Why is China our intractable enemy, that we should salivate for war with (economically at the very least, perhaps militarily)? I’ve yet to see you offer anything but the vaguest suggestions on this question. Is it that there’s bound to be a brutal global hegemon, so it might as well be us? You believe that global dominance by a superpower is inevitable, and you prefer the dominion of US elites (convenient that you happen to be a member of the US elite, albeit a fringe one) rather than Chinese elites? Grandiose, zero sum, thoroughly neoconservative thinking.
You seem to believe China is perfectly happy to allow Western democracies go on being democracies, and does not seek to collapse the world into autocracies that do not present a cultural threat and example that a potentially unsettled Chinese polity could use as inspiration for rising up against it. Xi Jinping is not looking to "agree to disagree" on democracy. You are fool if you think this is his default stance.
I think it's important to take an evidence-based approach when evaluating the nature of the Chinese threat to America and the broader democratic world order. Rhetoric about ideological warfare can too easily outpace actual behavior and historical precedent.
First, if you study Chinese history carefully, you’ll see a consistent pattern: China, as a rule, does not seek to project power far beyond its immediate region. Unlike Western colonial powers or the United States, China has never built a global network of military bases or launched campaigns of territorial conquest across oceans. Their foreign policy posture has traditionally been regional and defensive, focused on sovereignty, internal stability, and border security.
Consider that even Russian control over parts of historical Manchuria—territories lost during China’s “Century of Humiliation”—has not led to ongoing border conflict or serious territorial demands from Beijing. If China were aggressively expansionist, these long-standing Russian claims would be a natural flashpoint. Instead, China has chosen stability and cooperation along that frontier.
The situation with Taiwan, while deeply unfortunate, is best understood through this lens. The One China policy has been a cornerstone of Chinese national identity for decades. The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country, nor do the United States or most other nations officially. Taiwan’s rise as a distinct political and economic entity occurred during a period of significant Chinese internal weakness, civil war, and foreign occupation. If China had remained strong and unified through the 20th century, Taiwan likely would never have developed independently in the first place.
To use an analogy: imagine if, during a period of American weakness, Key West managed to break away and declare itself an independent nation. Would anyone truly believe the U.S. would just accept that forever? China’s desire to reunify with Taiwan—even if we disagree with the method—is rooted in a belief that Taiwan is part of its sovereign territory, not necessarily in a mission to destroy democracy.
As for the South China Sea disputes, it's worth noting that every major nation in that region has overlapping claims—Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and others—not just China. While China has been assertive, often to the point of provocation, their motivation isn't ideological conquest. Much of it revolves around resource security, especially safeguarding critical energy shipping lanes like those through the Strait of Malacca. Given that over 80% of China's imported oil passes through that bottleneck, it's not hard to understand why they treat it as a vital interest.
Furthermore, consider the military record: China’s last major war outside its borders was in Vietnam in 1979, and it lasted just a few weeks. Since then, while the U.S. has been involved in multiple major conflicts across the globe, China has largely kept its military ambitions in check. There is no strong historical or current evidence that China is trying to overturn the democratic order globally in the same way the Soviet Union sought to do during the Cold War. China trades with democracies, invests in them, and benefits from global economic integration. If they are playing a long game, it appears to be economic and strategic, not militaristic or ideologically revolutionary.
All that said, none of this excuses China’s internal repression or its behavior toward minorities and dissent. We should continue to call out abuses and offer refuge and opportunity to any who seek freedom—including, if necessary, Taiwanese innovators and citizens should reunification ever come under duress. But war over Taiwan would be catastrophic, unnecessary, and not supported by international law.
In conclusion, while we should remain vigilant, there is little evidence—either historical or current—that China is an aggressive, expansionist power bent on toppling democracy around the globe. Strategic competition? Yes. Ideological war? That remains largely speculative.
Mike I think you are very bright is that the best you can come up with? I have a history and law degree. These are not talking points they are history. If you disagree with my analysis, I would appreciate a more thoughtful rebuttal. I think the many points I raised deserve better.
Adding my own two cents to Ed's, this is a thoroughly empty response. On the vaguest of accusations, you're arguing that we're in the middle of WW3 with China, already this very moment. You won't (whether here or elsewhere that I've seen) sketch out even rudimentary details of your preferred path forward, but you most certainly haven't cautioned against all-out military conflict, or suggested any alternative paths toward peaceful (if perhaps uneasy) coexistence, gradual thawing of tensions and improving of conditions. When receiving pushback, you offer the laziest, content-free replies.
You're clearly an intelligent thinker--I want better from you! As it is, your advocacy here is deeply irresponsible and unserious. Childish, even.
You mentioned China's loss of territory to Russia, but failed to follow it to its logical conclusion with respect to Taiwan. The fact that China does not pursue reunification of that lost Manchurian territory (which it clearly has a historical claim on, as opposed to Taiwan, where the claim is tenuous at best) shows that it is lying about its motivations for wanting Taiwan.
Please indulge me. Why do you believe the claim to Taiwan is "tenuous at best" as far as I can tell, legally culturally and historically China's claim is rock solid.
Two independent lines of reasoning. 1) The CCP has never controlled Taiwan. How about China? First, I would argue that the idea of a unitary China is somewhat of a myth, propagated by the CCP to justify its control of Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, etc., similar to the myth of a unitary Chinese language (with many dialects) as a opposed to the linguistic reality, which can be better described as a group of many related but distinct languages, with relationships to each other similar to, for example, the relationship between romance languages. Even if you buy this story of a unitary China that has supposedly existed for 5000 years, as opposed to the messy reality of many cultural and linguistic groups that have fought for control of an ever-changing geographical territory, I would describe the claims of historical China on Taiwan as tenuous. Prior to the ROC (that is, the current government of Taiwan) taking over Taiwan in the 20th century, Taiwan was a colony of Japan from 1895 to 1945. Prior to that, the Ming and then the Qing dynasties controlled parts of Taiwan's coastal areas, but never all of it. And so did the Dutch, and briefly the Spanish. And never mind the original inhabitants of Taiwan — the many aboriginal groups, many of which survive to this day. I view the CCP's claim that Taiwan is a part of China as propaganda which ignores the complex reality.
