You need two to tango and both the US and China are dancing right now. Anyone only blaming one side need to stop for a second, take their US or China tinted glasses, and look again at the problem.
> Anyone only blaming one side need to stop for a second [...]
When it comes to military coercion (wars, threats), and imperialism, it only takes one bad actor to cause problems.
When there are two sides, or three, it just means more actors willing to push around everyone else.
Albeit, they amplify each other. Their respective needs to dominate encourage each others' aggressive tendencies. And it is much easier to justify/ignore/repeat misbehaviors when there are other aggressors to point at.
Sure, the US has their bases there (many since WW2), but we can't blame the US alone when we also have China making threats and claims that scare the heck out of other countries. The US doesn't need to move a finger to have Taiwan or Philippines on their side... these countries know what they're up against and will, for obvious reasons, want to have a "big guy" on their side.
In a few years China will not only have US bases around them, but also a handful of countries that won't side with them on anything. And that's how the next version of the "Pacific NATO" will be created... the US will of course take advantage of it, but it could not exist without a China that makes overreaching claims, threats, and their huge military.
Good point.
Year after year, China was outpacing the world economically in numbers and strategic position.
Their future appeared to have no ceiling.
But they self-sabotaged by reverting from quietly accumulating strength to loudly showcasing strength via consolidation & provocation.
Despite no pressing need, they amplified military risk, economic & technological friction, undermined trust & provoked intense global resistance. The strategic value they destroyed is immense:
Poof! The presumed “Century of China” looks very different now. More like another Cold War.
Commenter: "That's totally not evidence of being more militaristic, US just has more friends"
You just contradicted yourself. Having more military bases IS being militaristic.
Your metric is flawed.
No.
They're not saying that. You're making an illogical argument.
The mere fact you made three edits tells us that you know your "logic" just isn't.
Bases in Japan as a result of levelling all the major cities and using two atomic weapons .. "allies".
Call it what you like, the US has a habit of beachheading bases across the globe and never leaving.
1. Is America today more militaristic than the PRC?
2. Has America been successfully militaristic in prior generations including ones which are now dead?
Each requires different evidence, answering one does not answer the other.
2. Yes.
America has been sabre rattling about the South China Sea for two decades now, a sea named after China that China has sailed through for some 4,000 years.
Is it any wonder that China builds out a navy to defend waters off its own shores that America has crossed an ocean to patrol?
I'm not particularly anti-US, just an observer of the world and history in general. Post WWII the US has been number one and it wants to keep that crown despite China advancing faster than any other nation for the past decades.
The language used to describe and name things is vastly more powerful than people give it credit for. Just because the British were lazy in their administration and named it after something else nearby doesn't mean that the entire sea belongs to the current Chinese state.
"Off its own shores"!? Is that what the kids are calling it these days? [0]
As an "observer of the world", I suggest checking exactly how much and how far the PRC has been claiming exclusive ownership over waters that are closer to their neighbors' shores. (Neighbors with their own ancestors who probably did even more sailing.)
From the list I can see on Wikipedia, all of the nearby bases are in Korea and Japan.
More useful might be a map of US forces near China, not caring about who owns the base. And some comparable maps from the last 50 years to see how it's changed over time.
In any case, my point is that you only attribute fault to one side, when you have the other side making claims and starting to flex in front of smaller countries. Let's cut the BS here, that is not China playing nice and promoting stability.
It also doesn't take much to understand that the smaller, way less powerful countries that feel threaten will try to find allies. Who's the other big guy in the Pacific? Of course they want the US to be near them and on their side in case shit hits the fan.
This reminds me of Russia, which invaded Ukraine to keep it under their control, but then is surprised to learn that their actions made Ukrainians dislike them even more and are shocked that other countries that could rushed to join NATO. People like you course blame the US alone, missing the fact that NATO would crumble (like it was already happening) if Russia didn't make weekly threats about nuking European cities or actually invaded their neighbours.