You're a few steps behind the ball my friend. The overtures of Sino backing of Russia have been pretty loudly resonating over the last few years. The neutrality now likely being a consequence of trying to gauge whether the U.S. is actually willing to flex in response to an invasion by another nuclear power. They've had their eyes on Taiwan, and if their leadership thinks they can get away with it, they'll likely give it the old Hong Kong treatment.
Especially since Ukraine, being the leading source of neon, is also a sizable link in the U.S. semiconductor supply chain. Not quite as big ticket as TSMC, but big enough to serve as a useful gauge for strategists and planners.
Gen Z has little or no exposure to outright saber rattling. Just proxy wars, which globalization somewhat optimized for until realpolitik came back around to start biting once folks started understanding the soft power play of post cold war economics.
3 generation rule at play. We've got the direct witnesses of heavy geopolitical action on the way out.
The boomers->X->Millenial know the aftershocks, and at least know what didn't work for the "The Greatest Generation". Z and forward are a refreshing breath of fresh air in de-bullshitting, and have access the way more information than any previous generation had all at one time, but that's a vulnerability at the same time without strong bullshit filters, and a collective sense of both unity and the real. The Real* is not entirely a "here's your canned reality" from the media, but a collective and relatable ground truth experience that crosscuts the population. I'm afraid one thing we've really dropped the ball on is as teachers, and institutional raisers and propagaters of strong bullshit filters. Especially given the information augmented battlefield of today.
Definitely keep doing what you're doing though. Ain't no way to get the head for it but to do it.
Interesting points but I'm struggling to find the thesis here, at least with respect to military intervention.
Russia and China have a weird relationship. They were, in a way, born together into their current statuses, but Russia isn't Soviet anymore and they don't necessarily represent the image China is going for. Meanwhile Russia wants China for it's economic might and China probably has an interest in resources and land north of Beijing, but at the moment any agreement wouldn't net much for China and represents a great deal of risk in the long term.
China's aspirations go far beyond Russia. They will not be content with vast reaches of methane burping tundra as their international policy showpiece. They want true superpower status and to set the tone for the world order. They will wait decades more if they have to.
Do we have any reason to believe this "common knowledge," or are we just projecting from Western imperialist tendencies? China has a _long_ tradition of being insular.
One belt one road. Much ink has been spilled on China's recent international ambitions that will make infrastructure investments in 70 countries between now and 2050. The reason this is common knowledge is that their superpower ambitions are blindingly obvious.
why is the perspective that they are making these investments to secure their economic future against foreign interference less valid than "they are trying to control world affairs"? China has never been interested in pushing its ideology unlike certain actors today. And regardless of how Westerners feel about it, HK is indisputably a domestic issue, and Taiwan arguably so. There's never been any indication of China wanting to project military force abroad. Their stated aims of being a regional force in a multipolar world make much more sense.
I take great issue with Western portrayal of China as an antagonistic threat when it's the West that has done the lion share of provocation, the West that continues to believe it deserves a say in East Asian affairs.
Especially since Ukraine, being the leading source of neon, is also a sizable link in the U.S. semiconductor supply chain. Not quite as big ticket as TSMC, but big enough to serve as a useful gauge for strategists and planners.
Gen Z has little or no exposure to outright saber rattling. Just proxy wars, which globalization somewhat optimized for until realpolitik came back around to start biting once folks started understanding the soft power play of post cold war economics.
3 generation rule at play. We've got the direct witnesses of heavy geopolitical action on the way out.
The boomers->X->Millenial know the aftershocks, and at least know what didn't work for the "The Greatest Generation". Z and forward are a refreshing breath of fresh air in de-bullshitting, and have access the way more information than any previous generation had all at one time, but that's a vulnerability at the same time without strong bullshit filters, and a collective sense of both unity and the real. The Real* is not entirely a "here's your canned reality" from the media, but a collective and relatable ground truth experience that crosscuts the population. I'm afraid one thing we've really dropped the ball on is as teachers, and institutional raisers and propagaters of strong bullshit filters. Especially given the information augmented battlefield of today.
Definitely keep doing what you're doing though. Ain't no way to get the head for it but to do it.