2) Even if I granted a historical relationship that justified China's claim on Taiwan, I must admit a bias toward recognizing a people's right to self-determination. There comes a point at which a nation has existed independently for such a length of time, when the people of a nation have known nothing in their lifetimes other than the separate and independent nation that they call home, that suggesting that this independent and thriving democracy actually belongs to the authoritarian bully nextdoor just sounds ridiculous. Especially when the majority of the people identify as Taiwanese, their family histories in Taiwan going back centuries.
I admit that I am also biased by a personal connection to Taiwan. I can't help but be angered when an authoritarian nation threatens the peace and freedom of the place I call my second home.
Thanks, Democracy Cat — I genuinely appreciate your passion and personal connection to Taiwan. The human and cultural realities are, as you said, deeply complex, and there's no denying that what’s happening now is tragic in many ways. I don’t take lightly what’s at stake for the people of Taiwan. That said, from a legal and geopolitical standpoint, I still believe China’s claim is rock solid — and it’s worth unpacking why.
1. The Legal and International Consensus
You’re right that the CCP never ruled Taiwan — but the CCP wasn’t even in power when the international consensus about China’s territorial sovereignty was established. After WWII, every major global power, including the United States, recognized that there is only one China. The ROC (now in Taiwan) was ousted from the mainland by the CCP during the Chinese Civil War — a war that did not end in a formal peace treaty. Taiwan thus became the final stronghold of the losing side. Politically, the ROC became a rump state — not a new, independent nation.
Even the UN doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a separate country. The People’s Republic of China holds the seat for “China.” The international legal framework, for better or worse, overwhelmingly supports China's position. That doesn’t mean it’s morally satisfying, but legality and morality often diverge.
2. Historical Continuity
It’s true that Taiwan has had a patchwork of rulers, including the Dutch, Qing, and Japanese. But during the Qing Dynasty, Taiwan was recognized as part of China, albeit lightly administered. Yes, it was lost to Japan in 1895 — precisely because China was weak at the time. Japan’s imperial expansion took advantage of that, just as it did in Korea and Manchuria. Post-WWII, Taiwan was returned to Chinese authority under the ROC. That’s the key transition point that most countries, including the U.S., recognized at the time. The “one China” framework is not a CCP invention — it was a postwar international consensus.
3. Taiwan’s Boom and the Quicksand Metaphor
Much of what Taiwan is today — economically and politically — was made possible by decades of U.S. military and economic support, partly as a Cold War outpost. But that support came with a cost: political ambiguity and strategic vulnerability. Taiwan’s position is like a beautiful house built on quicksand — stable only as long as outside conditions allow. That’s why the U.S. should focus on two things:
Transferring chip and tech production to U.S. soil, to mitigate any future disruption.
Creating a path for Taiwanese citizens to relocate or integrate economically with the U.S., if conflict becomes inevitable.
The hard truth is that Taiwan is not sustainable as an independent military entity against China. A direct U.S. military defense could spark catastrophic escalation. No one wins in that scenario.
4. On Manchuria and the Russia Comparison
You mentioned China’s historical loss of land to Russia and its seeming disinterest in reclaiming it. But there’s a key difference: Taiwan is not just a historical claim — it’s a living, ongoing territorial dispute where no sovereignty transfer ever formally occurred. Russia’s Far East is, for better or worse, internationally recognized as Russian. Taiwan is still in limbo — and that’s precisely why it remains so contested.
Ultimately, you can support Taiwanese self-determination in spirit — as I do — but still recognize that from a legal, historical, and geopolitical angle, China’s claim isn’t propaganda. It’s the tragic conclusion of a civil war the world never helped fully resolve.
You’ve got this almost completely backwards. A big part of the reason China is such a “threat” to the US is that it’s exposing the lie that endless war and empire makes for a more peaceful and prosperous domestic stage. What exactly are you proposing re: China? That the US try to crush it by whatever means necessary? And you expect that effort to go, how exactly?
You’ve shared that thought with me already. I’m not a campist. I’m a western classical liberal who regards the US empire as increasingly inimical to liberalism.
I think I would rather have the US stay the dominant power, there being at least a chance of reform of the system, rather than an autocratic China with zero chance of reform. There will be an inevitable reaction to Trump and then there will be an opening for systemic change. The worst outcome would be a diminished US that is an autocracy itself.
The alternative was what? Our entire circumstance was created by the elites who have ran our institutions since at least 2008. There are SOOOOO many variables the author leaves out of his short piece, which I will give him the benefit of the doubt was meant for brevity. This would include and not be limited to other geo-political actors opposed to China (India); the damage done to our allies own markets if they begin selling off dollars or treasuries (owe the bank 1000 that's a problem for me, owe the bank a million that's a problem for the bank); our opponents own debt issues; the lack of soft power for China; the deep, historic animosities between China and Japan, or South Korea; many allies will prefer to wait Trump out, see if the next administration is different.......or simply that China miscalculates - they attack Taiwan with a military strike that is incompetent like Russia's and every Pacific nation gets CLOSER to the US instead of cutting a deal with the new hegemon. (A) Yes we are in big trouble; (B) these problems were created by everyone BEFORE Trump; and (C) never bet against the Americans.
Are you suggesting that what Trump is doing is the only viable strategic option available to the American civilizational project? Because if so, that's a facially stupid position.
