In the 80s and 90s there was a lot of hostility to Japan, because they looked like they might surpass us economically. They were even the villain of some Tom Clancy books.
Now, the fear/hate is aimed at China, same reason.
There's more reason than that for Western hostility to China, not least of which is that it is an authoritarian regime with aggressive expansionist goals.
Let's also not forget the reciprocity of the hostilities.
Like reintegrating Taiwan and HK? Anything else? Tibet I guess? I thought China was generally satisfied with its borders, except for areas it feels were split off due to external interference.
There's a lot of areas that it feels were split off due to external influence. Arguably nearly the whole of east Asia has at some point or another been under some form of Chinese control. They are making extensive claims on the south china sea into waters contested with Vietnam and the Philippines. There are several small islands between Taiwan and Japan which are China claims (and more importantly the oil beneath them). There are a number of territorial disputes with India and Bhutan over control of parts of the Tibetan Plateau which are critical to the water supplies of nearly the whole of Asia. Additionally several border disputes previously settled between China and it's neighbors, such as Russia and the states of Central Asia, are likely to be reconsidered as Russian influence in the region diminishes.
China has also been proactively setting up claims to various exclaves around the world, primarily in the Indian Ocean and Africa. They've set up various "debt traps" where they lend money to build infrastructure like ports to nations that have no serious chance at repaying the loans, and should they default then China receives control. Additionally China is pursuing traditional overseas military bases in Burma, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Pakistan, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, and the UAE, in addition to bases it already has in Djibouti and Cambodia. Such bases are not in and of themselves expansionist, and probably are more about keeping vital trade links open, but increased ability to project power would be a pre-requisite for any expansionist goals in those regions.
So just give or take 35 million people, with Taiwan being integral to the world's chip manufacturing industry, and HK conquest violating the handover treaty. That's far from nothing.
Saudi Arabia is an unfortunate alliance as a pawn in the larger game against the more severe problems that China, Russia, and Iran pose, along with ensuring energy stability until we have better options. In a better world, we would never be friends with a dictatorship like that and their ideals. It's the less bad option, unfortunately. Snubbing all countries with problematic governments like Turkey, Saudi, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, etc. will quickly land you in a tougher situation to accomplish better ideals.
Saudi/Turkey are not invading a neighboring democracy to annex. Russia is and China is very much preparing to. There are 150k - 400k people dead because of what Russia did.
Of course, ostensibly. However, for starters, US hasn't been about real annexation since Hawaii 125 years ago, which is not the case for Russia/China that this thread has been about. Iraq was a very major fuckup, even though Saddam was an awful dictator and House Democrats voted against it. Afghanistan was a massive waste, but after the initial Bin Laden operation, was for the naive cause of actually making a functional democracy for the people there, without which women are currently uneducated property. Israel has the double sided problem of their far right wing wanting to annex West Bank while violence escalated 100x by the Oct. 7th assault. Not exactly a peaceful neighbor gets invaded to upend a stable status quo for decades...
You're aware that other nations also have narratives where their mistakes had good intentions, yet their opponents are dastardly?
Russia has a story of the west systematically stripping their influence from Eastern Europe, overtly and covertly. Despite being warned we were pushing it too far.
Clausewitz is the only one who's objectively right in the end.
While realpolitik and unfortunate compromises always have to be made in the arena of current geopolitics towards greater prosperity and lesser violence, you'd be mistaken to assume everyone has equally cynical goals.
Despite everyone wanting to boast about their good deeds and demonize enemies for PR points, some actors genuinely do a better job towards prosperity than others, and you fall prey to the worse evil by equating everyone just being selfishly bad. No one is even close to 100% good, but that means we need to highlight what amounts each actor does good and what they do bad; all of them.
> Russia has a story of the west systematically stripping their influence from Eastern Europe, overtly and covertly.
Poland broke off the old soviet chains and successfully integrated economic reforms to prosperity and trade with other successful western economies. Ukrainians are Polish neighbors and looked over there wondering "why tf are we so poor when the Poles are flourishing? Oh ya we still have these old soviet apparatchiks gouging our economy, let's instead make the western economic reforms a la Poland." Russia, being an 85% vote dictatorship and also a soviet apparatchik economy, realizes that just like Polish neighbors, having economically successful Ukrainian neighbors will cause average Russians to resent the exact same thing about their old stodgy economic oligarchs and ruin their golden tickets..."
There's a special place in hell for people who espouse "don't help Ukrainians, their government and economy is corrupt" when all they need is some support to take off the corrupt shackles, which they're trying to do, instead of abandoning them to remain strangled by the corruption.
For the record, I think the fair realpolitik compromise with Russia would have been to let them have Crimea, and they already had it before the invasion. Total mistake/disaster on their/his part.
I’m pretty sure Crimea will be ceded to Russia in the eventual treaty in exchange for NATO-like security guarantees for the rest of Ukraine, as unfair as it is. With how many Russians there are now, the enmity that will exist for a generation, and Sevastopol being a Russian base for a lot longer, I don’t think US diplomats see any realistic way they can materially support a retake Crimea that will lead to a stable situation. However that’s up to the Ukrainian people, which currently majority don’t want to cede it.
China has like ten times the population of japan, is now a dictatorship (like the roman republic, maybe?), the territory is massive, is a russian ally and a couple more reasons.
Why don't you address the clear differences of an authoritarian one party dictatorship that already materially supports the invasion and destruction of Ukraine, and an impending invasion of another 80 year sovereign country?
Now, the fear/hate is aimed at China, same reason.