China Stops Publishing Youth Unemployment Numbers Amid Faltering Economy
taiwanplus.com
taiwanplus.com
Not to say that China doesn't have agency to correct its own mistakes or that their internal problems are on the US. Certainly a lot of their problems are on them and self-inflicted, from what I've read. But I still feel an escalatory mood from us in the west as well, which makes me uneasy.
(I'm also of course aware that Chinese hardliners are very dangerous and seem to want to escalate and may want to deflect from their mistakes with Taiwan and so on. Not minimizing this, but this is nothing we can control.)
Yes. Nothing America is currently doing is actively de-stabilising (we’ve mostly dropped the Uyghur issue, for example), just anti growth. Xi’s regime, meanwhile, is doubling down on destabilising policies both domestically and abroad. Hopefully China’s elites are smarter than Russia’s and grab the reins soon—it makes no sense for China to implode because one man wants to reach for a dubious legacy.
> this is nothing we can control
Unfortunately I think this is where you are wrong. Taiwan depends on a porcupine strategy for survival. That only works if the cost of invasion is kept high. War with the "west" (potentially including many of China's neighbors) is a significant part of keeping that price unaffordable.
First of all, having a credible economic rival, even if they are extremely aligned with your political values and culture, is still a threat. See how much the EU is attacked by the US political and media establishment. Europe is great when it is subservient to the US leadership, but the gloves come off when the EU starts leading in its own right.
Second of all, unlike the EU, China is very misaligned with the US in a huge number of areas. And if China becomes the clear economic leader of the world and vastly outclasses the US and EU, we will find ourselves living under a hegemonic China where the best policy for every country is the policy China wants you to have and the best government is a government modeled after China.
The US has had 80 years in this dominant role, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But if China takes on the crown, personal freedom will surely suffer globally.
Can you talk more about this?
For example, [0] The 1958 Convention on the High Seas set the rules around Maritime borders that most countries follow to this day.
At the time, the PRC was not a member of the UN, the ROC (i.e. Taiwan) was [1].
As a result, a current controversy is China's claim to large parts of the South China Sea [2]
Lots of issues like this emerge, since China sees itself as a ascendent world power who was unfairly excluded from decision making during the most critical parts of recent history.
The problem China is facing in pushing this narrative, to be frank, is that they don't exactly play nice with neighbors and potential allies, so the US happily comes in and allies itself with countries skeptical of China.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations
China is remarkably bad at diplomacy and external PR (whether it's overt or propaganda); their diplomats are mostly concerned with showing off to their bosses at home, which is why react to nearly everything with straight up insults. (i.e. "wolf warrior diplomacy")
I'm not sure they have a point. They were not nearly as powerful of a country back then. Here's the GDPs of several countries from 1960 to 1980[0]. I also literally have to remove the US because adding it makes it impossible to differentiate the others. 1960-1962 they were also declining. I mean we would laugh at Canada if they made a complaint about being "left out" (read: were able to participate but no one really cared) because Canada has no leverage.
To make matters worse, the analogy is more akin to being upset that your rich neighbor is not taking your financial advice while you are standing in front of all your savings that you have lit on fire and are actively searching for more cash to add. See the Korean War (1950-1953), First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955), Hundred Flowers Campaign (1956-1957), Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), Great Chinese Famine (1959-1961), Sino-Soviet split (1961–1989), Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), Red August, and so on. China was not a stable country at the time. It sided against the interests of the most powerful groups at the time (choosing Communism over Capitalism/Democracy), and to make matters worse didn't even align itself with the other major power that was opposing "the West" (USSR). OF COURSE China was "left out." It would have been insane to "include" them just the same way it would be insane to "include" Liechtenstein. It is also insane to be upset about no one taking you seriously when you were a nobody, even if you now became a somebody. It's frustrating, I get it, but it is a silly notion to think that your status today warrants others taking you seriously in the past. Those are two different people just as those are two different Chinas.
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=1981...
The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.'
Many more people fought for the Allies in China than those that left for Taiwan.
Both matter, but more importantly, both are highly correlated. But you're right that GDP is being used as a proxy for a much larger picture that is much more difficult to quantify. My point is really that at the time China was in a downturn and deeply unstable as it was remaking itself. That at that time they had no business being a major player and would be at least as silly were Canada to make a similar complaint.
Everyone agreed China should be a major player, the West just chose a government in exile to represent them.
In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't?
I encourage you to study WWII a bit deeper if you think China was merely a peripheral player.
Yes, because 1) Taiwan sided with the major powers (democracy/West) and 2) one could make compelling arguments that Taiwan was more stable.
Obviously there is more to this. And my take is far from being centered around GDP. I specifically mentioned that I was using it as a proxy for a larger evaluation that was happening. I do not feel compelled to make this explicit a third time. You're going to have to read more than the first paragraph of my first comment to make a meaningful response, especially when your reference to the Second Sino-Japanese War adds to my comment, not detracts. I was just focusing on a different period. It is not a productive conversation is you ignore 80% of my claim.
1) The major powers were not all Western and Democratic (as you admit).
2) Stability is not a sufficient condition. Being a representative of the country that won WWII is. You brought in GDP, I'm just telling you that's completely irrelevant. China (as one entity) won WWII and the majority of Chinese people and GDP still existing in Mainland China after the PRC/ROC split.
3) I understand the logic as to why people in the 50's chose ROC over PRC, but I am just trying to tell you that the PRC does not agree with that logic as is their right as a sovereign nation.
Maybe where we disagree is that you assume all people who fought for the ROC in WWII fled to Taiwan (and therefore the people living in the PRC had nothing to do with winning WWII?). FWIW that is not true.
In practical policy we are very aligned - see Ukraine etc. etc.
The EU actually causes problems for the poorer countries because they have to be in a fiscal union with Germany.
I want to push back. A threat to your status, but not necessarily a threat to the world. Best friends can also be fierce rivals. That rivalry can make them grow to be better (when they try to out do one another) just as much as it can destroy them (when they try to dismantle the other's gains). The difference is in the style of competition. If you naively think things are zero sum (for some reason this is rather popular), then you can only gain by another's loss. If you recognize that the systems are positive sum, then you can both rise and grow.