Fascinating - gave you credit for not covering all of the details as a function of brevity - you respond by calling someone who took the time to read your work as stupid (at least by implication). This immediately discredits your talent and intellect. You must be young. Nothing in my response suggests it is the "only" alternative -simply emphasizing that the elite way of thinking - which your article implies a return to traditional statecraft before it's financially too late - is what got us into this mess in the first place. There was nothing about our past efforts that were sustainable, none. Zero. We didn't renegotiate at the end of the Soviet era Cold War, 1991 - and now a shock to the system might be the only thing that will work. Maybe not, probably not, but the existential crisis is not Trump, but what came before him. And I offered a few alternatives which you did not refer to - Trump could pivot to India, the fact allies can't necessarily off-load holding our paper, and that Pacific theater countries have more than just financial reservations regarding accepting China as their new master. Most importantly, prying Russia away from China (which the elites have tried to prevent). Having said all of the above - thank you for taking the time to reply.
Thank you for the follow-up—and for taking the time to engage seriously. Let me offer the same in return.
You’re absolutely right to surface the broader historical failures of elite statecraft post-1991. My project does not defend the status quo ante as morally or strategically coherent. In fact, I’ve written extensively about the liberal center’s failure of imagination and the hollowing of our institutions under a performative managerial class. You’re not wrong that the cracks in our system began long before Trump.
But here’s where we part company:
You mistake the critique of Trump’s present actions for a defense of the old regime. It’s neither.
I’m not calling for a return to 2012 neoliberalism. I’m arguing that the very existence of a stable democratic order requires strategic coherence—both morally and institutionally—and that Trump’s approach is not just reckless but disqualifying on those terms.
You call what Trump is doing a “shock to the system.” Fair. But if you want to shock the system to save the republic, the burden is to show that your shock increases strategic clarity, economic resilience, and institutional legitimacy. Trump’s tariffs, his deliberate antagonism toward our closest allies, and his embrace of strategic ambiguity toward adversaries undermines all three.
Let’s walk through the concrete points you raised:
India? Yes, I’ve explicitly argued India must be a civilizational partner. But Trump doesn’t understand civilizational dynamics. He understands transaction, and Modi understands that.
Dollar selloff risk? Sure, it’s mutualized risk. But Trump is accelerating incentives for de-dollarization by antagonizing allies and introducing uncertainty to global markets. It’s less “owe the bank a million” than “torch the bank and see what happens.”
China’s own liabilities and miscalculations? Absolutely. But our strategy can’t hinge on their incompetence. Betting your republic on the hope your opponent fumbles is not grand strategy—it’s wishcasting.
Russia? I agree: the West’s refusal to imagine a post-Putin Russia in dialogue with Europe is a generational error. But Trump’s vision of rapprochement is incoherent—it’s not driven by realignment logic; it’s driven by grievance and personal affinity. That’s not realpolitik. It’s cosplay.
Your critique of the old order has merit. But Trump is not a coherent response to that failure. He is an opportunistic collapse agent. And the system he’s helping bring into being isn’t a reset—it’s entropy.
So no, I don’t think your position is “stupid.” But I do think you’re underestimating the strategic incoherence of what’s happening now, and mistaking disruption for reconstruction. The burden of proof lies not in critiquing the old regime, but in defending what replaces it.
That was a great post/response and I agree with most of it. I still remain reluctant to blame any potential collapse on Trump's actions, but I definitely enjoyed your response above and agree with a lot of it. I would not have gone after allies publicly and with such an adversarial nature since it's not their fault that we did not renegotiate the global terms after the fall of Soviet communism. This is the system we created and allowed. They should have been treated better in that we need them to confront China. All in agreement there. I also would not have picked all of these fights out of the gate until I had reduced spending and re-armed, at least started re-arming. So I actually agree with most of your points. But I will remain in favor of changing the chessboard and less worried of the coming collapse for now. Like you said - Trump is transactional, so any move that creates risk to his position he will counter. Thank you again for the thoughtful, informative reply.
Thank you for the generous tone of your response—I appreciate it. But I do think this is the moment where I need to press, gently but firmly.
You frame Trump’s treatment of our allies as a tactical misstep, or a “stylistic” blunder—something that might have been done better, or with more polish, after “re-arming” and reducing spending.
But what I’m arguing is something much more grave.
The abandonment, humiliation, and destabilization of allies isn’t a diplomatic error. It is a civilizational unmooring. It’s a direct assault on the foundation of postwar American hegemony—an architecture of shared security, trust, and moral legitimacy that made U.S. power not just dominant, but coherent in the eyes of the world.
Our alliances are not “extras.” They are not “nice to have.” They are the geostrategic multiplier that allows a democratic power like the United States to project strength and maintain balance in a multipolar world without collapsing into empire.
If you alienate Canada, South Korea, the EU, and Japan while simultaneously spitting in the face of institutions like the WTO or NATO, you don’t just change the chessboard—you throw it into the fire. And if your entire claim to legitimacy is that you’re confronting China, then this isn’t a stylistic error—it’s strategic suicide.
And it’s not just diplomatic betrayal. It’s moral collapse. Because the logic of liberal internationalism—flawed as it was—was built on an insight that authoritarianism doesn’t just rise through strength; it rises through vacuum.
That vacuum is what Trump is creating.
So no—I can’t grant the premise that these actions are “just” brash or ill-timed. They’re structurally incoherent, morally hollow, and tactically ruinous. And the fact that so many otherwise thoughtful people are still inclined to treat them as negotiable errors rather than existential dangers is, in many ways, the heart of our problem.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and forcefully articulated response. I don’t take your concerns lightly—there’s deep moral and strategic weight in what you’ve said, and I agree that we are not just dealing with matters of tone or diplomatic finesse. These are fundamental issues about the architecture of global order and America’s role in it.
You're absolutely right to emphasize that alliances are not optional, nor are they mere diplomatic ornaments. They have been the multiplier of American influence, the moral ballast of our postwar presence, and the scaffolding of a world where liberal democracy had a chance to thrive. Undermining them isn't just reckless—it destabilizes the very framework that allowed the U.S. to lead without resorting to domination.
