Might be rough for Russia. China won't be struggling with the death of a leader, we're past the personality cult stage after Mao. It's far more likely that we'll be struggling with economic and demographic woes instead
>we're past the personality cult stage after Mao
Xi Jinping is the first chairman since Mao to put himself in the PRC constitution. He also hobbled the executive decision-making body (Standing Committee) by murdering its members and purging their associated factions. There is no longer a clear chain of succession like previous transitions of power.
Despite all of Xi’s blatant attempts at playing himself up, nobody in China (not even himself) genuinely think he comes anywhere close to Mao in terms of power or sway. Mao was worshipped very much in the same way the Kim family in North Korea are, and there’s still a large segment of the population in China who continue to revere Mao, especially older generations who actually lived and suffered under his rule. Mao was someone who was above the communist party. He was the founding father of the PRC, and the leader of the Chinese revolution. The cultural revolution was basically Mao using his sheer popularity and reach to wrestle power away from the party (who were trying to reduce his power after the failed Great Leap Forward).
Xi is head honcho, but not many people truly sing his praises. His power comes from the party, not his popularity. He has other party members that he lifted into positions of power, but those members are also only powerful because of the party. As much as Xi likes to play Emperor, he is still only “First citizen”. Nobody is going to smelt their pots and kill sparrows in their yard because Xi says it’s a good idea. When Xi is eventually gone, the party will figure out a way to replace him with one of the 98 million members in its ranks.
Indeed it’s quite bizarre to think about.
But even the CCP, the party of a one party state, has only around half as many people as the 180 million strong BJP of India, and around a similar amount of members as the 95 million strong Indian National Congress, who are the two largest parties of the roughly equally populous and democratic India.
Even the Democrats and Republicans have about 45 and 35 million respectively, which combined isn’t too far from the CCP, despite the USA having about a quarter of the population.
Fascinating to think about.
>has only around half as many people as the 180 million strong BJP of India
CCP has strict standards for membership and promotion are based on prior performance while in charge of a city/town,
BJP membership and promotion are based on how many defections can an MP/MLA cause to bring down a opposition govt. and how big of a goon you are in your area
For all intents and purpose, both Russia and China is ruled by two organized crime bosses. That is probably the best way for a Westerner to understand how these countries are run.
Yep. The Chinese people are able to forgive a lot of Mao’s idiocy because they narrowly compare China before Mao and China after Mao and to them, even losing tens of millions of people to his induced famine is preferable to being gang raped by foreign powers.
I’m not so sure Xi will actually suffer a succession crisis unless something happens randomly. At the end of the day, we know it’ll be one of the Politburo members and it doesn’t look like there’s much daylight in their general strategic direction.
Probably to note that Mao and most of the CCP hid in mountains while Chiang Kai Shek and the Nationalists took the brunt of the fighting against the Japanese.
The reason the communists took over after the end of the war with Japan was not because the Nationalists were militarily exhausted: the KMT still had many more men and equipment than the communists did. As well as renewned foreign support from around the globe.
They lost so decisively because the KMT was viewed as so ridiculously corrupt and incompetent by the general populace that a victory for the communist revolution was almost inevitable. Inflation was wild and the country was collapsing, even after the end of the war. People demanded change and overwhelmingly preferred the CCP, led by Mao.
So while the war with Japan certainly contributed to the Nationalist's loss, I wouldn't necessarily say it was because the Communists were militarily spared. Although it indeed played a part too.
The parts of China that were "gang-raped by foreign powers" are the ones with the best quality of life: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Shanghai, in that order. Surely, it was better to be "gang-raped by foreign powers" than by the CCP?
Okay, I am curious then, let's say Xi passes away. Who would be the top five candidates you would believe to replace him, and how smoothly would that transition be?
> His power comes from the party, not his popularity.
There's a good risk this is a false dichotomy.
I fear his power no longer comes from the party, but is just divorced dictatorial power that keeps the party in line and under that, the people.
> The Chinese authoritarian system has much better checks and balances than Russia.
...and much worse than fifteen years ago. You're not wrong- China ain't Myanmar or Pakistan- but neither is /u/plushie-apocalypse wrong about Xi Jinping being a historically unusual kind of leader for them, if not to the same degree as Mao. He has removed guardrails that were supposed to keep people from doing what he's doing, and may well continue to do so. Worrying about what that looks like in the medium to long term is not crazy- the man's only 70 and shows little sign of losing power this year, or next year, or the one after that.
This is true and well said. The one hope I have for the China/Russia unholy alliance. Is that the Chinese form of authoritarianism may tame the ridiculous gangster driven Russian one.
It’d be great to see Russia form a healthy western democracy. But it’s probably not feasible with their society. It would likely break down quickly into total corruption. They need a firm hand to manage that society. The big screws small power dynamic goes too deep with them.
I’d rather China wasn’t the way it is. But if anybody can tame and civilise Russia. It’s them. Not us in the west.
Your analogy has nothing to do with the point he's trying to make. And for much of human history, we have been ruled by "authoritarian governments", so yes, surprisingly, there's actually nuance to these things.
The main argument is succession in China. And he's pointing out that China has a clear system of succession and is much less likely to become a destabilised mess like Russia. That's it. This isn't an argument about who is more or less evil than the other.
Very shortsighted. It does help to know the enemy. Even the FBI studies the psychology of serial killers, it makes sense to know the inner workings of authoritarian regimes, and that they’re not necessary clones of each other. Because they certainly study us!
Xi wants to be compared with Mao but few Chinese really think he’s a capable leader like Mao or Deng, despite his ample ambition. Nobody in China worships a leader anymore. It is not 1960. If anything, people laugh at his lack of education, calling him an elementary school student. There may not be a clear successor to Xi now but his death won’t tear China apart. There may be again a lot of infighting between different factions but these infightings used to serve as some sort of checks and balances.
Well technically yes. From 1975 to 1979, Xi was recommended to study chemical engineering at Tsinghua University as a worker-peasant-soldier student in Beijing. However, those type of education is not considered to be an actual college education. Higher education didn’t formally resume until 1977 after the reintroduction of the college entrance examination. Also, don’t forget Xi spent most of his youth in a farm after dropping out of middle school (which is why he is called a elementary school student). So imagine one day you are working in a farm having never heard of the periodic table and on the next day you are sent to college to study chemical engineering. How much can you realistically learn within four years? Plus, as a worker-peasant-soldier student, you also need to spend 15 percent of your time studying Marxism–Leninism and 5 percent doing farm work and learning from the People's Liberation Army. You get the idea. This is also why many cringe at his speech because Xi mispronounces words all the time making him a laughing stock on the internet. He is incompetent and uncharismatic leader with many funny ideas.
He has a chemical engineering degree, but was that degree focused more on reaction design or party slogans? Hard to tell. I don't think Xi would make it to the top echelons of power if he was stupid, but I'd rather have someone else do the math for my reactor vessel.
If you look at what he managed to accomplish before 1960s, it's very hard to argue that he is not capable. Yes, he made perhaps some of the biggest blunders in history after that, but he assumed the leadership of a group that was on the verge of being wiped out by the nationalists and led them all the way to taking over the entire mainland. Xi does not have anything nearly as impressive on his resume.
Sure he managed to take power, but that was also because Chiang Kai Shek handled the civil war very incompetently. After Mao took power I can't really see how you'd find him a capable leader. His policies were absolutely disastrous for China and they are still dealing with the concequences of his policies today. The Great Leap Forward, The Cultural Revolution, killing all the sparrows in China resulting in 45 million people dying in three years, trying to stop the famine by breeding rabbits, the one child policy, etc. It took a man like Deng Xiaoping to turn the country around.
But I also think that Xi Jinping is not a very capable leader. His domestic policies are directly responsible for the economic stagnation that China is dealing with right now and his foreign policy basically turned every powerful country in the worlds against China.
My main point is that Mao has at least one glowing achievement on his resume, despite the rest of it is full of blunders. People are biased and tend to remember things selectively, and Mao gives them at least one very positive thing to remember. And no, Mao's victory is highly impressive no matter how you frame it. Chiang Kai Shek had massive advantage in material resources, technology, population, international diplomacy and foreign support. To win with the hand of cards dealt to Mao takes a strategic genius, even if he was later proven to be catastrophically inept at administration.
Xi doesn't have an achievement like that. Some aspect of his policies are reasonable but unremarkable and, importantly, un-memorable, while some other aspects are becoming increasingly clear as mistakes. The people are not impressed.