As an example, it is like how it is good for everyone that AMD is now able to compete with Nvidia. It is even good for Nvidia! Total GPU sales are going up and the advancements mean we can place them in more devices and do more with them (these make it positive sum. Sales and share price of __both__ stocks go up!). But it wouldn't be good if Nvidia or AMD were sabotaging each others hardware. That would be a net loss for everyone, including Nvidia.
The problems here are that 1) our interests are not aligned, 2) we treat the global market as zero sum (when it isn't), 3) we are jealous and would rather our neighbor be miserable with us than see them grow or work to improve ourselves to compete.
Yeah, it is. That's what the last 50 years have been. Globalization is a lot of things, good and bad.
We accept university students from around the world and have the top universities (ironic considering our pre-college education). The advantage to us (US) isn't just brain drain, but that those that return are vessels wherein we export our culture too[0] (the reverse happens too btw, but pressure is lower and thus tends to be more selective).
Exporting labor and manufacturing isn't just about making products cheaper. This also helps poorer countries grow and escape poverty (name me a largely prosperous country who is not a significant player in the global market?). Growth (under capitalist theory) happens through the exchange of goods and services, not to be confused with money which is just the proxy for that. China's rapid growth and status today __could not__ have happened without the global market's export of labor and manufacturing to them.
The issue is we all get trapped in our local thinking. We have our own agendas, want to be competitive, and due to this forget how we actually got here and how the underlying mechanisms work. Sure, there was greed and selfish behaviors operating under these systems, but there was also charity and selflessness. You can find whichever one you are looking for, and that part is key.
But now China is rising to be an economic rival of the US, not a economic ally. Were it the latter, I'd wager we'd outwardly be congratulating China on its success (as we had in the years past, and in some sense still do), but behind close doors be competitive. Similar to how the best of friends can also be the fiercest of rivals. Competition is not inherently malicious. But give where we're at, there's two perspectives (realistically more, I'm simplifying) that one can take that are both equally valid and mostly true (they need not contradict). On one hand you can see China as acting as someone who bites the hand that feeds it. China of today would not exist without the west and especially the US. But on the other hand you can see China rising to power despite the US's dominance, that the west was handing over scraps which can be seen as taking advantage of China. Certainly the West in some respect has taken advantage of them, but also China did not need to play in the global market and _could_ have (idk, who does) without the "scraps"/"funding" that the West gave to it.
Of course the US is nervous about a rival, they would be even if friendly. They should be. But if allies I think we would have been better able to focus on our own faults rather than pointing fear (no country is perfect. All have growth. Growth is more difficult when you're at the top. e.g. it is harder to obtain new knowledge through research than reading a book). But that's not the China we see. And maybe that's also the US's fault in some sense. There are many players and it is never one entity performing all actions. Even bad trades have to be accepted unless you can make a good argument that a gun is placed to their head (is a bad trade still "bad" if you'd be worse off without it? Fairness is a very tough subject that's incredibly complex. Way more than we give credit to).
So I'll make a plea. Let's remember that a rising tide rises all ships. That all our countries can prosper through __healthy__ competition. We are able to rise to a post scarce utopian world __if__ and __ONLY IF__ we, the people of our countries, want to make that happen. They have to convince us that we are enemies. But I remind you, the difference between you and me is smaller than between us and our respective leaders. People may be dumb, but a person is smart. People may be mean, but a person and community are kind. Do not miss the trees for the forest, and make sure that you don't escalate any fires. Every decision made in this world starts with something small. Every complex object is built from simple small instructions that simply compound and grow over time and scale. Do not confuse yourself thinking that "I am only one," for you are one and each one is important to this machine built through chaos. Chaos means a small perturbation can have a large change in outcome. Remember that power. You may not be able to control the seas, but you can build a damn and you can build a harbor. Those too have large effects, even if you don't see it. Remember that your ideas are infectious. Like a virus (meme) they capture others. If you like an idea, you have the choice to be a spreader, even a superspreader. The power of social media gives us that capacity, but nature doesn't care which virus wins. People may not be able to choose which virus wins, but you, a person, does. We're only 6 degrees from one another. A pyramid scheme's failure is our advantage. But fear and lies are unbounded in simplicity, while truth is not. This is our disadvantage.
== So that is our choice moving forward, and I want everyone to think about this very carefully: ==
the decisions we are making __now__ will dictate if we go to war and THOUSANDS or even MILLIONS of people die. ON BOTH SIDES. Friends, families, loved ones. Our countrymen as well as just dang old human beings. Each life is precious. It is a negative sum game. Not just for lives, but economics and prosperity. Pillaging may make you stronger, but the world benefits from two healthy competitors more than it benefits from one. You didn't add anything to the world, you only took something away (your rival). We can stop adding fuel to the flames now. We __have__ to stop adding now, because the more we add, the harder it is to remove. It compounds. It already has compounded a lot. But unless we have a time machine, then the best moment to act is now. This is my virus, and I hope it infects.
That is our choice: utopia or (a chance at) "winning"
[0] China has been very successful circumventing this. Deng took great risk when doing this. Not just re-encouraging the creation of an intellectual group, which they had just dismantled only a decade prior during Red August. But there is a reason you'll find Chinese students tend to self-isolate much more than students from other countries, even when those countries have a relatively large local community (e.g. Indians). That insulary nature is encouraged to depress cultural exchange.
In reference to this article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/01/china-graduate...
As for manufacturing, my guess is that factories don't want to hire college graduates for those jobs (why would they stay?) while there are fewer kids from the country side to take them on. China's rising urbanization rate has a disadvantage.
Plus China has a huge amount of trade schools.
If anything, it is slightly undereducated for its current GDP per capita [1]
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-years-of-schoolin...
East Asian culture bias towards scholarship. PRC academic reforms increased tertiary enrollment from single digits to 60%, which at PRC scale is currently ~10m new grads a year, with ~9x bias towards STEM (~5M/yr) / S&E vs US.
Meanwhile culture looks down on bluecollar work, new gen wants to credentials to push paper in air conditioned offices, like almost every where else. And they are willing to wait - PRC (especially urban) has one of highest house hold savings rate in world for stay at home kids to fuck around. Until they can't, hence broad unemployment ~5%. Hence youth unemployment eventually resolved - people resign to do work they don't want to - again like almost everywhere else. Last/next few years PRC society has been/is dealing with academic inflation that west has been dealing with decades prior. Society is eventually going to have to recalibrate expectations while state elevates prestige of blue collar / vocational work, which is happening.