And I agree—this isn’t simply about bad manners at summits or miscalculated trade barbs. This is about structural incoherence. A foreign policy that alienates long-standing allies while purporting to “confront” authoritarian threats like China or Russia is not just self-defeating—it invites precisely the kind of geopolitical vacuum in which authoritarianism thrives.
To that end, I would say this: my greatest fears of a second Trump presidency are coming to pass. What you describe—this erosion of trust, of principle, of strategic coherence—was never going to be an unfortunate byproduct. It was always going to be the outcome. As it’s often said: character is destiny. And we are now witnessing what that means on a national scale.
For better or worse, the citizens of the United States are—at least for the next four years—along for the ride, wherever that ride may take us. That’s a sobering reality, not just for us, but for the world watching. And I believe the task now isn’t to soften what’s happening, but to call it clearly and prepare for what it might require of us—morally, politically, and strategically.
I understood your initial point, we will just have to agree to disagree. I know Trump is acting almost on personal animus, not strategic cohernce - I simply don't believe that his actions can be any worse than say - Obama on open mic telling the Russians to hold off until after the election and then he would pull the plug on East European missile defense; or Obama's red line in Syria that was crossed and then ignored and allowed the Russians back into the Mediterranean; or Obama's failure to get an SOF with Iraq which basically codified Iran's taking over the country; or Obama's Iran deal which did not strategically deal with Iran getting a nuke, but simply delayed the breakout point; or Obama's allowing the Europeans to lead us into the over-throw of Gaddafi, after Bush had cut a deal with him to get his nukes; as someone who lost a family member in the GWOT the exit from Afghanistan and the equipment left behind is so farcical as to be embarrassed to type it out; to Biden's debt creation which super-charged inflation as prophesized by Larry Summers; and as a family that served in GWOT I know as fact the Article 5 Europeans (other than the Brits in Iraq) basically stayed on base as support and logistics, not fighting Taliban or Al Qaeda; Europe does not have a first amendment and is currently jailing dissent after the disastrous 2015ish open borders policy they allowed.....are we sure the West remains civilizationally intact right now? I could make an argument - if I didn't need to work - that the West no longer exists - given away by traitorous elites who created debt we could not pay printing money to give to their constituencies while letting the post-Iraq military to atrophy and become a social engineering project. Their goal is global government -which I oppose. What West? This will be my final response - I appreciate your position, I agree there are existential issues that maybe Trump is approaching in a manner I would not want, and that our timeline to fix these problems has been accelerated. But we will agree to disagree that somehow it could get worse because of Trump because I don't know that the evidence proves that point just yet: we are already at "worst," so we will see how this approach plays out. I am sorry we agree but disagree, but certainly appreciate the civil exchange.
I hear this response a lot as well. Just continue down the same road and eventually go broke. The pot needs stirring and hopefully this is all a means to an end.
They are following a script and are internally crashing the economy. Bad for most of us but as Robert Reich says, “But the richest people in America with huge power — the oligarchy, including Elon Musk and Trump — are enthusiastic about cryptocurrencies.” It’s a Ponzi scheme and an intentional move to create a crypto-treasury. Please read more about Trump’s obsession with crypto.
Why are they so enthusiastic? Not only can they make fortunes, but crypto advances their long-term aim of shifting financial controls out of a democratically elected government and into their own hands.
It appears to be an intentional dismantling of the west, which makes sense if the end goal is technocracy. Breaking it beyond repair so there's no going back.
Trump is the only one who could have gotten away with this because of his hero status. He gets the benefit of the doubt over and over again no matter what he does until it's too late.
Meanwhile he manipulates the stock market and price of gold etc every time he threatens tariffs then backs off. So those in the know are making a fortune.
Growing up, I was told the U.S. was exceptional because our liberal capitalistic society was based on a foundation of Christian values of care and compassion. The Trump Administration says out loud what we deny about ourselves… it is all about greed and power. We’re discovering this is not the basis of long-term success. We are, as you mention, rotting from within.
Perhaps our bloated military will come in handy in enforcing martial law domestically as the Civil War erupts again here. There is a reason there are more guns than people here. We would rather kill our neighbors than share our “stuff” with others. There is a reason for no national healthcare and inadequate social safety net. There is a reason we collectively chose such an amoral, cruel, racist person to lead this nation.
The Emperor has no clothes. Trump has nakedly exposed our puny ID to friend and foe alike and it the ugliness can’t be unseen...
We are a debtor nation and China holds the second most amount of our debt after Japan. China could destroy the US financial market or even the world's by selling of its US bonds and treasury notes.
We could have avoided this situation by (1) not squandering or national treasure on useless foreign wars starting with Vietnam and ending with Iraq, (2) after borrowing money to get us through the occasional financial crisis such as 2008 and Covid, we should have raised taxes on the wealthy to pay down the national debt when times were good.
Now China and other holders of our debt have US by the short hairs and we are without recourse until we pay down or national debt, yet the President and Republican Congress want to add trillions to the debt. We are staring at our own destruction. This is going to get very ugly.
I see it differently. Trump is a negotiator. He knows what must happen in order to get our manufacturing and businesses back from the global experiment that democrats put us through with Nafta and stolen money from the ngo's. Once uncovered... We will become again the greatest nation on earth. Time for change was long overdue.
But wasn't it Republican governments that largely oversaw the offshoring of jobs, beginning with Reagan? Under Trump's first term alone, 200,000 jobs went overseas.
What defines someone as a “negotiator” and what is his track record on successful negotiations? Please provide specific examples. Can you please lay out his plan re: manufacturing + businesses? Be specific as to which and how. I’m trying to understand what I might be missing by analyzing his actions.
I wouldn't not conclude that it's the final outcome. But troubling development non-the less. Xi already shown his cards and Trump must be pissing his pants.
Why is China our intractable enemy, that we should salivate for war with (economically at the very least, perhaps militarily)? I’ve yet to see you offer anything but the vaguest suggestions on this question. Is it that there’s bound to be a brutal global hegemon, so it might as well be us? You believe that global dominance by a superpower is inevitable, and you prefer the dominion of US elites (convenient that you happen to be a member of the US elite, albeit a fringe one) rather than Chinese elites? Grandiose, zero sum, thoroughly neoconservative thinking.