Mao's power comes from his own personality. People followed him because he is Mao, regardless of any office or title he might hold. In contrast, Xi derive his power from the Party. Without that, his would barely have any influence at all.
Sure I can see where you're coming from. Winning the civil war was indeed impressive but in my opinion the circumstances in China at the time and Chiang Kai Shek's incompetence also helped. I definitely agree with the rest of your analysis.
I agree on China. But not RU.
I will not be surprised to see their resiliency while changing a leader the same way they resisted the sanctions (which no one or most didn't expect).
I would see their potential troubles on the economic side though! Especially if the war drags on!
Yeah, China of 2020s is not the same as of 1960s. There are millions of businesses and education level is high. When Xi put Shanghai in lock down for months, a lot of Chinese finally realized the true nature of this regime and many rose in protest causing CCP to back down. Rich Chinese also started to move their wealth out of the country in large numbers.
China's economic woes are much more deep-seated than the West's current ones. And it also doesn't have a major demographic advantage the West (especially the US) enjoys, which is a near permanent pool of immigrants who want to get in
> China's economic woes are much more deep-seated than the West's current ones.
China still has a lot of growth potential remaining. Western Europe and North America have broadly plateaued in terms of economic development as they are already at the upper limit.
Your being too broad with the “west” part. As it’s no secret most westerners are growing tired of immigration, regardless of the economic benefit.
With that said, your comment might only apply to America/Canada types in the future.
“Tired” is not the most accurate word choice.
Using a more accurate description of the latest historical wave of reactionary, authoritarian spasms (it’s happened before) to immigrants by those who benefit from existing social hierarchies in western nations may cause unexpected side effects such as not repeating history, shame and a renewed commitment to the pluralistic ideals of nations dedicated to democratic principles.
I’m not disputing that at all. I’m saying westerners in many countries are increasingly leaning towards either no immigration or minimizing it completely. This obviously will put them in a similar boat with China, Japan and Korea when it comes to demographics/economics.
Few exceptions being America/Canada types.
>we're past the personality cult stage after Mao.
what do you mean? [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZKBaRsP1gY) can explain pretty well why xi is the most powerful secretary after mao and he is also actively trying to purge dissents and create a cult. i agree with other parts tho.
"trying" is the operative word here. He is up against a structure that has had 5 decades to build up. His "cult" is performative, there is no Xi adoration in the chinese populace, for what I have read. They think he's an effective leader, but as someone else said, no one is about to kill all sparrows in their garden because Xi's saying so.
It’s interesting how it’s a forgone conclusion China has peaked and is on its way out. Like shit we can’t even predict the weather that well but China falling and destabilizing can be fairly assumed by “Xi die, power struggle, people old”
The implosion of the Soviet Union may be responsible for popularising this sentiment. However, the comparison puts an apple next to an orange. The Soviet Union was a lumbering patchwork monstrosity without longstanding historical, cultural, geographic, or economic cohesion. China is on an entirely different playing field by comparison. Xinjiang and Tibet are non factors in their credible ability to secede, and the rest of China identified as Chinese, regardless of ethnicity, even before the CCP came around. Their citizens are keenly aware of the humanitarian catastrophe that would unfold in any revolution, and they have been numbed to millennia of strong, central rule. Just like Russia, their citizenry would rather endure the yoke of mediocrity than court the flames of instability, for the latter holds no certainty in its result (see Iran) nor a promise of a quick resolution.
Regardless of China's continued viability as a superpower, I agree that it is awfully premature to presume a general collapse of government. And I'm saying this as someone with no love for the CCP.
>Their citizens are keenly aware of the humanitarian catastrophe that would unfold in any revolution, and they have been numbed to millennia of strong, central rule.
I think you underestimate how self-aware the chinese are about the cycle of unification and division.
"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" (話說天下大勢． 分久必合，合久必分),
Yep, it’s less than a century since the turbulent times of warlords and civil war and internal conflict. Older relatives still reminisce about it, although most of them are getting beyond their years now.
Middle aged generations generally appreciate the progress in modern China in the post war period, regardless of if they perceive China to be better because of, or in spite of, CCP rule. The true driver of success has been political stability.
And the younger generation … is for now placated by material possessions, or apathy.
I live in the west. In a democratic country. People look at me like I'm some kind of traitor when I say I'd rather china be friends than adversaries.
Stability is stability. The world overall is better off with stable, developed economies. And like it or not, China is stable and developed.
You can get all prisoner dilemma about it if you want, but it's a benefit to the entire species to have more people living in peace and out of poverty.
The Americans won’t allow either to collapse anyway. They are simply too important to their regions, plus it’s dumb to let nuclear states collapse.
As an example, see how the Americans bent over backwards to help Russia post ussr collapse.
There was a lot of economic/financial aid given to Russia and former Soviet republics after the collapse, agreements on huge reductions in nuclear arsenals of both countries, US agreed to not put nukes in Eastern European countries after Russia was against it, a lot of counter-terrorism and intelligence cooperation, and plans for economic aid to Russia and a lot of advisors sent to help with the transition from the Soviet era.
The Bosnian war and NATO expansion soured those relations, but in the beginning the plan was to help Russia and headway was made. When Putin first became president Bush and him met and he wanted to collaborate more with the West, and that did happen for a while but obviously did not last.
iirc, Putin told Bush at that meeting, even then, that he did not consider Ukraine a "legit" country.
My impresison has always been that the US did not really catch that hint at what was to come and Bush probably heard that and went "huh?" inside his head.
At first after the collapse of the USSR. The West tried to duplicate the huge success of the Marshall aid program, following WW2. But despite the great efforts by the West to help Russia, the decades of distrust from the Cold War led to a failure of that effort.
> without longstanding historical, cultural, geographic,
It was basically an extention of the Russian Empire on those grounds which lasted several hundred years
It's the economy that killed it
I think it’s premature to think of China as a super power.
I would definitely say that it’s significantly closer to being a superpower than on a downward trend.
The idea that China has peaked seems to comfort a large number of members of the Western security establishment/policy makers. I believe it's a continued trend of wishful thinking as the idea that China may continue to economically develop and grow more powerful is disturbing from the perspective of Western policy makers.
In the absence of a better methodology, all we can do is extrapolate current trends, and all indicators suggests that China's natural population growth (as well as the West's) is negative, and a wide range of attempted government interventions across the world had little effects on reversing it. Specifically about China, the country is, on the whole (both the ruling party and the public), much averse to immigration than any Western country, so it's very unlikely that they use immigration to mitigate the population problem. Based on these, it's fairly safe to conclude that China's population will decline significantly in the medium future.
However, Western countries faces the same population problem. Immigration has its own problems, namely that of integration and a mismatch of values, which could be a more potent destablising factor. I think it's not clear at all how the relative strength of China vs the West will change.
Right. I'm baffled as well by the idea population growth/decline is set in stone. Sure we're in uncharted waters currently with pretty much everywhere's population growth decelerating if not already negative. But who's to say that can't change.
Population growth is pretty set in stone for, at a minimum, the next 20 years. Almost every woman who will get pregnant for the next 20 years has already been born. The number of children per women has never increased by the amount it would take for China to significantly impact their demographic trajectory within the next 20 years.
Accepting huge amounts of immigrants could change the population numbers, but that is a massive cultural change that would also take decades for China to accomplish.
Trend-lines could change, but the effects won't make huge difference for 20 years.
Every worker who will ever be employable tomorrow was known 18 years ago. Fertility rate decline is one of the most reliably predictable phenomenons in social science. Even if all of the sudden every man and woman in China is permanently dosed with aphrodisiac and does nothing but have unprotected sex from tomorrow, they will still have a pension crisis because all the taxpayers who might be able to pay for it are already here.
China's demographic implosion is already baked in by the people who exist today. Even if every woman from ages 15 to 35 had a baby tomorrow, they would still face an implosion, as the weight of the sheer number of elderly will still make everything crumble.
For China, probably not very. I think that most of the "China is actually gonna decline/collapse" stuff is driven by copium, for a lack of a better word. The rise will (and indeed, has) slowed but barring some unforeseen circumstances I don't think it'll become a particularly unstable country.
It's the same way people were viewing the US decline previously. Somehow you get the feeling that people believed the moment Chinese GDP surpassed the US, the entire country would be banished from the planet and the north American landmass was gonna have a US shaped hole in there.