More broadly, the talent mismatch / demographics layer PRC currently dealing with:
1. manufacturing / skilled blue collar shortage - TLDR is qualified (prodominantly) migrant workers are aging out, or accumulated enough wealth to chill in their houses bought in 3rd / 4th tier cities and finally ditch migrant life.
2a. PRC tertiary graduation rate is still working off early 2000s cohorts of 12M+ births per year vs current 9+. It's simply a stupid fucking amount of new high skilled jobs to create. (Urban) youth unemployment stats being pulled because we're in graduate season of one of the largest tertiary cohorts into slower post covid economy and unemployment likely to reach 40%+. Which btw counts 18-24yr actively looking so realistically 10-12M out of 33M (urban) youths entering workforce (total urban youth 96m), total youth including rural (~150m).
2b. Now consider at PRC scale of current ~12m new graduates (tertiary + skilled programs), even with 50% youth unemployment, that's 6m new youths entering workforce. For reference US adds ~2M youth job around summer. This is why west should be fucking terrified PRC youth unemployment is only 20%. Or 40%. Or 50%. That and PRC unemployment is 5%, meaning most youths end up working anyway, because that's life, when you have to work, you work. Add on fact that employement in strategic sectors that directly competes with advanced economies are doing fine. TLDR is PRC is broadly leading the talent gap game.
The more important point from above is understand is current high % of youth unemployment is symptom of everything WORKING MOSTLY ACCORDING TO PLAN. PRC demographers / family planning goal was for resources/education to focus on cohorts of 1-2 kid house holds to build up PRC skilled talent workforce (currently still ~25% vs 60/70/80% of advanced economies). The goal was always to absolutely SPAM the shit out of high skilled talent production for next phase of PRC development beyond manufacturing. But customary to PRC, everything state focus on = excess overcapacity. So the problem is having too MUCH talent, which is different than having too LITTLE. More specifically having too much stubborn talent. All those credentialled PRC unemployed youths are qualified to work in fairly well compensated factory jobs, but won't because they don't want to. Reverse is not true, west has generally skilled talent shortage, that humanities major can't work in a semi factory because they stimply can't. IMO this is a problem will largely sort itself out, because PRC has surplus youths with access to work they can do but won't do out of pride. And by an large, the cultural system ( live at home) supports it, i.e. PRC parents especially wealthier urban are fine with their kids fuckarounditis at home sending out resumes instead of working that temporary menial job. Which is a very different problem than most of west having surplus jobs that their youths can't fill. Also helps not having 5+ figure student loan debt or car/rent expenses that force youths in some societies too work.
Govt Statistics in China treat vocational programs (usually an extra year add-on to vocational high schools) and 4 year programs as "College", while statistics at least in the US don't put community colleges in the same bucket at 4 year programs.
Realistically, the percentage of 4 year degree graduates in China is probably around 8-12% instead of the officially stated 18% (factoring in Zhongkao sorting rates).
Mind you, this is still amazing progress for a country over 20 years (going from around 10% of all students enrolled in some kind of Tertiary education in 2001 to 58% of students in 2020), but there is plenty of work to still be done as quality is unevenly distributed.
A big issue is the lack of respect for non-traditional students. A lot of China's human capital issues could be resolved if employers were more open to hiring students from "Open University" type programs (the Israeli model is a good example, unlike the British one which still has a negative stigma) as well as part-time or distance based programs, as well as removing the ridiculous Zhongkao and Gaokao filtering system.
"Lying Flat" apparently is making a comeback. But, it is an old idea in China. A big theme is that skill and effort are not rewarded. Connections are. So, young people see most other people meagerly getting by after busting their ass from the moment they could walk and talk. But, they also see children of well-connected Party members living in luxury and excess as spoiled brats since birth.
Another theme is that while it is hard to make good money, isn't hard to live very, very cheap in major Chinese cities if you cut down to bare minimalism. So, a lot of young people are apparently saving up for mini-retirements where they just drop out for a 2-3 years at a time, because why not?
How much is Xi like Putin? How much does the CCP want reunification (regardless of reason, internal or messaging)? How much will they attempt to distract from their economy slowly collapsing? I cannot say. I can only share my thoughts on how to best prepare in order to derisk. Can't change the weather, find shelter until the storm passes.
In response to this a turn towards authoritarianism is greatly facilitated by creating an external enemy that can provide purpose, whilst also providing an outlet and reason for why things are going poorly, and forcing people to rally behind a leader. All these things combine to make attempting to attack Taiwan very appealing for the CCP and Xi.
The problem is the US has to stick to Taiwan, because if we don't hold fast in Taiwan then we also lose Korea, Japan and possibly Singapore as an ally.
Things look grim for all involved. I only pray we can figure out a way to peacefully navigate this, because a war of the scale being discussed is going to be globally devastating.
After seeing Russia's disasterous show in Ukraine, the 2nd best military in the world right now is China.
But that says a lot. Those exercises they do encircling Taiwan are plans at best and in the words of Muhammad Ali, "everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face."
Any attempted invasion would mean the end of China.
That is too definitive. As you say, it really depends on what happens, it could mean the end of China, which is why I'm hoping the PRC doesn't even try, but they could also succeed without much resistance if the Americans stay put in the ryukyus and the Taiwanese can't offer much resistance.
The only reason the rest of the world is concerned about Taiwan is the strategic importance of Taiwan for chip manufacturing, other than that there isn't much. Of course everybody would wring their hands and make speeches but I highly doubt WWIII would start over Taiwan. But if Russia invades Poland or the Baltics (even by proxy) all bets are off, and this is one of the things that I consider still very high on the likelihood scale, that there will be a large provocation from Belarus towards NATO with Russia pretending it wasn't them.
The US letting China successfully invade Taiwan means the loss of Japan, Korea, and Singapore as allies.
Not to mention , it is also a historical mark that American hegemony in the Pacific is over. This isn't something TPTB are willing to accept or allow. Such an invasion is the precursor to a hot nuclear war almost immediately with China becoming a pariah state over night.
At a baseline Taiwan gets the same love and support Ukraine gets while America begins fielding jets and carrier groups from both Guam and Japan.
A build up on amphibious vehicles would be visibly apparent in the coasts for weeks leading up then they'll have to cross 80 miles of ocean. It was obvious Russia was going to invade Ukraine. China won't be able to do a surprise attack.