You seem to believe China is perfectly happy to allow Western democracies go on being democracies, and does not seek to collapse the world into autocracies that do not present a cultural threat and example that a potentially unsettled Chinese polity could use as inspiration for rising up against it. Xi Jinping is not looking to "agree to disagree" on democracy. You are fool if you think this is his default stance.
I think it's important to take an evidence-based approach when evaluating the nature of the Chinese threat to America and the broader democratic world order. Rhetoric about ideological warfare can too easily outpace actual behavior and historical precedent.
First, if you study Chinese history carefully, you’ll see a consistent pattern: China, as a rule, does not seek to project power far beyond its immediate region. Unlike Western colonial powers or the United States, China has never built a global network of military bases or launched campaigns of territorial conquest across oceans. Their foreign policy posture has traditionally been regional and defensive, focused on sovereignty, internal stability, and border security.
Consider that even Russian control over parts of historical Manchuria—territories lost during China’s “Century of Humiliation”—has not led to ongoing border conflict or serious territorial demands from Beijing. If China were aggressively expansionist, these long-standing Russian claims would be a natural flashpoint. Instead, China has chosen stability and cooperation along that frontier.
The situation with Taiwan, while deeply unfortunate, is best understood through this lens. The One China policy has been a cornerstone of Chinese national identity for decades. The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country, nor do the United States or most other nations officially. Taiwan’s rise as a distinct political and economic entity occurred during a period of significant Chinese internal weakness, civil war, and foreign occupation. If China had remained strong and unified through the 20th century, Taiwan likely would never have developed independently in the first place.
To use an analogy: imagine if, during a period of American weakness, Key West managed to break away and declare itself an independent nation. Would anyone truly believe the U.S. would just accept that forever? China’s desire to reunify with Taiwan—even if we disagree with the method—is rooted in a belief that Taiwan is part of its sovereign territory, not necessarily in a mission to destroy democracy.
As for the South China Sea disputes, it's worth noting that every major nation in that region has overlapping claims—Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and others—not just China. While China has been assertive, often to the point of provocation, their motivation isn't ideological conquest. Much of it revolves around resource security, especially safeguarding critical energy shipping lanes like those through the Strait of Malacca. Given that over 80% of China's imported oil passes through that bottleneck, it's not hard to understand why they treat it as a vital interest.
Furthermore, consider the military record: China’s last major war outside its borders was in Vietnam in 1979, and it lasted just a few weeks. Since then, while the U.S. has been involved in multiple major conflicts across the globe, China has largely kept its military ambitions in check. There is no strong historical or current evidence that China is trying to overturn the democratic order globally in the same way the Soviet Union sought to do during the Cold War. China trades with democracies, invests in them, and benefits from global economic integration. If they are playing a long game, it appears to be economic and strategic, not militaristic or ideologically revolutionary.
All that said, none of this excuses China’s internal repression or its behavior toward minorities and dissent. We should continue to call out abuses and offer refuge and opportunity to any who seek freedom—including, if necessary, Taiwanese innovators and citizens should reunification ever come under duress. But war over Taiwan would be catastrophic, unnecessary, and not supported by international law.
In conclusion, while we should remain vigilant, there is little evidence—either historical or current—that China is an aggressive, expansionist power bent on toppling democracy around the globe. Strategic competition? Yes. Ideological war? That remains largely speculative.
This is all CCP talking points. To be clear.
Mike I think you are very bright is that the best you can come up with? I have a history and law degree. These are not talking points they are history. If you disagree with my analysis, I would appreciate a more thoughtful rebuttal. I think the many points I raised deserve better.
Adding my own two cents to Ed's, this is a thoroughly empty response. On the vaguest of accusations, you're arguing that we're in the middle of WW3 with China, already this very moment. You won't (whether here or elsewhere that I've seen) sketch out even rudimentary details of your preferred path forward, but you most certainly haven't cautioned against all-out military conflict, or suggested any alternative paths toward peaceful (if perhaps uneasy) coexistence, gradual thawing of tensions and improving of conditions. When receiving pushback, you offer the laziest, content-free replies.
You're clearly an intelligent thinker--I want better from you! As it is, your advocacy here is deeply irresponsible and unserious. Childish, even.
You mentioned China's loss of territory to Russia, but failed to follow it to its logical conclusion with respect to Taiwan. The fact that China does not pursue reunification of that lost Manchurian territory (which it clearly has a historical claim on, as opposed to Taiwan, where the claim is tenuous at best) shows that it is lying about its motivations for wanting Taiwan.
Please indulge me. Why do you believe the claim to Taiwan is "tenuous at best" as far as I can tell, legally culturally and historically China's claim is rock solid.
Two independent lines of reasoning. 1) The CCP has never controlled Taiwan. How about China? First, I would argue that the idea of a unitary China is somewhat of a myth, propagated by the CCP to justify its control of Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, etc., similar to the myth of a unitary Chinese language (with many dialects) as a opposed to the linguistic reality, which can be better described as a group of many related but distinct languages, with relationships to each other similar to, for example, the relationship between romance languages. Even if you buy this story of a unitary China that has supposedly existed for 5000 years, as opposed to the messy reality of many cultural and linguistic groups that have fought for control of an ever-changing geographical territory, I would describe the claims of historical China on Taiwan as tenuous. Prior to the ROC (that is, the current government of Taiwan) taking over Taiwan in the 20th century, Taiwan was a colony of Japan from 1895 to 1945. Prior to that, the Ming and then the Qing dynasties controlled parts of Taiwan's coastal areas, but never all of it. And so did the Dutch, and briefly the Spanish. And never mind the original inhabitants of Taiwan — the many aboriginal groups, many of which survive to this day. I view the CCP's claim that Taiwan is a part of China as propaganda which ignores the complex reality.
