Far more Chinese leaders have spent time in the US than vice versa. Many top Chinese communists have degrees from US universities. I don't think you can find a single US politician or top civil servant with a degree from a Chinese university.
I am not saying that US politicians should go and study in China but the claim of equivalence in counter party understanding is just not true at all.
The Chinese hawkishness today is reaction to the changed attitude of Americans, they were (naively) hoping for the better all the way up to the Biden admin; the experiences of 90es/early 2000es drove China closer to the west regardless of the events you mentioned.
That is the newer generation who are a generation or two from power yet, this generation is even being delayed since leadership changes come during presidential changes, and Xi, the last leader to come of age during the cultural revolution, is holding power beyond ten years. Xi literally came in after Hu and said he wanted to make things more like they were under Mao, and not to make Mao a dirty word like it was under Hu. Also, Xi was the first monolingual president who never practiced as anything other than a politician (Hu, Jiang were foreign educated and practiced as engineers before going into politics, they could also speak English and/or Russian, Deng was famously intellectual). I don’t think people can appreciate just how much of a step back Xi was in terms of technocratic leadership for China.
China started its hawkish transition as soon as Xi became president, not during the Biden or Trump administration. Where we are right now was a result of gradual aggression increasing since 2012.
Top that off, Xi is the first (hopefully last) princeling president who brought in a lot of other princelings as well into senior leadership positions. I’m surprised this didn’t implode, and maybe either the technocrat approach had problems (not enough red family support?) or they are somehow coasting and building on achievements during Hu (probably a combination, Hu was really weak because he didn’t have red family support).
> I’m surprised this didn’t implode, and maybe either the technocrat approach had problems (not enough red family support?) or they are somehow coasting and building on achievements during Hu (probably a combination
The technocratic model was dependent on regional execution, and while some of the coastal provinces had fairly motivated and professional cadres, a lot of the interior regions had limited administrative capacity.
Xi's admin (most likely Li Keqiang) pushed a lot of QoL improvements like indoor plumbing, better quality of rural and vocational schools, more efficient distribution of direct benefits, etc but it's still very much a work in progress.
Also, Hu's model was definetly opposed by the "Red Family" due to the corruption and perceived undermining of the values of the Chinese Revolution [0], and they had the pretention of thinking they were much like the "Gang of Four"
Li Keqiang wasn’t a Xi ally and was constantly sidelined by him, being retired just before his unexpected death, and was replaced with a yes man. There are multiple red families and they are more like china’s aristocracy, controlling vast swaths if the the more boring parts of the private economy (like sanitation, taxi, real estate agencies, jewelry, etc…). They are each worth billions, and didn’t get there via civil servant salaries. The quickest way for a western newspaper to get blocked is to report on those numbers.
> There are multiple red families and they are more like china’s aristocracy, controlling vast swaths if the the more boring parts of the private economy (like sanitation, taxi, real estate agencies, jewelry, etc…).
Yep! There's a reason why I linked that specific reunion.
It was a who's who of the Red Families in 2011 (including Xi's), and it was there that Xi Jinping's leadership challenge to Bo Xilai truly began.
> Li Keqiang wasn’t a Xi ally and was constantly sidelined by him
Towards the end that's true, but Li still had plenty of autonomy in his role and a lot of the social reforms and poverty eradication policies that happened in Xi 1 and 2 were really similar to the policies Li promulgated.
> Many top Chinese communists have degrees from US universities
Most leaders with a US educational background were primarily part of the Hu Jintao administration.
No one in the current Standing Committee of the Politburo spent an extended (as in multi-year) stay within the US or the West [0] (attending Bowling Green or UI for a couple weeks to months is not enough time to truly understand the US) nor are they technocrats (Hu's administration was unique in the amount of practitioner Engineers it had in its standing committee).
> The Chinese hawkishness today is reaction to the changed attitude of Americans
It very much did start in the 1990s [1] at the policymaking level and remained an active part of Chinese planning [2] for decades [3][4].
I am not saying that US politicians should go and study in China but the claim of equivalence in counter party understanding is just not true at all.
The Chinese hawkishness today is reaction to the changed attitude of Americans, they were (naively) hoping for the better all the way up to the Biden admin; the experiences of 90es/early 2000es drove China closer to the west regardless of the events you mentioned.