The US may not have a choice. They would have to be willing to escalate to WWIII levels to stop it and that may - depending on who is in the driving seat - a lot more or less likely. My guess is that if the Republicans win the next election cycle that the chances of Taiwan being invaded go up considerably. Note that wars are started because countries turn inwards and are ended because countries realize that without a world to operate in they themselves can't function. Plenty of lessons reinforce that. The Republicans and the people that would rather let Ukraine be overrun have significant overlap and if and when they come to power again there will be serious trouble, with the magnitude of the trouble directly related to how willing the USA is to continue to lead NATO. Note that there are plenty of voices that the US should stop supporting Ukraine from the right side of aisle and that that alone could be a green light for Xi to move on Taiwan.
> Not to mention , it is also a historical mark that American hegemony in the Pacific is over.
That's not that important, the US is able to project power around the globe from its own continent with ease. The question is whether it is willing to use that power. The moment the credible threat goes out the window there will be a free for all.
> At a baseline Taiwan gets the same love and support Ukraine gets while America begins fielding jets and carrier groups from both Guam and Japan.
Yes, because the US needs Taiwan right now. But if they no longer need Taiwan then that support may well evaporate, and Japan, Korea and Singapore are all painfully aware that it may not last. For instance there have been longstanding talks about Japan rearming.
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/16/1143017026/japan-defense-spen...
Japan is concerned both about the Chinese and the Russians.
> A build up on amphibious vehicles would be visibly apparent in the coasts for weeks leading up then they'll have to cross 80 miles of ocean.
Yes, which they could do in a few hours, and there is absolutely no way that the US will make a first strike on the Chinese fleet in international waters with nuclear - or any other - weapons. Only when they cross the line demarcating the Taiwanese coastal waters would there be a green light for action, my guess is that that action would be mostly concerned with making sure that there wasn't any reason to continue with the invasion because everything of value was destroyed. It would be a useless victory.
I'm fairly sure that Xi - and Putin - are both surprised at the degree of support that Ukraine has received to date - too little, in my view - and that the effect on the Russian economy has been very strong. And the Russian economy was less dependent on the West than the Chinese one. So that more than anything is what is probably signalling that invading Taiwan isn't going to end well for the invader. But that may not stop them from trying, though I still consider Xi to be a more rational leader than Putin.
The US has never led NATO. None of it's Secretary positions have ever been American and it was formed from two European-power instigated treaties combining into one, specifically requesting US-backing during the enjoinment process. It has had a preeminent position in military positions (SACEUR, prominently), for fairly obvious reasons, but even many of those have been pared back since the cessation of Cold War hostilities (mid-90s).
Discuss American hegemony and it's pros/cons however you like, but at least get basic facts correct if you're going to do a "deepdive" into geopolitics.
That would be MAD, I doubt the USA would go that far. But a couple of aircraft carriers and a few F-35s and F-22s...no problem.
MAD was only really a problem in the 60s and 70s when delivery systems were fuzzy and they were going for a wide berth.
A nuclear exchange today would be much more precise. Not a complete volley to glass everything.
Not to mention, anti missile tech has been black tech for years. Here's a video of a mkv defense tool made by Lockheed back in 2008 https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM&pp=ygUhTG9ja2hlZ...
This is the stuff they show off. Imagine the stuff they haven't shown yet.
I am not worried at all.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121227050836/http://www.defens...
US foreign policy has changed drastically. That document is 11 years old and isn't even on the DoD's site anymore.
Stick to evaluating tech companies, because geopolitics ain't your strong suit.
50% of Americans couldn't point out Taiwan on a map. they don't give a shit, and after 20 years of fighting two pointless wars the US public isn't keen on pissing away blood or treasury to defend someone else's freedom. they're certainly not going to risk WW3 / MAD.
the correct choice is what is going on, to hustle fabs and fab construction out of the country, and then jam them full of anti-ship and anti-tank missiles. just like with Ukraine let them bleed the Chinese out and piss away heaps of troops and cash fighting in Taiwan's mountains.
I expect an invasion would be triggered if the US were to significanty expand the Taiwan Relation Act, or intitiate a new mutual defense treaty.
I still can't believe this, even locals didn't take it serious when Russia put troops on the border of Belarus in the late Spring and early Summer when Isreal and Palestein where bombing eaching other so it loss the covers.
I was in Ukraine in the Fall, during the Belarusian and Polish proxy war and crossed the border and even the Polish President felt it was very likely to lead to escalation. It was so surreal, and I cannot explain it, but it was almost overnight how the sentiment changed when that happened in W. Ukraine.
I'm not a sage at these things, but most don't realize that after large economic catastrophes (like COVID was) that nation's are prone to go to senseless wrs in order to keep their imaginary bookkeeping afloat. Russia threw the entire sink at this in order to justify it, from nazi pedophiles to liberation etc... and most Russians (barring the short lived protests and subsequent exodus) just went along with it--I should note that WMD-fevor took the US and led it down a long road of apathy as well.
Still, it was more sureal what happened after the invasion; lots of Europe just went on like it wasn't happening. People still went on vacation, races in Europe still went on etc... this was all on the backdrop of the Russians occupying and digging up Chernobyl and shelling Zaporizhzhia (Europe's largest nuclear plant). And then blew the dam and caused the largest man-made environmental disaster in living memory and the war just went on.
If I'm honest, I'm still processing this and it's still utterly insanity to me that this is taking place in my Lifetime after having heard 'never again' being forced down my throat since I was a child and being told that immense sacrifice was made in Europe so this would never happen again. But in reality was inevitable because the West keeps funding these despots and allowing corps to offshore to them to labour arbitrage in the futile attempt of 'endless efficiency' or what ever BS they sell it as and then seeing the light and drafting legislation that creates windfalls for them Domestically in the end anyway.
Again, it all feels Kafkaesque and I don't know how to remedy this melancholy and depressing listlessness that comes with it.
Has Humanity really sunk this low?
To be fair the conventional part of the Iraq war was an overwhelming victory and even if we look at the entire period between 2003 and 2011 less than 10x American soldiers died than just Russians alone in the first year of the war in Ukraine. The number of casualties on both sides just seems inconceivable high compared to any war any(?) western power fought in since Korea.