2) Even if I granted a historical relationship that justified China's claim on Taiwan, I must admit a bias toward recognizing a people's right to self-determination. There comes a point at which a nation has existed independently for such a length of time, when the people of a nation have known nothing in their lifetimes other than the separate and independent nation that they call home, that suggesting that this independent and thriving democracy actually belongs to the authoritarian bully nextdoor just sounds ridiculous. Especially when the majority of the people identify as Taiwanese, their family histories in Taiwan going back centuries.
I admit that I am also biased by a personal connection to Taiwan. I can't help but be angered when an authoritarian nation threatens the peace and freedom of the place I call my second home.
Thanks, Democracy Cat — I genuinely appreciate your passion and personal connection to Taiwan. The human and cultural realities are, as you said, deeply complex, and there's no denying that what’s happening now is tragic in many ways. I don’t take lightly what’s at stake for the people of Taiwan. That said, from a legal and geopolitical standpoint, I still believe China’s claim is rock solid — and it’s worth unpacking why.
1. The Legal and International Consensus
You’re right that the CCP never ruled Taiwan — but the CCP wasn’t even in power when the international consensus about China’s territorial sovereignty was established. After WWII, every major global power, including the United States, recognized that there is only one China. The ROC (now in Taiwan) was ousted from the mainland by the CCP during the Chinese Civil War — a war that did not end in a formal peace treaty. Taiwan thus became the final stronghold of the losing side. Politically, the ROC became a rump state — not a new, independent nation.
Even the UN doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a separate country. The People’s Republic of China holds the seat for “China.” The international legal framework, for better or worse, overwhelmingly supports China's position. That doesn’t mean it’s morally satisfying, but legality and morality often diverge.
2. Historical Continuity
It’s true that Taiwan has had a patchwork of rulers, including the Dutch, Qing, and Japanese. But during the Qing Dynasty, Taiwan was recognized as part of China, albeit lightly administered. Yes, it was lost to Japan in 1895 — precisely because China was weak at the time. Japan’s imperial expansion took advantage of that, just as it did in Korea and Manchuria. Post-WWII, Taiwan was returned to Chinese authority under the ROC. That’s the key transition point that most countries, including the U.S., recognized at the time. The “one China” framework is not a CCP invention — it was a postwar international consensus.
3. Taiwan’s Boom and the Quicksand Metaphor
Much of what Taiwan is today — economically and politically — was made possible by decades of U.S. military and economic support, partly as a Cold War outpost. But that support came with a cost: political ambiguity and strategic vulnerability. Taiwan’s position is like a beautiful house built on quicksand — stable only as long as outside conditions allow. That’s why the U.S. should focus on two things:
Transferring chip and tech production to U.S. soil, to mitigate any future disruption.
Creating a path for Taiwanese citizens to relocate or integrate economically with the U.S., if conflict becomes inevitable.
The hard truth is that Taiwan is not sustainable as an independent military entity against China. A direct U.S. military defense could spark catastrophic escalation. No one wins in that scenario.
4. On Manchuria and the Russia Comparison
You mentioned China’s historical loss of land to Russia and its seeming disinterest in reclaiming it. But there’s a key difference: Taiwan is not just a historical claim — it’s a living, ongoing territorial dispute where no sovereignty transfer ever formally occurred. Russia’s Far East is, for better or worse, internationally recognized as Russian. Taiwan is still in limbo — and that’s precisely why it remains so contested.
Ultimately, you can support Taiwanese self-determination in spirit — as I do — but still recognize that from a legal, historical, and geopolitical angle, China’s claim isn’t propaganda. It’s the tragic conclusion of a civil war the world never helped fully resolve.
You’ve got this almost completely backwards. A big part of the reason China is such a “threat” to the US is that it’s exposing the lie that endless war and empire makes for a more peaceful and prosperous domestic stage. What exactly are you proposing re: China? That the US try to crush it by whatever means necessary? And you expect that effort to go, how exactly?
I should let you know how much I despise campism.
You’ve shared that thought with me already. I’m not a campist. I’m a western classical liberal who regards the US empire as increasingly inimical to liberalism.
I think I would rather have the US stay the dominant power, there being at least a chance of reform of the system, rather than an autocratic China with zero chance of reform. There will be an inevitable reaction to Trump and then there will be an opening for systemic change. The worst outcome would be a diminished US that is an autocracy itself.
Let’s just nuke the earth and be done with it. At least China won’t be in charge.
The alternative was what? Our entire circumstance was created by the elites who have ran our institutions since at least 2008. There are SOOOOO many variables the author leaves out of his short piece, which I will give him the benefit of the doubt was meant for brevity. This would include and not be limited to other geo-political actors opposed to China (India); the damage done to our allies own markets if they begin selling off dollars or treasuries (owe the bank 1000 that's a problem for me, owe the bank a million that's a problem for the bank); our opponents own debt issues; the lack of soft power for China; the deep, historic animosities between China and Japan, or South Korea; many allies will prefer to wait Trump out, see if the next administration is different.......or simply that China miscalculates - they attack Taiwan with a military strike that is incompetent like Russia's and every Pacific nation gets CLOSER to the US instead of cutting a deal with the new hegemon. (A) Yes we are in big trouble; (B) these problems were created by everyone BEFORE Trump; and (C) never bet against the Americans.
"The alternative is what?"
Are you suggesting that what Trump is doing is the only viable strategic option available to the American civilizational project? Because if so, that's a facially stupid position.