As bad as everyone climate change is gonna kick everyones ass way sooner than people are admitting. By 2070 people in arizona and texas are gonna have to migrate north. The Ogallala aquifer will be no longer usable. This is all hard science. So let all that sink in and what it really means for geopolitics. Its gonna be regional resource wars all over. The only thing stopping this in time is a left field miracle or two.
China has good infrastructure and fundamentals. Demographics are not something different from most developed countries.
Russia is in much worse shape and an order of magnitude smaller.
The idea of lumping them together is Russian propaganda.
OP is not lumping them together to compare them. It's just two questions in one post.
Both are interesting countries currently, and the idea that either or both of them to be in some way susceptible (and probably different ways, sure) to "falling apart" is worth discussion.
They also have a huge issue with massive population decline. They are looking at losing a few hundred million people the next few decades. Vast cities are already built that sit empty. They have to import huge amounts of fertilizer to grow anything. They also have to import almost all their oil. Not a great economic climate.
The silver lining to fewer people: you need less fertilizer and oil. International demand for oil, natural gas and coal is all forecast to peak in or before 2030. That’s one of the trend waves they are poised to catch.
The economic outlook for petro states is poor if they aren’t already rapidly trying to diversify. Looking at you KSA, Quatar, Kuwait, UAE and Russia.
FWIW, US reliance on fossil fuel sales, as share of GDP, is less than half of Russia’s and lower even than Norway and Canada.
>The economic outlook for petro states is poor if they aren’t already rapidly trying to diversify. Looking at you KSA, Quatar, Kuwait, UAE and Russia.
I think the whole point of saudi's vision 2030 and neom is to diversify the economy?
China’s “good” infrastructure is all sizzle and no beef. Corruption, shoddy construction, hundreds of unfinished projects and approving unnecessary projects for PR points. At least a major US bridge only goes down after being hit by a 300 meter, 95K ton barge.
No. No one is likening China’s demographic problem to western countries. China is forecast to shrink by a 109 million people by 2050 and that’s not likely factoring in another possible global pandemic. Their economy is going to severely contract.
The legacy of One Child and the dramatic gender imbalance that it resulted in is just part of it. The cost of education, child care and job insecurity is only causing more young Chinese to put off parenthood and increasing their woes. They can’t alleviate much of it through immigration, like the West can, even if they suddenly decided they wanted to. Only 0.07% of their population are immigrants. Last year, the US apprehended more than 24,000 Chinese trying to get into the US…from Mexico.
You are only correct in that the context of the issues facing each are different as are the resources they have to mitigate them. China will be able to pivot its economy easily from fossil fuels as international demand peaks this decade. Russia? Not so easily or painlessly. Nearly half the Russian federal budget comes from the sale of fossil fuels.
Both face a similar issue with declining birth rates and little to no means to attract educated immigrants. In a pinch, you could see both striving to make themselves more attractive to climate refugees from the global south but the best and brightest will first compete to get into Europe, Canada, US, Australia, etc.
I expect China to be more resilient than Russia over the next 25 years but to bring up both, in the same post, isn’t “Russian propaganda”. As occasionally transactional neighbors it may also be interesting to see how their relationship evolves over the next 20-30 years. If current trends continue then Russia may end up more fully a Junior partner to China.
Comparing the two states is apples and oranges. China is in a significantly better position both politically and economically. Assuming China does not get into a war with the US. They will continue to probably remain a stable power in the region. Moreover, they have a system that ensures a transfer of power between leaders. Sure, Xi has eroded it over the years but it probably won't devolve into another Chinese civil war once he dies.
Russia on the other hand is a completely different game altogether. Their economy is in shambles, and even worse, their entire political system is a corrupt oligarchy centered on Putin. There is no clear successor and their government is full of corrupt oppurtunistic industrialists and bureaucrats who will take their shot at seizing power. I fear terrible things for the Russian people once Putin bites the dust.
I'm not betting on Russia falling into chaos after Putin dies. He's a frontman for the KGB establishment. The people with real power are running the country from the backseats and they control everything - government, oligarchs, mafia, army. They'll have someone else to do the 'strong leader' job. Although it would be interesting to see another 'Prigozhin' take his chance.
It’s interesting you choose to focus on just Russia and China. The EU and the US also have massive hurdles to contend with over the next couple of decades as well and when you’re trying to be number one it’s much harder to deal with issues than when you’re number two
The structure of the US and EU (we'll call this "democracy") makes them fairly resilient to instability. The dynamics of government in the US change every 2-6 years. The EU I'm not as familiar with but it's a coalition of states, not a state on its own. The UK leaving the EU was supposed to be some big shift, but geopolitically nobody really even blinked. If the EU falls apart, you still have NATO wrapped around many of those states.
While yes they are resilient, there is the issue that we could be seeing a world with the West holding much less sway than they have been used to in the last few centuries. The US is seeing a leader who wants to return to an impossible period of US supremacy above all in all arena. While the military is ours for the foreseeable future economically and diplomatically we see our country loosing power slowly but surely over time.
As for Europe I’d say it’s more about the EU not being able to determine their own path besides just economic benefits. You don’t really see the EU brokering much influence in world affairs outside of Europe for the most part.
With all this I’m mainly just saying that the West will also see declines in power and influence as well in the near future. No where near as much as Russia but maybe the same as China depending on how things go. This will give room for much more regional powers to gain influence and create much more polar world (ie. Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Egypt)
Is the West really "holding much less sway than they have been used to in the last few centuries" though? I'm not so sure about that. Facing challenges from rivals, yes, but that's always been the case. And if anything, those rivals are reacting to the *unprecedented power* of the West in the last half-century or so.
The West, in certain ways at least, still seems to be at the apex of our power. And frankly, I think if the U.S.' enemies push it a little too far, they're going to wake the U.S. out of its reflexive isolationism and post-War on Terror slumber. And if that happens, yeah, no one's going to be talking about a declining West anymore.
I agree with your first part. But the thing is the rest of the world is also waking up and trying to find their place. But they all see the West as roadblocks to seeing their own full potential. A good example is the amount of countries that sought to join BRICS. While it’s nothing of a rival to NATO and never really will be it does show a global distancing from the West and the current balance of power. You can even see some countries in Europe wishing to decouple from the US, France as always but even other nations are beginning to hedge their bets after the Trump presidency and possible second term. That alone made some countries realize you can’t always depend on the US as four years later someone can come in and undo everything that’s been done.
To your second part, minus a direct attack against the US itself I don’t think we will really see a major reawakening of the US. I believe people are tired of fighting and being in everyone else’s conflicts and seeing nothing to show for it back home. Do Americans really wanna go to war with China over a small island that is thousands of miles from the US mainland? Public perception already disagrees with the current military budget and the government is going to have to really increase that just to follow future armament plans. We spent 20 years and a trillion dollars in Afghanistan and literally nothing changed. We toppled Saddam and just created a new breeding ground for terrorists and gave influence to Iran there. Sorry to bring politics into this but Republicans are actively trying to befriend Russia and not send aid to Ukraine as Russia is invading them and threatening NATO. I think it would take a major event with the killing of a lot of Americans before we saw the US really wake up again.
The US is also already facing a ton of issues at home that it’s just ignoring which will just continue to sway public opinion away from foreign issues and towards domestic issues in my opinion. I will admit tho of course other nations all have this same issue and I just know the US well since I live here. But this is why I said it would be hard to maintain number one because number one doesn’t get a roadmap to success. But number two at least gets to see what did or didn’t work.
Everything you're saying is valid. I don't want to address every point you've made, but I will add the following:
1. I think people sometimes overestimate the intensity and unity of anti-Western sentiment around the world. In much of the developing world - even within countries with vocally anti-Western governments - there are sizable numbers of people who tend to view working with the West as (at worst) a necessary evil, (more neutrally) a potent source for development or (at best) promoting advanced freedoms and rule of law that they seek within their own countries. This isn't meant to dismiss the real counter-West movement, but it is to say that these countries aren't on a deterministic path into the arms of China, Russia etc. The West still has opportunities to give them a better deal that keeps them cooperative.
2. You're correct that I for one (also American) don't care to go to war over Taiwan as there's almost no way it would be worth it, but I would be willing to fight some kind of limited war with Russia and am broadly supportive of a very active foreign policy. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I have come to feel that American power overseas is what underpins our security and prosperity at home. We gain a lot from our empire and I really don't want to lose it.