Less Americans died during the entire 15 or so years in Vietnam. During the Afghanistan war (which supposedly had a significant role in bringing the USSR down) the Soviets suffered at most half as many losses as just in a year now...
Considering all of this I find the general apathy of most Russians extremely bizarre... If Russia really suffered over 250k casualties there must be several millions of people whose family members or close friends were killed during the war yet nobody seems to care that much.
The internal attacks on military and recruiting facilities before and especially since the mobilization order last year suggest some people care very much.
The only surprise was that they actually went ahead with what they were clearly threatening to do for months (the attack only came months after that ultimatum, in late February 2022).
We keep forgetting that in the past, people also didn't go to war just because they had nothing else to do, it usually occurred because of completely irreconcilable differences. The only way this won't happen in the future is if we avoid getting to that point in the first place: there is always a point where "fight" is the only way forward, unfortunately.
But with both Ukraine and Russia almost completely unwilling to back out of their respective positions, the very disagreement that started the war is going to continue and they will remain in "fight" mode... with both saying "nope" to any negotiations until one of their militaries is almost entirely obliterated and it's plain as glass that the fight cannot continue and they are forced to accept the other's conditions without restrictions. Most wars end with something in the middle - as both sides eventually realize that full victory is just not going to happen... they eventually come to a compromise! But in this case, for both sides to get to that position is likely to require huge destruction first, which we are already seeing and getting "numb" about, which is horrible of course (yes, humanity is still the same old killing machine, incapable of sorting its disagreements without shooting at each other).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_20...
More people forget that Russia gave NATO an ultimatum in 2008 regarding giving MAPs to Georgia and Ukraine, and when NATO complied by not doing so, just as Russia demanded, Russia immediately invaded Georgia, and once that conflict went from active to mostly frozen, immediately invaded Ukraine as soon as they again didn’t have a Russia-compliant leader.
And the same people seem to forget that the ultimatum in 2021 was during the war of aggression launched in 2014, not before a conflict that started later.
If you actually want to understand the problems with the Russian invasion-pretext demands at the time, there's https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473362460673515527
This was not one of those times. If you look at the demands in the ultimatum, Ukraine actually just had to NOT do anything (e.g. do not continue process to join NATO).
First, this ultimatum was after (by 7 years) the beginning of rhe invasion, not before.
Second, the content described is false. In fact, while the threat was implicitly directed at Ukraine, and that’s where the escalation of the ongoing war occurred, the ultimatum’s demands were directed largely at other countries: it demanded that NATO make a binding commitment not to admit any new members (with no time limit) especially Ukraine and Georgia [0], and that NATO make a binding commitment not to deploy additional non-local troops in existing NATO member-states, that NATO withdraw troops and infrastructure from states, including NATO members, that were former members of the Soviet Union, that NATO recognize a special Russian role in ensuring stability and security among the former Soviet states, that Russia receive international guarantees of respect for its sovereignty and territorial security, including over Crimea (which it was illegally occupying and had claimed to annex) and the Donbass (wherr it was sponsoring separatists but had not yet formally claimed to annex), and the establishment of a moratorium on short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe, and reforms of the OSCE.
[0] this part alone was an major expansion of the 2008 ultimatum not to offer MAPs at that tine to Ukraine and Georgia which, when NATO acceded to when it was made, Russia immediately invaded Georgia.
The Russian demands amounted basically to getting the guarantees they "believed" they had when the USSR collapsed but that were never fully accepted by NATO [1]. I agree they were unrealistic, as to make such demands Russia would need to actually have the upper hand militarily, which it hasn't had even before it was still the USSR. However, saying that they were unacceptable offhand was a clear sign that NATO didn't respect Russia even enough to sit and have a talk. That's the modern equivalent of defenestrating [2] the Russians. They knew they wouldn't get all their demands, but probably expected to get "something" (perhaps a new Treat with Ukraine that ensured it didn't join NATO - would that be better than a multi-year war?? I say absolutely!!) - but all they got was a big fuck you. Invading Ukraine was irrational, I totally agree with that as clearly it would cause a huge divide in the world that just didn't need to come back, but after being thrown out of the window when approaching for negotiations, I suppose that's not exactly unexpected.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220222223845/https://www.nato....
The fact that the Russia-compliant leader was democratically elected, and was removed from power not by democratic means, but by a revolution in which one side was directly supported by Russia, and the other by the USA [1] shows that the situation is much more complex than that.
> And the same people seem to forget that the ultimatum in 2021 was during the war of aggression launched in 2014,
That's true and the fact Russia was prepared to do that after Ukraine started going directly against its interests should have shown that they were absolutely not afraid to start a war over the issue, and Ukraine knew all too well it was playing with fire by continuing on the exact same path. Are we going to just pretend that when your country has just lost a huge are to a larger neighbour who doesn't like the direction you're moving towards, that the right thing to do is to double down on that direction and hope that you'll have the support of your neighbour's enemies when conflict eventually comes is a sustainable way to govern?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Foreign_...
Please illuminate me: what have I said that has been debunked?
The fact that they invaded Georgia, during Xi's Olympics no less and did it again in Ukraine during the Winter Olympics, after the West capitulated and the 'separatist' argument was used to justify this abomination [0].
The same was done in '14, and then in '22 to justify it's illegal annexations and war; nothing Russia has done in good faith and their pretext for war is something akin to 17th Century 'well I want it' decree from a monarch, which is what Putin has made himself to be in Russia looting from it's people and then killing them in senseless wars.
People seem to forget that a lot of Ukrainians are actually part Russian, and it's not only the Russian speaking parts either (though now no one will will speak it after this atrocity) which is what makes this genocidal mess even more absurd.
Your Pravda speaking points are like that of the Russian propaganda you'd see on TV that make Russia seem like the victim, when in fact the West was completely fine with Ukraine sliding into insolvency fighting Russia on the East while the EU got cheap gas/oil. It's really messed up, but Purin's inept geopolitical blunder is what made the West unify and finally step up and commit to actually doing something after neglecting the Budapest memorandum.
I cannot say for sure why you are doing this, but it's clear you are either exposed or entirely believe this BS propaganda; this senseless war ends tonight if Russia leaves Ukraine.