Fascinating - gave you credit for not covering all of the details as a function of brevity - you respond by calling someone who took the time to read your work as stupid (at least by implication). This immediately discredits your talent and intellect. You must be young. Nothing in my response suggests it is the "only" alternative -simply emphasizing that the elite way of thinking - which your article implies a return to traditional statecraft before it's financially too late - is what got us into this mess in the first place. There was nothing about our past efforts that were sustainable, none. Zero. We didn't renegotiate at the end of the Soviet era Cold War, 1991 - and now a shock to the system might be the only thing that will work. Maybe not, probably not, but the existential crisis is not Trump, but what came before him. And I offered a few alternatives which you did not refer to - Trump could pivot to India, the fact allies can't necessarily off-load holding our paper, and that Pacific theater countries have more than just financial reservations regarding accepting China as their new master. Most importantly, prying Russia away from China (which the elites have tried to prevent). Having said all of the above - thank you for taking the time to reply.
Thank you for the follow-up—and for taking the time to engage seriously. Let me offer the same in return.
You’re absolutely right to surface the broader historical failures of elite statecraft post-1991. My project does not defend the status quo ante as morally or strategically coherent. In fact, I’ve written extensively about the liberal center’s failure of imagination and the hollowing of our institutions under a performative managerial class. You’re not wrong that the cracks in our system began long before Trump.
But here’s where we part company:
You mistake the critique of Trump’s present actions for a defense of the old regime. It’s neither.
I’m not calling for a return to 2012 neoliberalism. I’m arguing that the very existence of a stable democratic order requires strategic coherence—both morally and institutionally—and that Trump’s approach is not just reckless but disqualifying on those terms.
You call what Trump is doing a “shock to the system.” Fair. But if you want to shock the system to save the republic, the burden is to show that your shock increases strategic clarity, economic resilience, and institutional legitimacy. Trump’s tariffs, his deliberate antagonism toward our closest allies, and his embrace of strategic ambiguity toward adversaries undermines all three.
Let’s walk through the concrete points you raised:
India? Yes, I’ve explicitly argued India must be a civilizational partner. But Trump doesn’t understand civilizational dynamics. He understands transaction, and Modi understands that.
Dollar selloff risk? Sure, it’s mutualized risk. But Trump is accelerating incentives for de-dollarization by antagonizing allies and introducing uncertainty to global markets. It’s less “owe the bank a million” than “torch the bank and see what happens.”
China’s own liabilities and miscalculations? Absolutely. But our strategy can’t hinge on their incompetence. Betting your republic on the hope your opponent fumbles is not grand strategy—it’s wishcasting.
Russia? I agree: the West’s refusal to imagine a post-Putin Russia in dialogue with Europe is a generational error. But Trump’s vision of rapprochement is incoherent—it’s not driven by realignment logic; it’s driven by grievance and personal affinity. That’s not realpolitik. It’s cosplay.
Your critique of the old order has merit. But Trump is not a coherent response to that failure. He is an opportunistic collapse agent. And the system he’s helping bring into being isn’t a reset—it’s entropy.
So no, I don’t think your position is “stupid.” But I do think you’re underestimating the strategic incoherence of what’s happening now, and mistaking disruption for reconstruction. The burden of proof lies not in critiquing the old regime, but in defending what replaces it.
That’s the real debate.
And I’m glad to be having it.
That was a great post/response and I agree with most of it. I still remain reluctant to blame any potential collapse on Trump's actions, but I definitely enjoyed your response above and agree with a lot of it. I would not have gone after allies publicly and with such an adversarial nature since it's not their fault that we did not renegotiate the global terms after the fall of Soviet communism. This is the system we created and allowed. They should have been treated better in that we need them to confront China. All in agreement there. I also would not have picked all of these fights out of the gate until I had reduced spending and re-armed, at least started re-arming. So I actually agree with most of your points. But I will remain in favor of changing the chessboard and less worried of the coming collapse for now. Like you said - Trump is transactional, so any move that creates risk to his position he will counter. Thank you again for the thoughtful, informative reply.
Thank you for the generous tone of your response—I appreciate it. But I do think this is the moment where I need to press, gently but firmly.
You frame Trump’s treatment of our allies as a tactical misstep, or a “stylistic” blunder—something that might have been done better, or with more polish, after “re-arming” and reducing spending.
But what I’m arguing is something much more grave.
The abandonment, humiliation, and destabilization of allies isn’t a diplomatic error. It is a civilizational unmooring. It’s a direct assault on the foundation of postwar American hegemony—an architecture of shared security, trust, and moral legitimacy that made U.S. power not just dominant, but coherent in the eyes of the world.
Our alliances are not “extras.” They are not “nice to have.” They are the geostrategic multiplier that allows a democratic power like the United States to project strength and maintain balance in a multipolar world without collapsing into empire.
If you alienate Canada, South Korea, the EU, and Japan while simultaneously spitting in the face of institutions like the WTO or NATO, you don’t just change the chessboard—you throw it into the fire. And if your entire claim to legitimacy is that you’re confronting China, then this isn’t a stylistic error—it’s strategic suicide.
And it’s not just diplomatic betrayal. It’s moral collapse. Because the logic of liberal internationalism—flawed as it was—was built on an insight that authoritarianism doesn’t just rise through strength; it rises through vacuum.
That vacuum is what Trump is creating.
So no—I can’t grant the premise that these actions are “just” brash or ill-timed. They’re structurally incoherent, morally hollow, and tactically ruinous. And the fact that so many otherwise thoughtful people are still inclined to treat them as negotiable errors rather than existential dangers is, in many ways, the heart of our problem.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and forcefully articulated response. I don’t take your concerns lightly—there’s deep moral and strategic weight in what you’ve said, and I agree that we are not just dealing with matters of tone or diplomatic finesse. These are fundamental issues about the architecture of global order and America’s role in it.
You're absolutely right to emphasize that alliances are not optional, nor are they mere diplomatic ornaments. They have been the multiplier of American influence, the moral ballast of our postwar presence, and the scaffolding of a world where liberal democracy had a chance to thrive. Undermining them isn't just reckless—it destabilizes the very framework that allowed the U.S. to lead without resorting to domination.
