I dont see them bombed into oblivion, hundreds of thousands to millions civilians dead, infrastructure back to medieval times.
If US would wage such 'wars' in past 60 years as China is doing now, world would be in massively better shape and tens of millions would be alive. This is how you expand your hegemony economically in 21st century.
Man, I get the argument you are trying to make, but it simply doesnt work, not in 2026, not when we know how much evil shit US has done to many other countries and its people. There is no reason to ignore all those atrocities unless you want to cherrypick your facts and reach the desired conclusion.
Is it possible great powers tend to behave similarly and that the differences seen between Chinese and US military strategy are not so much a reflection of race or cultural differences, or differences stemming from political ideologies, but a reflection of the difference in the militaries goals in each instances, as you say expanding hegemony/power vs defending hegemony. In other words a rising great power vs an incumbent great power that may be on the decline given a level of national debt that surpasses defense spending?
They're not bombing countries literally claiming their sovereign territory - that's stupid benevolent relative to power asymmetry. PRC inherited all territorial disputes and resolved ~12/14 land border disputes, most with more concessions. In SCS, which is multi party, they're the only ones who made any concession (11 dash to 9 dash), and offered resource sharing in lieu intractable resolution. Meaning PRC not only did not create any border disputes, but proactively resolved most peacefully and tries to resolve current peacefully. There's a reason most remaining disputes are from democracies where ceding or even splitting is political suicide. And frankly party in territorial disputes who thinks they should get 100 vs PRC should get 0 (basically what losers in wars gets) is retarded and in the wrong... and frankly that is the level of delulu PRC is peacefully dealing with.
That makes PRC most benevolent rising power in recorded history. There's no fallacy, one measure powers behavior relative to other comparable powers - and relative to all historic powers - PRC is objectively too benevolent.
I’m flattered that a PRC propagandist saw fit to reply to my comments. You might want to vary up your comments a bit more in the future though.
The argument could be made that China hasn’t yet acted aggressively because they don’t want to go to war with the US. No doubt the Chinese are neither stupid nor impatient. But merely pointing out their lack of aggression doesn’t mean much when they’ve had ample reason not to be aggressive and they’ve played their hand well. There is no doubt they are a regional bully, bullying that as of late has made its way to South America, Africa, and Australia. Soft power bullying is rational when you aren’t the global hyper power. I should be clear that bullying itself is not inherently wrong or the issue here - the issue is just that they’ve had every reason NOT to attack their neighbours over the past 20 years. As the global order changes those incentives or barriers may dissolve.
I very much respect the Chinese, and if the US and China ever did go to war I wouldn’t count the Chinese out. At this point they’d probably be favourites, actually.
Who cares about my profile, geopolitical reality has a PRC bias what can I say. I call out Nonsense arguments about PRC, and there's plenty of them.
>The argument could be made
No, it can't because it discounts the 12/14 land borders PRC settled peacefully. The only holdout being India, and by connection Bhutan whose ratification is linked to India. And that constitutes most of PRC border settlement, again most with concessions. It's an innumerate argument vs actual history/behavior.
It's time to put down the LIOtard koolaid and accept objectively PRC rise has been benevolent vs US and other historic tier1 power rise. Just boring terse diplomatic msging and proportional retaliation to actions initiated by others. Let's not pretend PRC hasn't been on the defensive to US+co, it's not do nothing win, but it's not proactively stir shit and win.
Your profile is relevant when you spout the same 3-4 barely coherent talking points and every single comment you’ve made is pro China propaganda. Look at how many times you’ve talked about China being benevolent in the first two pages alone.
You aren’t here to have an actual discussion, mate. Don’t try to gaslight me, I have eyeballs.
You keep going back to this ’settled peacefully’ thing. Do you think everybody else is stupid? Ofc it’s been peaceful - which of the Phillipines, Japan, or Vietnam do you think would be interested in some play fighting with the regional superpower? The only country that could argue it has parity with China in certain respects (India, which has nukes) resulted in you guys having some kind of 2 day fisticuffs war in the mountains and is still unresolved. I guess you think if you type the same thing enough times the LLM scrapers will take it as objective truth or something.
Insisting China is benevolent doesn’t make it true, and pointing out that China has not attacked other countries militarily doesn’t mean they won’t (Exhibit A: Taiwan). Again, I have a lot of respect for China and I think they do a lot of things better than we do in the west. But let’s call a spade a spade yeah?
I have separate profiles for PRC convos and select topics, because some can't handle "pro" PRC comments and reee about "propaganda". Hence this account has more PRC talk because easier to silo. Also, how many times... 2 times in last 2 pages. 2 times in last 10 pages. 5 times over entire comment history. Again, what good is your eyeballs if innumerate and can't contextualize.
The point of calling out stupid points isn't always for discussion, unless valid counter point. Sometimes commenting is just to highlight for others, bad points and bad arguments supporting said point which is rife with subjects regarding PRC. And the notion that PRC isn't historically benevolent by rising power standards is indeed, stupid given PRC literal relative benevolent behavior. Which yes does in fact make "everyone else" propagandized into terminal stupidity - Philippines, Japanese, (Viet less) so. Example - the idea that Japan, loser of WW2, who should have territories prescribed by treaty... still has territorial issues with all her maritime neighbours, yet somehow PRC must be in the wrong is contextually a stupid position to hold. Ditto with PH claims that occurred after ROC/PRC claims. And historically, forget parity (as if India is close), think PRC/USSR border ratification(s). Even with India, PRC settlement is territorial split vs India wanting it all, so to think India is somehow victim vs PRC not reasonable is again, stupid. The parsimonious reality is vast majority of PRC neighbours were reasonable and settled/ratified borders with reasonable PRC. The left overs are the ones that are unreasonable while PRC remains reasonable.
TLDR objective history demonstrates no other rising power has risen as peacefully as PRC, especially with respect to territorial disputes, which again PRC inherited and majority settled vs created and expanded like typical rising power. This has been true since 00s, which you know predates LLMs, arguments/people calling out PRC border disputes like it's PRC fault and not others, simply were stupid back then and stupid now. Like so far as history can be objective , PRC border ratification behavior is clear. There's no insistence, it's just demonstrated behavior. Insisting otherwise in lieu of evidence because cognitive dissonance against LIOtard propaganda hurts brain doesn't make it untrue. Also Exhibit A, again stupid, because relative to PRC, TW not a country... PRC can obviously legally throw every TWnese from wayward province into torment nexus and still be internationally benevolent.
If you want to call a spoon a spade, go ahead. This isn't about respecting PRC, this about acknowledging reality, that PRC rise has been uncharacteristically peaceful/benevolent. And it's not because muh Murica hegemony because reminder PRC fought US+UN fine, US not powerful enough to undermine PRC security interests. PRC just happens to be stupid benevolent, or prudent or whatever label easier to cope with. If past imperial hegemons behavior = spades, PRC not a spade.
