Well, interestingly if you measure by how much China can buy for what it spends in RMB, compared to what the US can buy in USD, it's already spending around half what the US does.
And that is only what we can estimate based on their officially released figures. Moreover, this is all concentrated in one hemisphere, not spread around the world.
But in any case, I do not mean to hype China as a military threat; rather, to point out that it is entirely normal and predictable for it to grow its military proportional to its economic power - which your timelapse demonstrates nicely.
A better argument would be that the procurement system in China is less hopelessly corrupt than in the United States, meaning that the Chinese military buys fewer overpriced dillies such as the F-35, the Zumwalt, the Littoral Combat Ship, etc..
Of course, China doesn't routinely bomb other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts, same "full spectrum dominance", appoint the presidents of other countries, sanction willy nilly, or surround the world with military bases. In fact, the last time Chinese troops went into combat was 1979.
Compare with the US empire in that regard and look to the lumberyard in your own eye.
That is only because they are at a much earlier stage of empire than the US. Empires first establish themselves internally. Only later, when they have secured their internal power do they move outward. This has been true for every major historical empire.
Sounds like you need a more balanced and complete understanding of history. China has always been an empire. They have always called themselves an empire since the Qin, and their leader was always an emperor. Just because the current leader calls himself "Chairman" doesn't mean their nature has changed. Russia started on the path to empire with Ivan the Terrible. Czar is short for Caesar - emperor of the Romans. In fact, until the 20th century when it became unfashionable, they have always proudly called themselves empires. Empires are characterized by:
1) a core ethnic group which conquers and attemps to integrate (to various degrees of success) the other surrounding ethnic groups into a "greater homeland" and culture.
2) territorial expansion into other areas that benefit their interests.
3) a strong military and economic presense that is used to control or dominate other surrounding nations within its "sphere of influence".
The fact that Russia and China have a "sphere of influence" is undeniable proof that these are empires. Another sign is nations or ethnic groups resisting integration into the empire or who wish to leave it. Tibetan don't want to be part of China and have less in common with the Chinese than even Americans have with Canadians. The Islamic "Stans" of Central Asia and the nations of Eastern Europe have no interest in being integrated into the Russian Empire. This was also true of former empires like Britain and Spain. Finally, there is colonization. There are a million Chinese living and working in Africa protecting China's interests there. Belt and Road is the Chinese equivalent to the British East India Company - trade monopolization. Russia populated the surrounding conquered areas with ethnic Russian colonists. The history of Russia is essentially conquest of Central Asia and the suppression and integration of the indigenous nomadic population. Not much different than the US. Sounds like for you, history started in 1945 and comes from a left-wing academic textbook.
Since China doesn't have designs on territory occupied by non-Han, much less the "full-spectrum dominance" that the American Empire demands, China isn't an empire.
Russia has an imperial history, as does Britain, Austria and others. Wow.
I wonder for whom you work/who pays you? I have just read the first part of the three part series. Important have been overlooked or intentionally not mentioned. Also, some fact-checking is required: the Russian Federation did not invade Crimea (I assume you have heard about the Referendum?; the U.S. has not experienced any major conflict within its borders (really?); the 'Long Peace' is a myth---just ask any Serb, Syrian, Libyan, Afghan, or Iraqi; Xi's public statements have always ended in stating 'mutual respect'; China is one of he few countries noting that the UN is the only institution the world has for seeking international peace and cooperation. China and the Russian Federation are on the 'same page' and entered into an alliance because both realize that the 'west', led by the U.S., is untrustworthy and promotes totalitarian capitalism. One cannot speak about China without recognizing such things. RJ Anderson
That there is Upheaval there is no doubt, but it is an American and Western upheaval.
Also you may be starting the History in 1945?
The 20th century was more than World Wars and Cold War,
it was the Great Global Collapse.
Collapse of Empires.
1911 China
1917 Russia
1918 Austria
1918 Germany
1924 Turkey
1945 The Reich
1945 Japan
1948 Dutch
1956 England (Suez)
1962 France (Algeria)
1975 Portugal
1989 USSR/Warsaw Pact
1991 USSR
Nothing like this has happened since 1200 BC.
What we’re living through is yes the death of the American Republic as of January 20, 2021, and possibly the death of the American Hegemony, hopefully not to birth the American Empire. We are also seeing yes the death rattle of the Enlightenment.
There will be much more blood, and America is up for grabs. China is far away, entirely too far.