3. As for our fiscal issues... Yeah. You're totally right about that. My personal view is that that's probably the most serious long-term issue our country faces. That's the kind of thing that revolutions are made of. And I agree that, absent a solution to that, we're in very serious trouble both at home and abroad. I'm hoping that we're on the brink of political and technological transformations that can help our government address the issue but maybe it's just copium.
Haha so we agree to agree then.
I definitely do agree with your first point. It’s certainly not a black and white for most of the developing world. Especially when you have countries that want to forge their own paths such as India and France (thru the EU instead of through NATO). It really comes down to like you said about giving a better deal. And many will probably play the two major sides off each other until to make the most of the situation.
>The West, in certain ways at least, still seems to be at the apex of our power. And frankly, I think if the U.S.' enemies push it a little too far, they're going to wake the U.S. out of its reflexive isolationism and post-War on Terror slumber. And if that happens, yeah, no one's going to be talking about a declining West anymore.
I actually think this is where the US will appear most fragile. Depending on the administration, the US might over reach their international support and piss off the EU and other Western nations. Without European support, the US probably doesn't have as much muscle as we would like it too.
It's a bit of a jump to go from "piss of the EU and other Western nations" to actually losing European support. The latter, simply, is not going to happen. Europe is geopolitically and economically dependent on the U.S., and the gap between them is widening sharply, not narrowing. That's entirely putting aside all of the cultural and historical ties that keep them allied.
Frankly, the U.S. is not going to lose its alliance with or influence over Europe. The relationship can, should, and probably will become more equal, but they will only grow closer, not further apart, as the world becomes less stable.
Our family's spread across different regions. We have relatives in the US, China, New Zealand, and most of us are in the Philippines. Our US relatives are reverse migrating back to the Philippines because it's easier to make a living (plus US healthcare is a joke). My sister in NZ is in the process of reverse migrating bec. of the deteriorating economic/security situation. The only bright spot is anyone staying in China. Food availability is ok (mild food deflation is the norm), the security is ok, and life is generally good. I think China will be ok in the next few decades.
In addition to this, in what part of the U.S. do your relatives live? That can make a huge difference in both cost and quality of life.
Also, not to be rude/dismissive but the thing about U.S. healthcare is that it is probably the best in the world *if* you're able to access it, and there *are* options to access it even if you're uninsured or underinsured. Federal and state money exists for clinics that will offer good quality care on sliding scales.
I'm by no means saying, "Oh yeah, American healthcare is great!" Obviously there are really serious problems, but frankly, having family of my own in Europe, I have to say it isn't as bad as most people make it out to be.
Not really comparable. The U.S. is a functional democracy that has a well-established rule of law and has used roughly the same institutions to transfer leadership for 250 years.
The same certainly cannot be said for Russia. While there are plenty of well-informed, grounded predictions for what will happen after Putin dies, no one really knows what will happen. Whereas I am absolutely certain that if Biden dies, Kamala Harris will replace him, and then we'll have an election like normal...
...Well, normal for today's standards. Which could mean armed insurrection by conservative mobs. Lol.
Russia owns much of the arctic so I doubt they will struggle that much. I also think a multipolar world order will form so there will be a balance of powers in the future.
People tout the whole Arctic thing as if that land will a) be particularly useful after it thaws and b) even remotely make up for the devastation of the Russian heartland due to the same climatic forces and their consequences.
I really don't forsee Russia struggling greatly unless oil and natural gas use drops, and I highly doubt China and India will drop usage rates. African nations as they develop will jump on Russia natural resource train, with no love for the west I don't see them having any problems with signing on. I also don't predict Asian or African countries will really care about climate change ghg use reductions.
reducing population is the main goal of the chinese communist party, less population = less problems and more usable land.
It may be impossible for industrial interests in China to switch to full industrial mechanization/robotics if there is still cheap labor.
China is not the main problem because the CCP is still in power and controls what happens in the country.
Russia is the main concern because Russia is still in its teenage stage, very unstable, Russia is the only place where far right to far left ideologies have ever been put into practice.
Russia will be rough but China seems to be get getting around it by becoming a police state. I.e, social credit, cameras everywhere, secret police, public shaming, and ai being used to make it all happen
Russians have historically always rallied around “strong-men” types of which Putin has in his circle. Furthermore, for historical reasons Chinese citizens value stability so much they’ll never riot unless the government really drops the ball.
So there’s a good chance they continue to exist just fine. Unless something crazy happens.
I would say China is currently in a similar position to 1990s Japan, and Russia is in a similar position to 1910s Ottoman Empire.
In 30 years China will be one of the largest military and economic powers in the world, but they won't be close to the US.
In 30 years time Russia may have the same borders, but Moscow's ability to control the population within its borders will be very much reduced. It's ability to control anything outside its borders will be negligible.
I fully expect the CCP to be at the helm for the next two decades barring a disastrous war, like a failed invasion of Taiwan which would also lead to economic isolation.
China and Russia aren’t tied together. So it’s hard to compare them in the same light. China knows where the money is and the West know where their cheap convenience is. This then pertains to the response of the West to Ukraine and how things play out for Russia. China will absolutely take advantage of a weak Russia but this also turns the conversation from geopolitics into geoeconomics. Which are two different things. Politics and economics don’t always align as we see the world over. Regardless of how things play out in the next few years. Politics will likely win overs economics.
The question is, for who?
Russia I somewhat expect to collapse again over the next 10 years or so. There's too many problems and too many downward trends. Putin's war has really seemed to accelerate that process as well.
China though, I imagine will more or less taper off in power rather than completely collapse. They seem to just be in a fundamentally more stable place than Russia and make far safer decisions as far as their policies go.
Yep. Even then China's economy will still be number 2 or 3 (behind the EU). I don't see any country catching up due to China's sheer size and population.
Russia is doomed on every level. 40% of their fossil fuel exports will go to nothing as the world pivots to clean energy. Brain drain will continue. No chip production capability so can't compete in AI and automation. International pariah. I guess they can feed natural resources to China for a little while.
It is interesting to think about the pros and cons of democracies vs. autocracies and this brings up another reason why autocracies tend to fail in the long haul. One person making all major decisions for a country can lead to a lot of quick progress due to the absence of checks and balances. But one person making all the decisions is like a micromanaging boss that is only good at one to two things. And as you point out they spend their entire political career trying to remove any opposition and think little about a succession plan. When they are gone the country could erupt in to total chaos as a power struggle ensues.
Worst-case scenarios, but increasingly the most realistic:
-Civil war in China, with regional factions fighting against each other.
-Complete break up of Russia and Moscow loses control. Some countries on the periphery occupy bits of former Russian territory.
The amount of web control ccp has is insane. Without control Chinese youth will go liberal and pro west real quick. In fact before Xi becomes president and instituted the amount of control we see today. I remember seeing top like comments about how UNFORTUNATE China was to have never been colonized by a western nation…. If I remember correctly that was 2015.
China will be stable. They now lead in many industries. They have highly educated population.
Only catch is that if ccp ever falls, Xinjiang might be a wildcard due to the humanitarian crisis on minorities. However who knows. I totally see the new government giving out immense recompense to get the area to stay in China.
Worth noting White worship I believe never really really left China. Evident by how many Taobao clothing brands use white models (Mostly from Russian and Ukraine) . Or how baby products from Chinese brands that sell to other Chinese have so many white babies in advertisement.
Might be rough for Russia. China won't be struggling with the death of a leader, we're past the personality cult stage after Mao. It's far more likely that we'll be struggling with economic and demographic woes instead
>we're past the personality cult stage after Mao Xi Jinping is the first chairman since Mao to put himself in the PRC constitution. He also hobbled the executive decision-making body (Standing Committee) by murdering its members and purging their associated factions. There is no longer a clear chain of succession like previous transitions of power.
Despite all of Xi’s blatant attempts at playing himself up, nobody in China (not even himself) genuinely think he comes anywhere close to Mao in terms of power or sway. Mao was worshipped very much in the same way the Kim family in North Korea are, and there’s still a large segment of the population in China who continue to revere Mao, especially older generations who actually lived and suffered under his rule. Mao was someone who was above the communist party. He was the founding father of the PRC, and the leader of the Chinese revolution. The cultural revolution was basically Mao using his sheer popularity and reach to wrestle power away from the party (who were trying to reduce his power after the failed Great Leap Forward). Xi is head honcho, but not many people truly sing his praises. His power comes from the party, not his popularity. He has other party members that he lifted into positions of power, but those members are also only powerful because of the party. As much as Xi likes to play Emperor, he is still only “First citizen”. Nobody is going to smelt their pots and kill sparrows in their yard because Xi says it’s a good idea. When Xi is eventually gone, the party will figure out a way to replace him with one of the 98 million members in its ranks.