They won't, they are far too deep and want the Donbas even if they leave it a smouldering heap like Bauchmut; but if it's true that Wagner troops are returning back to Russia from Belarus after the Kremlin stiffed them on their pay they likely have another coup in their midst, and this is in addition to troops being sent to the front line with no training or equipment pay etc... That is more likely to end the war in my view, it just leaves a horrible power vacum not unlike that of Gadahffi's Libya, or Hussein's Iraq and always leads to chaos.
Honestly, this will be seen by posterity as a 'how to f-up your natural resource rich Nation' 101 by Vladamir Putin; it should be mandatory reading and taught in all schools because this kind of BS shouldn't be tolerated in the 21st Century. It's sad Russians are so easily placated by propaganda into utter apathy--the calls from these people's relatives held as POW is spine chilling, the jaded side of me lets me think it is so bleak that it makes dying in a pointless war almost sensible alternative from their lives in Russia from their perspective.
0: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/HUDOC_38263_08_Ann...
2013, the Maidan Revolution had very clear motivations to oust the Russian links and when Yanukovych was being ousted bodies were being piled up in Kyiv; the fighting in the Donbas region took place with Putin's little green men afterward, but the first shots and casualties were felt in Kyiv. I highly recommend Vice's Russian Roulette series, how it never won a Pultzer for it is beyond me; I was dealing with the Maidan Revolution from the Bitcoin side and then eventually the Come Back Alive campaign and they covered so much of the minutia of that conflict it was really commendable--they were the first to go into Crimea and do investigative journalism into the financial dealing in the annexation and documented the migration of Crimean people to Western Ukraine,
And I agree with what you said, Russian never intended to do anything but exert its geopolitical muscles and had no intention of peace agreements despite the rhetoric-- the peace deals in the onset where being conducted while Russia was bombing residential buildings in Kharkiv and committing war crimes in Bucha, Irpin, Sumi!
But I need to take you back even further to 1994 and the Budapest Memorandum where Russia vowed to retain Ukraine's borders and agreed not to invade as the signees (US, UK) all signed to protect it and subsequently looked the other way during the invasion of the Donbas/Luhansk while simultaneously dealing with hyper inflation and capital controls. And Germany and the rest of the EU valued cheap oil/gas more than Ukrainian lives.
I really hate to say this as I'm anti-nuclear proliferation, but History has shown time and again that even a pariah State like N. Korea gets to do what it does because it is a semi-nuclear armed nation. Ukraine should have never trusted the West or Russia and kept maybe even 1/8th of the arsenal just in case there border's integrity were challenged.
Putin's Russia cannot be trusted, and the sad truth is that there is no one who really could replace him: Medvedev is his puppet and is even more insane with his rhetoric and Lavrov is a senile old kook who lives in a fantasy World that no one wants anything to do with. Alexi was a proponent of the 2014 invasion, too. And I'm not even going to touch on Prigozhin.
Nadia from Pussy riot could be a unifying voice/figurehead given her outspoken activism and alliances with the Westand sympathies with Ukraine, but she knows f' all about Geopolitics or how to deal with a crumbling economy marred with plutocrats/oligarchs in every sector with some of the worst standards of living and crippling fertility rates (even before the invasion). It's just sad... and to be honest the fact that Belarus and Russians are fighting on the Ukrainian side makes me hopeful that their is a contingent willing to sacrifice to oust the Putin regime, but what comes next is not clear and that is what worries me most.
Taiwan is an island though. Which makes it significantly harder and costlier to invade. Even without direct US involvement occupying it militarily would be never tricky (as long as Taiwan doesn't surrender in the early stages) especially if they don't want to raze every building/factory/etc. to the ground.
for example, Ukraine cut off the upstream water supply and power to Crimea and Russia marshaled troops to demand they get turned back on. it did, discussion over, troops go home.
the real kicker, IIRC, was that the Red Cross/Red Crescent confirmed reports that there had been requests for a blood across Russia, and that they were delivering a lot of blood to the front. something large, like 5000 units or more. exercises can sometimes see casualties -- live fire drills involve risk -- but not 5000 units of blood level of casualties. donated blood is also only good for like 30-40 days, so if it was moving they planned on using it...
there will be similar signals before a real shooting war with Taiwan kicks off.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Tai...
- China's grim demographic trends mean that there will never be a better time than now: it only gets harder, with fewer fighting-age men available, the longer they wait.
- The "decade of concern" [0] means that the U.S. armed forces will be uniquely unprepared to defend Taiwan in the 2020's and early 2030's because of a generational equipment overhaul, but will be better-positioned after that.
- China is very aware that America's huge industrial mobilization for WWII is what pulled it out of the Great Depression.
- The years of 10% annual economic growth are gone - not even necessarily because of mismanagement (although there's been plenty of that too), but because growth eventually taps out to developed-country levels. War is excellent for shoring up stagnating support with both the general public and hardliners.
[0]: https://scholars-stage.org/welcome-to-the-decade-of-concern/
I don’t think this is a valid point.
1. China’s economy is not anywhere near as bad as the US and the Globe in the Great Depression
2. Despite the fact people say this fact, it’s debated among economists if this is true. Many say the production of the war just “hid” the economic issues and that the depression didn’t truly end until after the war.
And most importantly:
3. That is very anecdotal. There are many many many examples of nations in economic turmoil and a major war making things way worse. See: Russia in World War I
If it is generally feasible to use war as a way to fix an economy, why can't nations just declare war on an imagined enemy (eg. shoot nukes at Mars or send stormtroopers to the Moon)?
Arguably the space race was just doing that, but it didn't seem to fix the economy of the Soviet Union.
In the case of WWII, it seems to me, as a layman, the post-war dominance of the US came from the fact that the US didn't engage in the war until the very end, and economies of other developed nations were simply decimated by the war and recovered less quickly than the US.
Maybe war can boost GDP numbers in the short term, but it's quite obvious that from history, at least if you lose a war, it's going to set back your economy, and in no way going to make it better.
I guess it used to be true back in the ancient times when you could sack cities steal all of their stuff and enslave the entire population (well.. at least those you didn't murder anyway).
Not sure this really applies too almost all industrial wars to any degree. Of course there might be some indirect benefits, like wars generally make political/social/economics reforms much easier (which I guess might be both a good and a bad thing)
That is exactly Putin's playbook for Ukraine.
A single tank is probably worth more than whatever you can loot from at least a medium size village (maybe even a small town) in Ukraine. Stuff just isn't worth that much these days compared to the 100s BC.