" The nature of power became cloaked in layers of moral euphemisms and humanitarian justification to the extent that collectively we started, in a sense, to believe our own propaganda about never exercising power as power. Simultaneously, a naïve ignorance about human nature emerged, in which it was forgotten that, in an unconstrained state of nature, people will inevitably take and do what they can, if they can..."
So good. Explains the 'magical thinking' that I find so prevalent- and so disturbing- in my progressive friends. Most of these people really do believe their own bullshit - and can't even see, much less acknowledge, that the breathtaking privilege conferred on them to be able to hold such a naive worldview comes courtesy of the liberal world order backed up by US military power and the blood of actual patriots. Infuriating is an understatement.
That's a completely meaningless definition of empire, and a false statement. China is no more than 60% Han, although that number has changed throughout history. China has been incorporating people to it's Han empire for 2000 years, and the vast majority not willingly. Tibet is not Han, Taiwan is not Han, and Mongolia is not Han, Bhutan is not Han, Xijing is not Han. This has never stopped Chinese territorial claims. Just like other empires, China wants naval dominance. What about those million Chinese in Africa? Africa holdings may not be outright territorial claims but China is now willing to defend them. That's called colonization. The British East India Company was a commercial venture with "private security" in India - just like Belt and Road in Africa. Just because you don't call it colonization doesn't mean it isn't. The world is good at playing "pretend" when they don't want to face reality.
Really great. Something worth thinking about, there's now an international imperial framework of NGOs and finance that's currently tied to the US, but China could easily step into the drivers seat
Your post brought to mind the recently published novel 2034. The story explores a military conflict in that year, between the United States and China, and serves as a cautionary tale of sorts. The audiobook version includes an interesting interview at the end with one of the co-authors, Admiral James Stavridis, who reflects on the current and developing state of the US military, and what it needs to focus on going forward.
Fascinating and substantive post Lyons. Definitely getting a better analysis here than any traditional sources. Looking forward to part 2.
Hearing this narrated masterfully by James Earl Jones would be amazing.
Do let us know when China starts spending even half what the United States does on its military and empire.
Meanwhile, take a gander at this:
https://howmuch.net/articles/trade-timelapse-usa-china
Well, interestingly if you measure by how much China can buy for what it spends in RMB, compared to what the US can buy in USD, it's already spending around half what the US does.
See: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/01/nominal-spending-figures-understate-chinas-military-might
And that is only what we can estimate based on their officially released figures. Moreover, this is all concentrated in one hemisphere, not spread around the world.
But in any case, I do not mean to hype China as a military threat; rather, to point out that it is entirely normal and predictable for it to grow its military proportional to its economic power - which your timelapse demonstrates nicely.
A better argument would be that the procurement system in China is less hopelessly corrupt than in the United States, meaning that the Chinese military buys fewer overpriced dillies such as the F-35, the Zumwalt, the Littoral Combat Ship, etc..
Of course, China doesn't routinely bomb other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts, same "full spectrum dominance", appoint the presidents of other countries, sanction willy nilly, or surround the world with military bases. In fact, the last time Chinese troops went into combat was 1979.
Compare with the US empire in that regard and look to the lumberyard in your own eye.
That is only because they are at a much earlier stage of empire than the US. Empires first establish themselves internally. Only later, when they have secured their internal power do they move outward. This has been true for every major historical empire.
Sounds like projection, starting with the idea that Russia or China are "empires".
Sounds like you need a more balanced and complete understanding of history. China has always been an empire. They have always called themselves an empire since the Qin, and their leader was always an emperor. Just because the current leader calls himself "Chairman" doesn't mean their nature has changed. Russia started on the path to empire with Ivan the Terrible. Czar is short for Caesar - emperor of the Romans. In fact, until the 20th century when it became unfashionable, they have always proudly called themselves empires. Empires are characterized by:
1) a core ethnic group which conquers and attemps to integrate (to various degrees of success) the other surrounding ethnic groups into a "greater homeland" and culture.
2) territorial expansion into other areas that benefit their interests.
3) a strong military and economic presense that is used to control or dominate other surrounding nations within its "sphere of influence".