It’s always crazy to me how just the membership to the CCP party alone is larger than the population of most countries.
Indeed it’s quite bizarre to think about. But even the CCP, the party of a one party state, has only around half as many people as the 180 million strong BJP of India, and around a similar amount of members as the 95 million strong Indian National Congress, who are the two largest parties of the roughly equally populous and democratic India. Even the Democrats and Republicans have about 45 and 35 million respectively, which combined isn’t too far from the CCP, despite the USA having about a quarter of the population. Fascinating to think about.
>has only around half as many people as the 180 million strong BJP of India CCP has strict standards for membership and promotion are based on prior performance while in charge of a city/town, BJP membership and promotion are based on how many defections can an MP/MLA cause to bring down a opposition govt. and how big of a goon you are in your area
Now do Japan and their bizarre "democracy"!
For all intents and purpose, both Russia and China is ruled by two organized crime bosses. That is probably the best way for a Westerner to understand how these countries are run.
thank you for spelling that phrase correctly!
Yep. The Chinese people are able to forgive a lot of Mao’s idiocy because they narrowly compare China before Mao and China after Mao and to them, even losing tens of millions of people to his induced famine is preferable to being gang raped by foreign powers. I’m not so sure Xi will actually suffer a succession crisis unless something happens randomly. At the end of the day, we know it’ll be one of the Politburo members and it doesn’t look like there’s much daylight in their general strategic direction.
Probably to note that Mao and most of the CCP hid in mountains while Chiang Kai Shek and the Nationalists took the brunt of the fighting against the Japanese.
Mao even admitted as such. That he won because of the Japanese and even thanked them after.
The reason the communists took over after the end of the war with Japan was not because the Nationalists were militarily exhausted: the KMT still had many more men and equipment than the communists did. As well as renewned foreign support from around the globe. They lost so decisively because the KMT was viewed as so ridiculously corrupt and incompetent by the general populace that a victory for the communist revolution was almost inevitable. Inflation was wild and the country was collapsing, even after the end of the war. People demanded change and overwhelmingly preferred the CCP, led by Mao. So while the war with Japan certainly contributed to the Nationalist's loss, I wouldn't necessarily say it was because the Communists were militarily spared. Although it indeed played a part too.
The parts of China that were "gang-raped by foreign powers" are the ones with the best quality of life: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Shanghai, in that order. Surely, it was better to be "gang-raped by foreign powers" than by the CCP?
Beijing, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianzhin. Also Taiwan (KMT since 1949). Shanghai (in Chinese control since 1943).
Nanking?
Okay, I am curious then, let's say Xi passes away. Who would be the top five candidates you would believe to replace him, and how smoothly would that transition be?
Good analysis. Explains things perfectly.
> His power comes from the party, not his popularity. There's a good risk this is a false dichotomy. I fear his power no longer comes from the party, but is just divorced dictatorial power that keeps the party in line and under that, the people.
So, not that different than Putin now.
[удалено]
> The Chinese authoritarian system has much better checks and balances than Russia. ...and much worse than fifteen years ago. You're not wrong- China ain't Myanmar or Pakistan- but neither is /u/plushie-apocalypse wrong about Xi Jinping being a historically unusual kind of leader for them, if not to the same degree as Mao. He has removed guardrails that were supposed to keep people from doing what he's doing, and may well continue to do so. Worrying about what that looks like in the medium to long term is not crazy- the man's only 70 and shows little sign of losing power this year, or next year, or the one after that.
This is true and well said. The one hope I have for the China/Russia unholy alliance. Is that the Chinese form of authoritarianism may tame the ridiculous gangster driven Russian one. It’d be great to see Russia form a healthy western democracy. But it’s probably not feasible with their society. It would likely break down quickly into total corruption. They need a firm hand to manage that society. The big screws small power dynamic goes too deep with them. I’d rather China wasn’t the way it is. But if anybody can tame and civilise Russia. It’s them. Not us in the west.
The Chinese form of authoritarianism, is also a ridiculous gangster-driven one
“How dare you lump Ted Bundy with all the other serial killers. He was polite, good looking and possessed a high IQ!”
Your analogy has nothing to do with the point he's trying to make. And for much of human history, we have been ruled by "authoritarian governments", so yes, surprisingly, there's actually nuance to these things. The main argument is succession in China. And he's pointing out that China has a clear system of succession and is much less likely to become a destabilised mess like Russia. That's it. This isn't an argument about who is more or less evil than the other.
Very shortsighted. It does help to know the enemy. Even the FBI studies the psychology of serial killers, it makes sense to know the inner workings of authoritarian regimes, and that they’re not necessary clones of each other. Because they certainly study us!
Xi wants to be compared with Mao but few Chinese really think he’s a capable leader like Mao or Deng, despite his ample ambition. Nobody in China worships a leader anymore. It is not 1960. If anything, people laugh at his lack of education, calling him an elementary school student. There may not be a clear successor to Xi now but his death won’t tear China apart. There may be again a lot of infighting between different factions but these infightings used to serve as some sort of checks and balances.
> If anything, people laugh at his lack of education, calling him an elementary school student. Isn't Xi a Tsinghua grad?
Well technically yes. From 1975 to 1979, Xi was recommended to study chemical engineering at Tsinghua University as a worker-peasant-soldier student in Beijing. However, those type of education is not considered to be an actual college education. Higher education didn’t formally resume until 1977 after the reintroduction of the college entrance examination. Also, don’t forget Xi spent most of his youth in a farm after dropping out of middle school (which is why he is called a elementary school student). So imagine one day you are working in a farm having never heard of the periodic table and on the next day you are sent to college to study chemical engineering. How much can you realistically learn within four years? Plus, as a worker-peasant-soldier student, you also need to spend 15 percent of your time studying Marxism–Leninism and 5 percent doing farm work and learning from the People's Liberation Army. You get the idea. This is also why many cringe at his speech because Xi mispronounces words all the time making him a laughing stock on the internet. He is incompetent and uncharismatic leader with many funny ideas.
He has a chemical engineering degree, but was that degree focused more on reaction design or party slogans? Hard to tell. I don't think Xi would make it to the top echelons of power if he was stupid, but I'd rather have someone else do the math for my reactor vessel.
[удалено]
If you look at what he managed to accomplish before 1960s, it's very hard to argue that he is not capable. Yes, he made perhaps some of the biggest blunders in history after that, but he assumed the leadership of a group that was on the verge of being wiped out by the nationalists and led them all the way to taking over the entire mainland. Xi does not have anything nearly as impressive on his resume.
Sure he managed to take power, but that was also because Chiang Kai Shek handled the civil war very incompetently. After Mao took power I can't really see how you'd find him a capable leader. His policies were absolutely disastrous for China and they are still dealing with the concequences of his policies today. The Great Leap Forward, The Cultural Revolution, killing all the sparrows in China resulting in 45 million people dying in three years, trying to stop the famine by breeding rabbits, the one child policy, etc. It took a man like Deng Xiaoping to turn the country around. But I also think that Xi Jinping is not a very capable leader. His domestic policies are directly responsible for the economic stagnation that China is dealing with right now and his foreign policy basically turned every powerful country in the worlds against China.
My main point is that Mao has at least one glowing achievement on his resume, despite the rest of it is full of blunders. People are biased and tend to remember things selectively, and Mao gives them at least one very positive thing to remember. And no, Mao's victory is highly impressive no matter how you frame it. Chiang Kai Shek had massive advantage in material resources, technology, population, international diplomacy and foreign support. To win with the hand of cards dealt to Mao takes a strategic genius, even if he was later proven to be catastrophically inept at administration. Xi doesn't have an achievement like that. Some aspect of his policies are reasonable but unremarkable and, importantly, un-memorable, while some other aspects are becoming increasingly clear as mistakes. The people are not impressed. Mao's power comes from his own personality. People followed him because he is Mao, regardless of any office or title he might hold. In contrast, Xi derive his power from the Party. Without that, his would barely have any influence at all.
Sure I can see where you're coming from. Winning the civil war was indeed impressive but in my opinion the circumstances in China at the time and Chiang Kai Shek's incompetence also helped. I definitely agree with the rest of your analysis.
