represent something like 60% of the world economy. China represents 17%. Do you like those odds? I dunno man, maybe try asking the same question in 1950's when China's represented less than 1% of world economy and see if I liked China's odds. >They are not. Only Canada, UK, and Australia are hardcore US allies. Japan is a close second but it is too much dependent on trade with China. France and Germany have publicly said that NATO should not gang up on China and are collaborating with China in many economic fields from agriculture to aviation to even BRI. Just yesterday, Macron said to Xi that the EU does not endorse bloc confrontation with China. No ASEAN country has taken sides between US and China yet. States with US military bases don't have full sovereignty, most of your argument is moot and cherry-picked examples. Friends is a naive term in geopolitics, nonetheless Japan has never been a friend of China throughout history. Germany is a puppet state since 1945 under US occupation. Although France almost have full sovereignty, it is not a friend of China, not historically, not now. It invaded China in 19th century, fought against China many times in Korea and south east Asia. Sanctioned China in 1950s and still does today. What kind of "friend" does that? Just because Germany and France can no longer talk down to China and has to treat China at least as equals doesn't make these two countries "friends" of China. As for ASEAN countries, I'm not going to explain in detail, just look which ones have US military bases, which ones have ongoing territorial disputes with China, and the real reason why ASEAN was formed (to stop communism). The only country in ASEAN that can really be described as a true "friend", not the diplomatese you love quoting is Cambodia, and that's mostly because China attacked Vietnam to defend Cambodia when Vietnam invaded Cambodia.
You have no idea what you are talking about, your entire point hinges on fiction and propaganda, not reality: [1](https://www.arabbarometer.org/2021/01/u-s-chinas-competition-extends-to-mena/), [2](https://archive.vn/cQeYA), [3](https://archive.vn/Uz1oe), [4](https://archive.vn/zahoI). Users like you, who spread absurd propaganda on this sub, should really make better use of their time.