The fact that Russia and China have a "sphere of influence" is undeniable proof that these are empires. Another sign is nations or ethnic groups resisting integration into the empire or who wish to leave it. Tibetan don't want to be part of China and have less in common with the Chinese than even Americans have with Canadians. The Islamic "Stans" of Central Asia and the nations of Eastern Europe have no interest in being integrated into the Russian Empire. This was also true of former empires like Britain and Spain. Finally, there is colonization. There are a million Chinese living and working in Africa protecting China's interests there. Belt and Road is the Chinese equivalent to the British East India Company - trade monopolization. Russia populated the surrounding conquered areas with ethnic Russian colonists. The history of Russia is essentially conquest of Central Asia and the suppression and integration of the indigenous nomadic population. Not much different than the US. Sounds like for you, history started in 1945 and comes from a left-wing academic textbook.
Since China doesn't have designs on territory occupied by non-Han, much less the "full-spectrum dominance" that the American Empire demands, China isn't an empire.
Russia has an imperial history, as does Britain, Austria and others. Wow.
Are you arguing China does not have corruption in its system for government procurement?
That is a silly inference from what I wrote.
I wonder for whom you work/who pays you? I have just read the first part of the three part series. Important have been overlooked or intentionally not mentioned. Also, some fact-checking is required: the Russian Federation did not invade Crimea (I assume you have heard about the Referendum?; the U.S. has not experienced any major conflict within its borders (really?); the 'Long Peace' is a myth---just ask any Serb, Syrian, Libyan, Afghan, or Iraqi; Xi's public statements have always ended in stating 'mutual respect'; China is one of he few countries noting that the UN is the only institution the world has for seeking international peace and cooperation. China and the Russian Federation are on the 'same page' and entered into an alliance because both realize that the 'west', led by the U.S., is untrustworthy and promotes totalitarian capitalism. One cannot speak about China without recognizing such things. RJ Anderson
That there is Upheaval there is no doubt, but it is an American and Western upheaval.
Also you may be starting the History in 1945?
The 20th century was more than World Wars and Cold War,
it was the Great Global Collapse.
Collapse of Empires.
1911 China
1917 Russia
1918 Austria
1918 Germany
1924 Turkey
1945 The Reich
1945 Japan
1948 Dutch
1956 England (Suez)
1962 France (Algeria)
1975 Portugal
1989 USSR/Warsaw Pact
1991 USSR
Nothing like this has happened since 1200 BC.
What we’re living through is yes the death of the American Republic as of January 20, 2021, and possibly the death of the American Hegemony, hopefully not to birth the American Empire. We are also seeing yes the death rattle of the Enlightenment.
There will be much more blood, and America is up for grabs. China is far away, entirely too far.
Not our problem, not if you live in America.
Although Mr Lyons does address the question of power- thank you.
As for tearing ourselves apart thats baked in, you see that’s what our elites want, and they always get what they want.
" The nature of power became cloaked in layers of moral euphemisms and humanitarian justification to the extent that collectively we started, in a sense, to believe our own propaganda about never exercising power as power. Simultaneously, a naïve ignorance about human nature emerged, in which it was forgotten that, in an unconstrained state of nature, people will inevitably take and do what they can, if they can..."
So good. Explains the 'magical thinking' that I find so prevalent- and so disturbing- in my progressive friends. Most of these people really do believe their own bullshit - and can't even see, much less acknowledge, that the breathtaking privilege conferred on them to be able to hold such a naive worldview comes courtesy of the liberal world order backed up by US military power and the blood of actual patriots. Infuriating is an understatement.
That's a completely meaningless definition of empire, and a false statement. China is no more than 60% Han, although that number has changed throughout history. China has been incorporating people to it's Han empire for 2000 years, and the vast majority not willingly. Tibet is not Han, Taiwan is not Han, and Mongolia is not Han, Bhutan is not Han, Xijing is not Han. This has never stopped Chinese territorial claims. Just like other empires, China wants naval dominance. What about those million Chinese in Africa? Africa holdings may not be outright territorial claims but China is now willing to defend them. That's called colonization. The British East India Company was a commercial venture with "private security" in India - just like Belt and Road in Africa. Just because you don't call it colonization doesn't mean it isn't. The world is good at playing "pretend" when they don't want to face reality.
Strong stuff and well put throughout, in each particular. The tonic we need.
Really great. Something worth thinking about, there's now an international imperial framework of NGOs and finance that's currently tied to the US, but China could easily step into the drivers seat
Another excellent post - comprehensive and thoughtful. Will be sharing this with many family members. Thank you!
Your post brought to mind the recently published novel 2034. The story explores a military conflict in that year, between the United States and China, and serves as a cautionary tale of sorts. The audiobook version includes an interesting interview at the end with one of the co-authors, Admiral James Stavridis, who reflects on the current and developing state of the US military, and what it needs to focus on going forward.