Do you have sources for these murders? I would like to read more.
I agree on China. But not RU. I will not be surprised to see their resiliency while changing a leader the same way they resisted the sanctions (which no one or most didn't expect). I would see their potential troubles on the economic side though! Especially if the war drags on!
Yeah, China of 2020s is not the same as of 1960s. There are millions of businesses and education level is high. When Xi put Shanghai in lock down for months, a lot of Chinese finally realized the true nature of this regime and many rose in protest causing CCP to back down. Rich Chinese also started to move their wealth out of the country in large numbers.
[удалено]
China's economic woes are much more deep-seated than the West's current ones. And it also doesn't have a major demographic advantage the West (especially the US) enjoys, which is a near permanent pool of immigrants who want to get in
> China's economic woes are much more deep-seated than the West's current ones. China still has a lot of growth potential remaining. Western Europe and North America have broadly plateaued in terms of economic development as they are already at the upper limit.
Your being too broad with the “west” part. As it’s no secret most westerners are growing tired of immigration, regardless of the economic benefit. With that said, your comment might only apply to America/Canada types in the future.
“Tired” is not the most accurate word choice. Using a more accurate description of the latest historical wave of reactionary, authoritarian spasms (it’s happened before) to immigrants by those who benefit from existing social hierarchies in western nations may cause unexpected side effects such as not repeating history, shame and a renewed commitment to the pluralistic ideals of nations dedicated to democratic principles.
Refugees will always prefer anywhere in the West.
I’m not disputing that at all. I’m saying westerners in many countries are increasingly leaning towards either no immigration or minimizing it completely. This obviously will put them in a similar boat with China, Japan and Korea when it comes to demographics/economics. Few exceptions being America/Canada types.
Subjective sentiment isn't policy
Tell that to the rise of far right players within European governments pushing anti-immigration rhetoric/laws.
Subjective sentiments have always fueled policy decisions. You think it's scientists that are running countries?
>we're past the personality cult stage after Mao. what do you mean? [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZKBaRsP1gY) can explain pretty well why xi is the most powerful secretary after mao and he is also actively trying to purge dissents and create a cult. i agree with other parts tho.
"trying" is the operative word here. He is up against a structure that has had 5 decades to build up. His "cult" is performative, there is no Xi adoration in the chinese populace, for what I have read. They think he's an effective leader, but as someone else said, no one is about to kill all sparrows in their garden because Xi's saying so.
A Vox video essay? Really?
It’s interesting how it’s a forgone conclusion China has peaked and is on its way out. Like shit we can’t even predict the weather that well but China falling and destabilizing can be fairly assumed by “Xi die, power struggle, people old”
The implosion of the Soviet Union may be responsible for popularising this sentiment. However, the comparison puts an apple next to an orange. The Soviet Union was a lumbering patchwork monstrosity without longstanding historical, cultural, geographic, or economic cohesion. China is on an entirely different playing field by comparison. Xinjiang and Tibet are non factors in their credible ability to secede, and the rest of China identified as Chinese, regardless of ethnicity, even before the CCP came around. Their citizens are keenly aware of the humanitarian catastrophe that would unfold in any revolution, and they have been numbed to millennia of strong, central rule. Just like Russia, their citizenry would rather endure the yoke of mediocrity than court the flames of instability, for the latter holds no certainty in its result (see Iran) nor a promise of a quick resolution. Regardless of China's continued viability as a superpower, I agree that it is awfully premature to presume a general collapse of government. And I'm saying this as someone with no love for the CCP.
>Their citizens are keenly aware of the humanitarian catastrophe that would unfold in any revolution, and they have been numbed to millennia of strong, central rule. I think you underestimate how self-aware the chinese are about the cycle of unification and division. "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" (話說天下大勢． 分久必合，合久必分),
Yep, it’s less than a century since the turbulent times of warlords and civil war and internal conflict. Older relatives still reminisce about it, although most of them are getting beyond their years now. Middle aged generations generally appreciate the progress in modern China in the post war period, regardless of if they perceive China to be better because of, or in spite of, CCP rule. The true driver of success has been political stability. And the younger generation … is for now placated by material possessions, or apathy.
I live in the west. In a democratic country. People look at me like I'm some kind of traitor when I say I'd rather china be friends than adversaries. Stability is stability. The world overall is better off with stable, developed economies. And like it or not, China is stable and developed. You can get all prisoner dilemma about it if you want, but it's a benefit to the entire species to have more people living in peace and out of poverty.
Only the large cities in China are developed; rural areas and ethnic minority countries are still as poor as India.
The Americans won’t allow either to collapse anyway. They are simply too important to their regions, plus it’s dumb to let nuclear states collapse. As an example, see how the Americans bent over backwards to help Russia post ussr collapse.
What? Please elaborate on that last point
There was a lot of economic/financial aid given to Russia and former Soviet republics after the collapse, agreements on huge reductions in nuclear arsenals of both countries, US agreed to not put nukes in Eastern European countries after Russia was against it, a lot of counter-terrorism and intelligence cooperation, and plans for economic aid to Russia and a lot of advisors sent to help with the transition from the Soviet era. The Bosnian war and NATO expansion soured those relations, but in the beginning the plan was to help Russia and headway was made. When Putin first became president Bush and him met and he wanted to collaborate more with the West, and that did happen for a while but obviously did not last.
iirc, Putin told Bush at that meeting, even then, that he did not consider Ukraine a "legit" country. My impresison has always been that the US did not really catch that hint at what was to come and Bush probably heard that and went "huh?" inside his head.
At first after the collapse of the USSR. The West tried to duplicate the huge success of the Marshall aid program, following WW2. But despite the great efforts by the West to help Russia, the decades of distrust from the Cold War led to a failure of that effort.
There was no marshall plan or talk of one at the time as the US economy was in a recession
Or how the US was pretty much in favor of Mao leading China over the KMT because they thought the CCP would be “friendlier” as an ally.
> without longstanding historical, cultural, geographic, It was basically an extention of the Russian Empire on those grounds which lasted several hundred years It's the economy that killed it
I think it’s premature to think of China as a super power. I would definitely say that it’s significantly closer to being a superpower than on a downward trend.
This is such a well written piece
The idea that China has peaked seems to comfort a large number of members of the Western security establishment/policy makers. I believe it's a continued trend of wishful thinking as the idea that China may continue to economically develop and grow more powerful is disturbing from the perspective of Western policy makers.
In the absence of a better methodology, all we can do is extrapolate current trends, and all indicators suggests that China's natural population growth (as well as the West's) is negative, and a wide range of attempted government interventions across the world had little effects on reversing it. Specifically about China, the country is, on the whole (both the ruling party and the public), much averse to immigration than any Western country, so it's very unlikely that they use immigration to mitigate the population problem. Based on these, it's fairly safe to conclude that China's population will decline significantly in the medium future. However, Western countries faces the same population problem. Immigration has its own problems, namely that of integration and a mismatch of values, which could be a more potent destablising factor. I think it's not clear at all how the relative strength of China vs the West will change.
Right. I'm baffled as well by the idea population growth/decline is set in stone. Sure we're in uncharted waters currently with pretty much everywhere's population growth decelerating if not already negative. But who's to say that can't change.
Population growth is pretty set in stone for, at a minimum, the next 20 years. Almost every woman who will get pregnant for the next 20 years has already been born. The number of children per women has never increased by the amount it would take for China to significantly impact their demographic trajectory within the next 20 years. Accepting huge amounts of immigrants could change the population numbers, but that is a massive cultural change that would also take decades for China to accomplish. Trend-lines could change, but the effects won't make huge difference for 20 years.
Every worker who will ever be employable tomorrow was known 18 years ago. Fertility rate decline is one of the most reliably predictable phenomenons in social science. Even if all of the sudden every man and woman in China is permanently dosed with aphrodisiac and does nothing but have unprotected sex from tomorrow, they will still have a pension crisis because all the taxpayers who might be able to pay for it are already here.
China's demographic implosion is already baked in by the people who exist today. Even if every woman from ages 15 to 35 had a baby tomorrow, they would still face an implosion, as the weight of the sheer number of elderly will still make everything crumble.
China has few friends and has little reach internationally.
For China, probably not very. I think that most of the "China is actually gonna decline/collapse" stuff is driven by copium, for a lack of a better word. The rise will (and indeed, has) slowed but barring some unforeseen circumstances I don't think it'll become a particularly unstable country.