I'm not sure that was ever the case since at least 1990. In fact the complete opposite, Russian GDP per capita was always at least 2x larger than Ukraine's. It was even almost 4x higher just before Russia started the war in 2014. Of course Russian GDP is/was heavily inflated by fossil fuel and raw material exports but still.. Ukraine was and is a very poor country by European standards (basically in the 90s and 2000s they had all the corruption etc. Russia had if not worse just without the oil/gas revenue).
> world's grain production has value
Yes, but but being able to sell gas and oil to Europe economically has much more value. And well, I'm not saying that people don't have "economic value" but people who hate you and don't want to be part of your country can possibly have negative value.
I just don't see how could this war could've ever been economically/financially "rational" unless putin was utterly delusional and certain that they could decapitate the government in Kiev in a week and install a puppet regime without any western sanctions.
Let's not pretend Ukraine doesn't have its own oligarch problem. They just had less to work with so are less globally prominent.
> I think it would work out in favor of Ukraine
With current exchange rates and the whole situation it's hard to say, but in the 10 years prior to 2022 the average wage in Russia was also about 2-3x as high as in Ukraine. Yes, Russia has more inequality but the median Ukrainian was still poorer.
While the actions of Russia and it's government are of course evil (even to a cartoonish degree..). I don't think it's wise to over idealize the situation in Ukraine. Even before the invasion it was the poorest country in Europe. It was also one of the most mismanaged ones over the last 30 years as well (and not just because of Russian influence they have a huge amount of internal issues, especially corruption). That's not something you can change in a few years and Ukraine will still have a huge way to go after the war is over.
Let's not pretend it is even close to what's happening in Russia. That's just another whataboutism play, Ukraine (nor any other Eastern European state) is lily white but Russia takes it to another level entirely.
> With current exchange rates and the whole situation it's hard to say, but in the 10 years prior to 2022 the average wage in Russia was also about 2-3x as high as in Ukraine. Yes, Russia has more inequality but the median Ukrainian was still poorer.
Where did we switch from 'average' to 'median'?
> While the actions of Russia and it's government are of course evil (even to a cartoonish degree..). I don't think it's wise to over idealize the situation in Ukraine.
I don't. But Ukraine was clearly on the way up and if not for the earlier invasion they would likely have been further out of the hole already. Not unlike say Bulgaria or Romania, but still poorer.
> Even before the invasion it was the poorest country in Europe.
Yes, the Russians had done an excellent job at destroying the country. But still, it had a lot of promise, and was progressing.
> It was also one of the most mismanaged ones over the last 30 years as well (and not just because of Russian influence they have a huge amount of internal issues, especially corruption).
In part because of ongoing Russian efforts to destabilize the country as well as an invasion. You can't just wave that away. Corruption is a problem in lots of countries, including many Western ones. What complicated matters is that just like in some other former SovBloc countries there is no solid framework for governance and the clock is as likely to tick forward as it is to go back. This is a real problem and solving it will take time and effort and I'm not sure if the Ukrainians would have been able to get that particular daemon of their shoulder, judging by how Romania and Bulgaria have done I am doubtful, especially about the larger scale.
> That's not something you can change in a few years and Ukraine will still have a huge way to go after the war is over.
That's true, but - ironically - Russia will now have a much, much harder time of it and they too were at some point well underway. Talking to Russian emigrees is painful, they are very much aware of the fact that their country had a window of opportunity to shake off the past and that they'd missed it, and that this is going to get a lot worse before it has any chance to get better. It must be highly frustrating to be in their shoes, to see your home country dissolve into absolute chaos without any ability to do something concrete about it, and all at the behest of a few thousand criminals.
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. "Whataboutism" about what? Local oligarchs and extreme corruption are huge issues in Ukraine and have been holding it back more than Russia before the war. And yeah, corruption exists everywhere but there not that many places (in the developed world) where it's even close to being as bad.
> Where did we switch from 'average' to 'median'?
That doesen't change the point.
> In part because of ongoing Russian efforts to destabilize the country as well as an invasion. You can't just wave that away.
I'm not. Ukraine has been in a terribly state pre 2014 as well. Russia shot themselves in the foot (or their economy anyway) back in 2014 but by then the gap between it and Ukraine was already huge.
> Romania and Bulgaria have done I am doubtful, especially about the larger scale.
Economically Ukraine is now where Romania and Bulgaria were back in 2005 or so. Yes Russia is obviously the main problem currently but it's not the only reason Ukraine is (and was back in 2014) 10-20 years behind pretty much all other ex-soviet/socialist countries in Europe besides Moldova.
I've spent a lot of time (many years) in former Sovbloc countries and I've seen up close how tremendously corrupt those countries were before the wall fell and how much heavy lifting had to be done to begin to undo the many years of erosion of the will and the hope of the people there to make a serious change. Poland and the Czech republic are the success stories, everybody else, including Hungary is still suffering tremendously in the present and I'm not all that sure about Poland in the longer term either. The scars run deep and they are plentiful.
Ukraine has one better than expected given their history and proximity to Russia, as well as Russia's continuous attempts to interfere in their affairs in an attempt to turn Ukraine into another Belarus. Russia had another option: to play nice and to decrease the wealth gap but the fat cats wouldn't have it, they only know how to rape and plunder, wealth creation isn't even in their vocabulary.
You can't solve the corruption issues before you have a functioning democracy and you can't have a functioning democracy whilst your 10x larger neighbor is doing its level best to destroy your political systems.
I don't think this is particularly relevant, national economies functioned very differently back in the 30s. Also the US incurred a massive public debt, with a debt-to-GDP ratio that hadn't been reached until COVID and the late 40s were a bit shake economically until the post-war boom started in the 1950s.
The main reason the war was "good" for the economy is because of the massive debt funded stimulus which probably would've been utterly unfeasible politically during peacetime (but in general making things just to blow them up is not very productive).
Considering how globalized and interlinked modern economies are I don't see how any possible benefit from industrial mobilization could outweigh the loss of international trade with most Western Countries.
Also it's not like you can just take a random car factory and retool it to produce modern tanks/etc. in a few months like they could in the 40s. IMHO any "war economy" type industrial mobilization would be closer to the great leap forward than WW2 just because of that.
