That's the point. There will be no on 'policing' things (even imperfectly), and so anyone who wants to do a power grab will make an attempt.
"Those in positions of power do what their power permits, while the weak have no choice but to accept it." — Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 5.89
There will be no one 'policing' things (even imperfectly)
Pirates (like actual sea pirates, not kids downloading warez) definitely look forward to this.
Although, that's a specific part of the "world policing" role that I can see China stepping into.
They certainly have the manpower and the shipbuilding capacity, and they certainly have the incentive to protect international shipping so they can sell their goods everywhere.
I don't think China (yet) wants any part of the other bits of world policing, like deploying armies and/or funding proxy wars on the other side of the world.
For the forseeable future I think China mostly wants to stay as neutral as possible and make as much money as possible by selling as much crap as possible to as many countries as possible.
I don't think they want the US as an enemy. It's not good business for them.
I have a 100% unsupported belief that 100% of the public messaging from all sides regarding Taiwan is complete BS. I think that behind closed doors, all parties (except maybe Taiwan themselves) are working out a deal so that Taiwan winds up back in China's hands in the next 10-15 years without a war and everybody gets to save some face. I think that the CHIPS act, TSMC foundries on US soil, etc are all part of this process. It is the most mutually beneficial situation for the US and China: they get Taiwan; we get non-traumatic continuity for our chip supplies, everybody gets to save face, etc. (I'm not endorsing it or decrying it or even touching the morality or lack thereof)
> For the forseeable future I think China mostly wants to stay as neutral as possible and make as much money as possible by selling as much crap as possible to as many countries as possible.
China is thinking long term and building capabilities:
> Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself.
> For the forseeable future I think China mostly wants to stay as neutral as possible and make as much money as possible by selling
I think that you're probably correct, but that goal will be in tension with the corollary "... And Russia next door is buying lots of raw materials and miliary hardware, even at an above-market price".
Yeah, I think they're going to play a classical "make money from both sides" role. They'll titrate the amount of commerce they do with all parties so that everybody is equally unhappy but equally dependent on China.
china is playing the long game, because its leader (and/or whoever will come next) does not have to bother about being re-elected and essentially doesn't have to bother with political antagonists.
i'm not saying it's good or bad, but i think this is a thing that most people don't seem to be recognizing/acknowledging.
> I think that the CHIPS act, TSMC foundries on US soil, etc are all part of this process.
No one. And everyone.
That's the point. There will be no on 'policing' things (even imperfectly), and so anyone who wants to do a power grab will make an attempt.
"Those in positions of power do what their power permits, while the weak have no choice but to accept it." — Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 5.89