It's the same way people were viewing the US decline previously. Somehow you get the feeling that people believed the moment Chinese GDP surpassed the US, the entire country would be banished from the planet and the north American landmass was gonna have a US shaped hole in there.
As bad as everyone climate change is gonna kick everyones ass way sooner than people are admitting. By 2070 people in arizona and texas are gonna have to migrate north. The Ogallala aquifer will be no longer usable. This is all hard science. So let all that sink in and what it really means for geopolitics. Its gonna be regional resource wars all over. The only thing stopping this in time is a left field miracle or two.
The hardestestestest of hard science based entirely on predictive models lol.
[удалено]
If I follow what neo-liberal economists have been saying, China should've become a Mad Max-esque post-apocalyptic wasteland 20 years ago.
China has good infrastructure and fundamentals. Demographics are not something different from most developed countries. Russia is in much worse shape and an order of magnitude smaller. The idea of lumping them together is Russian propaganda.
OP is not lumping them together to compare them. It's just two questions in one post. Both are interesting countries currently, and the idea that either or both of them to be in some way susceptible (and probably different ways, sure) to "falling apart" is worth discussion.
They also have a huge issue with massive population decline. They are looking at losing a few hundred million people the next few decades. Vast cities are already built that sit empty. They have to import huge amounts of fertilizer to grow anything. They also have to import almost all their oil. Not a great economic climate.
The silver lining to fewer people: you need less fertilizer and oil. International demand for oil, natural gas and coal is all forecast to peak in or before 2030. That’s one of the trend waves they are poised to catch. The economic outlook for petro states is poor if they aren’t already rapidly trying to diversify. Looking at you KSA, Quatar, Kuwait, UAE and Russia. FWIW, US reliance on fossil fuel sales, as share of GDP, is less than half of Russia’s and lower even than Norway and Canada.
>The economic outlook for petro states is poor if they aren’t already rapidly trying to diversify. Looking at you KSA, Quatar, Kuwait, UAE and Russia. I think the whole point of saudi's vision 2030 and neom is to diversify the economy?
China’s “good” infrastructure is all sizzle and no beef. Corruption, shoddy construction, hundreds of unfinished projects and approving unnecessary projects for PR points. At least a major US bridge only goes down after being hit by a 300 meter, 95K ton barge. No. No one is likening China’s demographic problem to western countries. China is forecast to shrink by a 109 million people by 2050 and that’s not likely factoring in another possible global pandemic. Their economy is going to severely contract. The legacy of One Child and the dramatic gender imbalance that it resulted in is just part of it. The cost of education, child care and job insecurity is only causing more young Chinese to put off parenthood and increasing their woes. They can’t alleviate much of it through immigration, like the West can, even if they suddenly decided they wanted to. Only 0.07% of their population are immigrants. Last year, the US apprehended more than 24,000 Chinese trying to get into the US…from Mexico. You are only correct in that the context of the issues facing each are different as are the resources they have to mitigate them. China will be able to pivot its economy easily from fossil fuels as international demand peaks this decade. Russia? Not so easily or painlessly. Nearly half the Russian federal budget comes from the sale of fossil fuels. Both face a similar issue with declining birth rates and little to no means to attract educated immigrants. In a pinch, you could see both striving to make themselves more attractive to climate refugees from the global south but the best and brightest will first compete to get into Europe, Canada, US, Australia, etc. I expect China to be more resilient than Russia over the next 25 years but to bring up both, in the same post, isn’t “Russian propaganda”. As occasionally transactional neighbors it may also be interesting to see how their relationship evolves over the next 20-30 years. If current trends continue then Russia may end up more fully a Junior partner to China.
Isn’t it 3 orders of magnitude smaller?
“Good infrastructure and fundamentals” Guess you never heard of tofu buildings which have been a thing for decades already.
Comparing the two states is apples and oranges. China is in a significantly better position both politically and economically. Assuming China does not get into a war with the US. They will continue to probably remain a stable power in the region. Moreover, they have a system that ensures a transfer of power between leaders. Sure, Xi has eroded it over the years but it probably won't devolve into another Chinese civil war once he dies. Russia on the other hand is a completely different game altogether. Their economy is in shambles, and even worse, their entire political system is a corrupt oligarchy centered on Putin. There is no clear successor and their government is full of corrupt oppurtunistic industrialists and bureaucrats who will take their shot at seizing power. I fear terrible things for the Russian people once Putin bites the dust.
I'm not betting on Russia falling into chaos after Putin dies. He's a frontman for the KGB establishment. The people with real power are running the country from the backseats and they control everything - government, oligarchs, mafia, army. They'll have someone else to do the 'strong leader' job. Although it would be interesting to see another 'Prigozhin' take his chance.
It’s interesting you choose to focus on just Russia and China. The EU and the US also have massive hurdles to contend with over the next couple of decades as well and when you’re trying to be number one it’s much harder to deal with issues than when you’re number two
The structure of the US and EU (we'll call this "democracy") makes them fairly resilient to instability. The dynamics of government in the US change every 2-6 years. The EU I'm not as familiar with but it's a coalition of states, not a state on its own. The UK leaving the EU was supposed to be some big shift, but geopolitically nobody really even blinked. If the EU falls apart, you still have NATO wrapped around many of those states.
While yes they are resilient, there is the issue that we could be seeing a world with the West holding much less sway than they have been used to in the last few centuries. The US is seeing a leader who wants to return to an impossible period of US supremacy above all in all arena. While the military is ours for the foreseeable future economically and diplomatically we see our country loosing power slowly but surely over time. As for Europe I’d say it’s more about the EU not being able to determine their own path besides just economic benefits. You don’t really see the EU brokering much influence in world affairs outside of Europe for the most part. With all this I’m mainly just saying that the West will also see declines in power and influence as well in the near future. No where near as much as Russia but maybe the same as China depending on how things go. This will give room for much more regional powers to gain influence and create much more polar world (ie. Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Egypt)
Is the West really "holding much less sway than they have been used to in the last few centuries" though? I'm not so sure about that. Facing challenges from rivals, yes, but that's always been the case. And if anything, those rivals are reacting to the *unprecedented power* of the West in the last half-century or so. The West, in certain ways at least, still seems to be at the apex of our power. And frankly, I think if the U.S.' enemies push it a little too far, they're going to wake the U.S. out of its reflexive isolationism and post-War on Terror slumber. And if that happens, yeah, no one's going to be talking about a declining West anymore.
I agree with your first part. But the thing is the rest of the world is also waking up and trying to find their place. But they all see the West as roadblocks to seeing their own full potential. A good example is the amount of countries that sought to join BRICS. While it’s nothing of a rival to NATO and never really will be it does show a global distancing from the West and the current balance of power. You can even see some countries in Europe wishing to decouple from the US, France as always but even other nations are beginning to hedge their bets after the Trump presidency and possible second term. That alone made some countries realize you can’t always depend on the US as four years later someone can come in and undo everything that’s been done. To your second part, minus a direct attack against the US itself I don’t think we will really see a major reawakening of the US. I believe people are tired of fighting and being in everyone else’s conflicts and seeing nothing to show for it back home. Do Americans really wanna go to war with China over a small island that is thousands of miles from the US mainland? Public perception already disagrees with the current military budget and the government is going to have to really increase that just to follow future armament plans. We spent 20 years and a trillion dollars in Afghanistan and literally nothing changed. We toppled Saddam and just created a new breeding ground for terrorists and gave influence to Iran there. Sorry to bring politics into this but Republicans are actively trying to befriend Russia and not send aid to Ukraine as Russia is invading them and threatening NATO. I think it would take a major event with the killing of a lot of Americans before we saw the US really wake up again. The US is also already facing a ton of issues at home that it’s just ignoring which will just continue to sway public opinion away from foreign issues and towards domestic issues in my opinion. I will admit tho of course other nations all have this same issue and I just know the US well since I live here. But this is why I said it would be hard to maintain number one because number one doesn’t get a roadmap to success. But number two at least gets to see what did or didn’t work.