And I agree—this isn’t simply about bad manners at summits or miscalculated trade barbs. This is about structural incoherence. A foreign policy that alienates long-standing allies while purporting to “confront” authoritarian threats like China or Russia is not just self-defeating—it invites precisely the kind of geopolitical vacuum in which authoritarianism thrives.
To that end, I would say this: my greatest fears of a second Trump presidency are coming to pass. What you describe—this erosion of trust, of principle, of strategic coherence—was never going to be an unfortunate byproduct. It was always going to be the outcome. As it’s often said: character is destiny. And we are now witnessing what that means on a national scale.
For better or worse, the citizens of the United States are—at least for the next four years—along for the ride, wherever that ride may take us. That’s a sobering reality, not just for us, but for the world watching. And I believe the task now isn’t to soften what’s happening, but to call it clearly and prepare for what it might require of us—morally, politically, and strategically.
I understood your initial point, we will just have to agree to disagree. I know Trump is acting almost on personal animus, not strategic cohernce - I simply don't believe that his actions can be any worse than say - Obama on open mic telling the Russians to hold off until after the election and then he would pull the plug on East European missile defense; or Obama's red line in Syria that was crossed and then ignored and allowed the Russians back into the Mediterranean; or Obama's failure to get an SOF with Iraq which basically codified Iran's taking over the country; or Obama's Iran deal which did not strategically deal with Iran getting a nuke, but simply delayed the breakout point; or Obama's allowing the Europeans to lead us into the over-throw of Gaddafi, after Bush had cut a deal with him to get his nukes; as someone who lost a family member in the GWOT the exit from Afghanistan and the equipment left behind is so farcical as to be embarrassed to type it out; to Biden's debt creation which super-charged inflation as prophesized by Larry Summers; and as a family that served in GWOT I know as fact the Article 5 Europeans (other than the Brits in Iraq) basically stayed on base as support and logistics, not fighting Taliban or Al Qaeda; Europe does not have a first amendment and is currently jailing dissent after the disastrous 2015ish open borders policy they allowed.....are we sure the West remains civilizationally intact right now? I could make an argument - if I didn't need to work - that the West no longer exists - given away by traitorous elites who created debt we could not pay printing money to give to their constituencies while letting the post-Iraq military to atrophy and become a social engineering project. Their goal is global government -which I oppose. What West? This will be my final response - I appreciate your position, I agree there are existential issues that maybe Trump is approaching in a manner I would not want, and that our timeline to fix these problems has been accelerated. But we will agree to disagree that somehow it could get worse because of Trump because I don't know that the evidence proves that point just yet: we are already at "worst," so we will see how this approach plays out. I am sorry we agree but disagree, but certainly appreciate the civil exchange.
Mic Drop!…:)
I hear this response a lot as well. Just continue down the same road and eventually go broke. The pot needs stirring and hopefully this is all a means to an end.
:(
They are following a script and are internally crashing the economy. Bad for most of us but as Robert Reich says, “But the richest people in America with huge power — the oligarchy, including Elon Musk and Trump — are enthusiastic about cryptocurrencies.” It’s a Ponzi scheme and an intentional move to create a crypto-treasury. Please read more about Trump’s obsession with crypto.
Why are they so enthusiastic? Not only can they make fortunes, but crypto advances their long-term aim of shifting financial controls out of a democratically elected government and into their own hands.
It appears to be an intentional dismantling of the west, which makes sense if the end goal is technocracy. Breaking it beyond repair so there's no going back.
Trump is the only one who could have gotten away with this because of his hero status. He gets the benefit of the doubt over and over again no matter what he does until it's too late.
Meanwhile he manipulates the stock market and price of gold etc every time he threatens tariffs then backs off. So those in the know are making a fortune.
We have been lied to.
Growing up, I was told the U.S. was exceptional because our liberal capitalistic society was based on a foundation of Christian values of care and compassion. The Trump Administration says out loud what we deny about ourselves… it is all about greed and power. We’re discovering this is not the basis of long-term success. We are, as you mention, rotting from within.
Perhaps our bloated military will come in handy in enforcing martial law domestically as the Civil War erupts again here. There is a reason there are more guns than people here. We would rather kill our neighbors than share our “stuff” with others. There is a reason for no national healthcare and inadequate social safety net. There is a reason we collectively chose such an amoral, cruel, racist person to lead this nation.
The Emperor has no clothes. Trump has nakedly exposed our puny ID to friend and foe alike and it the ugliness can’t be unseen...
We are a debtor nation and China holds the second most amount of our debt after Japan. China could destroy the US financial market or even the world's by selling of its US bonds and treasury notes.
We could have avoided this situation by (1) not squandering or national treasure on useless foreign wars starting with Vietnam and ending with Iraq, (2) after borrowing money to get us through the occasional financial crisis such as 2008 and Covid, we should have raised taxes on the wealthy to pay down the national debt when times were good.
Now China and other holders of our debt have US by the short hairs and we are without recourse until we pay down or national debt, yet the President and Republican Congress want to add trillions to the debt. We are staring at our own destruction. This is going to get very ugly.
I see it differently. Trump is a negotiator. He knows what must happen in order to get our manufacturing and businesses back from the global experiment that democrats put us through with Nafta and stolen money from the ngo's. Once uncovered... We will become again the greatest nation on earth. Time for change was long overdue.
What makes you confident that Trump "knows what must happen" say, better than you or I?
But wasn't it Republican governments that largely oversaw the offshoring of jobs, beginning with Reagan? Under Trump's first term alone, 200,000 jobs went overseas.
This will not happen in my lifetime (58), in my children's lifetimes (mid 30's) and maybe not even in my grandchildrens lifetime (5).
What defines someone as a “negotiator” and what is his track record on successful negotiations? Please provide specific examples. Can you please lay out his plan re: manufacturing + businesses? Be specific as to which and how. I’m trying to understand what I might be missing by analyzing his actions.
I wouldn't not conclude that it's the final outcome. But troubling development non-the less. Xi already shown his cards and Trump must be pissing his pants.