Clarification: massive debt-funded stimulus that went into productive capacity is good for the economy, once you stop blowing up the stuff you produce (as you point out), since the productive capacity is retained.
Massive debt-funded stimulus that doesn't move the needle on production, a la Covid stimulus, isn't so good for the economy.
How many Western countries are CCP-infiltrated to the point where a VIP Taiwanese could be at risk even there? Canada for example seems to be completely beholden to the CCP, from the Prime Minister's Office down to city-level CCP police stations. Also, Canada is famously lax on violent crime so a quick car accident or getting one of the persons with extraordinary judicial privilege to kill you is all it takes.
If you're a politically important person, well, good luck if war breaks out.
During times of peace, the risk isn't as great -- I know a couple "VIP Hong Kongers" who are still abroad and alive (and not like, living in a super reclusive lifestyle), and if CCP wanted they could do the things you mentioned. AFAIK it's generally considered something of a last resort since the CCP wants people to view them as civilized and respecting the rule of law (I know this isn't their image in the West, and they're trying to change it, with mixed success). Which is why I think it's only a real risk if war breaks out.
For China to execute an invasion, or even just a blockade, requires a lot of preperations that will be easily visible on satellite images. It'd be easier to see coming that Russias invasion of Ukraine, and if you remember the US told us with near certainty that Russia was going to invade just before they did.
Most people with insight into Taiwan-China relations consider a blockade the likely first move. Perhaps even the only viable one. Considering the number of US citizens living/working in Taiwan, they'd probably escalate slowly in a way that would signal foreigners that they should leave the island. If no US citizens is hurt in the first strike, there's a chance US won't bother getting involved. But if China, without any warning, just lobs some missiles at major cities, and US citizens gets killed, what do you think the result would be?
Seriously, we've been through this before the last time DPP was in power. The moment KMT was elected the aggressions stopped. If you look deeper at their signs of aggression, it becomes clear they're mostly for show. To keep DPP and its voter just scared enough to not make major moves towards formal independence.
You know when you should actually get worried? When China starts to pick small winnable fights aimed towards training their military in real conflicts. They have zero practical experience. The PLAs last real fight was their skirmish with Vietnam that they lost with great humiliation. They need to escalate gradually to weed out issues caused by corruption and complacency. And Russia has now shown that even that might not be enough when it comes to the final big conflict. The problem for China here is that they have no viable small neighbors to pick at. Maybe Kinmen and Matsu islands, or some of Taiwans tiny remote islands with military bases. But that's very risky because it'd likely make people think they've triggered a full conflict with Taiwan which would trigger a rapid arms build-up in Taiwan along with possible crippling sanctions against China. Ideally they'd pick a fight somewhere else to make people think they're not yet focused on Taiwan. Like Russia with Georgia and Syria.
China's viable strategy for taking Taiwan is just a giant contradiction: they need to go straight for Taiwans main island in a surprise attack in a way that minimizes the chance of US involment to have a remotely decent chance of success. But that excludes the possibility of gaining real practical experience they desperately need for that very same invasion, and it maximizes the risk of collateral damage to innocent US citizens.
Speak for yourself. I'm not a member of the cult of the always upward line. Regular people don't really benefit from this growth.
And in the US, do you remember 2008-2010? That's what no growth is like. It means you don't have a job.
Only when paired with unlimited immigration, population is on the decline otherwise, no job growth plus a falling population is a great situation for workers.
No growth may be good for retirees. It's bad for workers though.
Ask low skill workers how that's been working out for them. The effects of this positive demand hasn't made it to them, instead they control less of the economy year after year.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-immigration-doesnt-reduce-...
The bottom 10% of US workers have seen faster wage growth than anyone else starting in 2019, and through 2022 were the only people with wages growing faster than inflation.
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/
That's why I said 2008 - because it's not 2008 anymore:
Most countries impacted during that time period (South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Russia, Mexico) were on the preceipice of becoming upper income countries (similar to China today in 2023).
All those countries saw growth stagnate and stall. South Korea and Taiwan only became "developed" in the 2000s and advanced economics in the late 2000s/early 2010s, while Mexico and Russia became developed economies around the 2010s before regressing due to the commodities collapse, and Malaysia and Thailand only recently became "developed" in the 2020s.
All these countries had a 20-30 year slog after hypergrowth (Russia excluded) in the 70s-90s. Some decided to invest heavily in human capital (eg. Taiwan, SK), others lagged in the 90s but ended up making it a national priority in the 2000s (eg. Malaysia, Thailand, Russia), and others were unable to prioritize human capital development (eg. Mexico).
I joke, but you see something like that happening sometimes (a ghost mall is constructed, never used, torn down, turned into something else that is never used, etc...).
When America's GDP was middle income, it had high GDP growth also. We made the mistake of extrapolating Japan's GDP growth as if it wouldn't taper off as Japan got rich, which meant, in 2020, Japanese would be twice as rich as Americans. That never happened, of course, because it doesn't really work like that.
The Fed estimate for Q3 is 5% (annualized). Q1 was 2.1%, and Q2 2.4%. So, a YoY of 3% or so is not inconceivable.
Not quite 4.5% but for instance, if the US GDP would continue growing on average at 1%, while China grew at 5%, China would still need 30 years to even reach 50% of the US's GDP per capita.
This kind of combination has the power to make serious trouble for the rulers. If there is one thing Asian leaders fear then it is that the mob one day wakes up and realizes they are in power. Tianmen Square was close, the next time it could well be the real thing and I'm fairly sure that Xi et al would prefer an outside uniting force or enemy over having to deal with a revolution which they certainly would not survive. China has been long overdue for one, and even though the typical sentiment as long as the economy is good is that they should get a pass changing conditions could well flip that on its head and unleash something that won't be that easy to contain. Time will tell. Hong Kong was pretty ugly, but mainland China saw it as a strong move, they may have seen that as a possible try-out for what the West would do if they start to bully Taiwan for real.
But, can someone please tell me if "faltering" here just means "slowed growth"?
If so...
Analysts talking about "slowing growth" as if it's a bad thing does my head in. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it?
Step 1: analysts cry wolf and say growth is slowing. Step 2: them asses withdraw their investment. Step 3: growth now slows so much that it flips and goes the other way (negative growth / shrinkage)
Expect some ratcheting up of tensions with Taiwan, India, Japan, etc. Followed by picking on a perceived weak adversary and a short conflict.