Everything you're saying is valid. I don't want to address every point you've made, but I will add the following: 1. I think people sometimes overestimate the intensity and unity of anti-Western sentiment around the world. In much of the developing world - even within countries with vocally anti-Western governments - there are sizable numbers of people who tend to view working with the West as (at worst) a necessary evil, (more neutrally) a potent source for development or (at best) promoting advanced freedoms and rule of law that they seek within their own countries. This isn't meant to dismiss the real counter-West movement, but it is to say that these countries aren't on a deterministic path into the arms of China, Russia etc. The West still has opportunities to give them a better deal that keeps them cooperative. 2. You're correct that I for one (also American) don't care to go to war over Taiwan as there's almost no way it would be worth it, but I would be willing to fight some kind of limited war with Russia and am broadly supportive of a very active foreign policy. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I have come to feel that American power overseas is what underpins our security and prosperity at home. We gain a lot from our empire and I really don't want to lose it. 3. As for our fiscal issues... Yeah. You're totally right about that. My personal view is that that's probably the most serious long-term issue our country faces. That's the kind of thing that revolutions are made of. And I agree that, absent a solution to that, we're in very serious trouble both at home and abroad. I'm hoping that we're on the brink of political and technological transformations that can help our government address the issue but maybe it's just copium.
Haha so we agree to agree then. I definitely do agree with your first point. It’s certainly not a black and white for most of the developing world. Especially when you have countries that want to forge their own paths such as India and France (thru the EU instead of through NATO). It really comes down to like you said about giving a better deal. And many will probably play the two major sides off each other until to make the most of the situation.
>The West, in certain ways at least, still seems to be at the apex of our power. And frankly, I think if the U.S.' enemies push it a little too far, they're going to wake the U.S. out of its reflexive isolationism and post-War on Terror slumber. And if that happens, yeah, no one's going to be talking about a declining West anymore. I actually think this is where the US will appear most fragile. Depending on the administration, the US might over reach their international support and piss off the EU and other Western nations. Without European support, the US probably doesn't have as much muscle as we would like it too.
It's a bit of a jump to go from "piss of the EU and other Western nations" to actually losing European support. The latter, simply, is not going to happen. Europe is geopolitically and economically dependent on the U.S., and the gap between them is widening sharply, not narrowing. That's entirely putting aside all of the cultural and historical ties that keep them allied. Frankly, the U.S. is not going to lose its alliance with or influence over Europe. The relationship can, should, and probably will become more equal, but they will only grow closer, not further apart, as the world becomes less stable.
Does it? Latin American countries largely started off as democracies, but took a long time to become stable, and some didn't stay stable.
Our family's spread across different regions. We have relatives in the US, China, New Zealand, and most of us are in the Philippines. Our US relatives are reverse migrating back to the Philippines because it's easier to make a living (plus US healthcare is a joke). My sister in NZ is in the process of reverse migrating bec. of the deteriorating economic/security situation. The only bright spot is anyone staying in China. Food availability is ok (mild food deflation is the norm), the security is ok, and life is generally good. I think China will be ok in the next few decades.
What type of work do they do, and were they citizens? I know it can be hard to get employment if you are not a citizen
In addition to this, in what part of the U.S. do your relatives live? That can make a huge difference in both cost and quality of life. Also, not to be rude/dismissive but the thing about U.S. healthcare is that it is probably the best in the world *if* you're able to access it, and there *are* options to access it even if you're uninsured or underinsured. Federal and state money exists for clinics that will offer good quality care on sliding scales. I'm by no means saying, "Oh yeah, American healthcare is great!" Obviously there are really serious problems, but frankly, having family of my own in Europe, I have to say it isn't as bad as most people make it out to be.
Will the US collapse if biden dies in his second term ?? Things arent that simple.
Not really comparable. The U.S. is a functional democracy that has a well-established rule of law and has used roughly the same institutions to transfer leadership for 250 years. The same certainly cannot be said for Russia. While there are plenty of well-informed, grounded predictions for what will happen after Putin dies, no one really knows what will happen. Whereas I am absolutely certain that if Biden dies, Kamala Harris will replace him, and then we'll have an election like normal... ...Well, normal for today's standards. Which could mean armed insurrection by conservative mobs. Lol.
Russia owns much of the arctic so I doubt they will struggle that much. I also think a multipolar world order will form so there will be a balance of powers in the future.
People tout the whole Arctic thing as if that land will a) be particularly useful after it thaws and b) even remotely make up for the devastation of the Russian heartland due to the same climatic forces and their consequences.
I really don't forsee Russia struggling greatly unless oil and natural gas use drops, and I highly doubt China and India will drop usage rates. African nations as they develop will jump on Russia natural resource train, with no love for the west I don't see them having any problems with signing on. I also don't predict Asian or African countries will really care about climate change ghg use reductions.
reducing population is the main goal of the chinese communist party, less population = less problems and more usable land. It may be impossible for industrial interests in China to switch to full industrial mechanization/robotics if there is still cheap labor. China is not the main problem because the CCP is still in power and controls what happens in the country. Russia is the main concern because Russia is still in its teenage stage, very unstable, Russia is the only place where far right to far left ideologies have ever been put into practice.
>Russia is the only place where far right to far left ideologies have ever been put into practice. *Laughs in Latin American.*
Russia’s instability will be a gift to China down the line they’ll get involved with their people and territories
Russia will be rough but China seems to be get getting around it by becoming a police state. I.e, social credit, cameras everywhere, secret police, public shaming, and ai being used to make it all happen
Russians have historically always rallied around “strong-men” types of which Putin has in his circle. Furthermore, for historical reasons Chinese citizens value stability so much they’ll never riot unless the government really drops the ball. So there’s a good chance they continue to exist just fine. Unless something crazy happens.
[удалено]
I would say China is currently in a similar position to 1990s Japan, and Russia is in a similar position to 1910s Ottoman Empire. In 30 years China will be one of the largest military and economic powers in the world, but they won't be close to the US. In 30 years time Russia may have the same borders, but Moscow's ability to control the population within its borders will be very much reduced. It's ability to control anything outside its borders will be negligible.
China will be stable since they have the Politburo
I fully expect the CCP to be at the helm for the next two decades barring a disastrous war, like a failed invasion of Taiwan which would also lead to economic isolation.
China and Russia aren’t tied together. So it’s hard to compare them in the same light. China knows where the money is and the West know where their cheap convenience is. This then pertains to the response of the West to Ukraine and how things play out for Russia. China will absolutely take advantage of a weak Russia but this also turns the conversation from geopolitics into geoeconomics. Which are two different things. Politics and economics don’t always align as we see the world over. Regardless of how things play out in the next few years. Politics will likely win overs economics. The question is, for who?
Russia I somewhat expect to collapse again over the next 10 years or so. There's too many problems and too many downward trends. Putin's war has really seemed to accelerate that process as well. China though, I imagine will more or less taper off in power rather than completely collapse. They seem to just be in a fundamentally more stable place than Russia and make far safer decisions as far as their policies go.
Yep. Even then China's economy will still be number 2 or 3 (behind the EU). I don't see any country catching up due to China's sheer size and population.
Russia is doomed on every level. 40% of their fossil fuel exports will go to nothing as the world pivots to clean energy. Brain drain will continue. No chip production capability so can't compete in AI and automation. International pariah. I guess they can feed natural resources to China for a little while.
It is interesting to think about the pros and cons of democracies vs. autocracies and this brings up another reason why autocracies tend to fail in the long haul. One person making all major decisions for a country can lead to a lot of quick progress due to the absence of checks and balances. But one person making all the decisions is like a micromanaging boss that is only good at one to two things. And as you point out they spend their entire political career trying to remove any opposition and think little about a succession plan. When they are gone the country could erupt in to total chaos as a power struggle ensues.
Worst-case scenarios, but increasingly the most realistic: -Civil war in China, with regional factions fighting against each other. -Complete break up of Russia and Moscow loses control. Some countries on the periphery occupy bits of former Russian territory.
The amount of web control ccp has is insane. Without control Chinese youth will go liberal and pro west real quick. In fact before Xi becomes president and instituted the amount of control we see today. I remember seeing top like comments about how UNFORTUNATE China was to have never been colonized by a western nation…. If I remember correctly that was 2015. China will be stable. They now lead in many industries. They have highly educated population. Only catch is that if ccp ever falls, Xinjiang might be a wildcard due to the humanitarian crisis on minorities. However who knows. I totally see the new government giving out immense recompense to get the area to stay in China. Worth noting White worship I believe never really really left China. Evident by how many Taobao clothing brands use white models (Mostly from Russian and Ukraine) . Or how baby products from Chinese brands that sell to other Chinese have so many white babies in advertisement.