Cold War against China?

[AfonsoAlves]

Didn't they "pull that crap" because they were in a tariff war? It's just economic leverage that anybody would use. Their country actually has an industrial strategy and everyone else has spent decades just investing in whatever the latest shiny is.

That's fine if it was used in isolation.

But couple that with their "industrial strategy" that involves flooding foreign markets with state subsidized products, killing local industry and making entire continents dependent on china's exports - does not paint a good picture.

Afonso- I love your knowledge of tanks and stuff, but with regards China you come across as a mental conspiracy theorist- huge holes in your arguments that if made by nearly anyone else I would just put down to lack of intelligence. That can't be the case for you, so I'm struggling to understand why you are so passionate on the matter, while being so far removed from everyone else.

What's the hole?

I didn't come to these conclusions overnight. I've spent years treating China as a potential great-power adversary for the West. Ive spent lots of time there, learnt the language, made friends there. Unfortunately all of this has just led me to believe that their intentions are catastrophic:

A few questions then:

- Why does China aggressively do its best to feck up local markets halfway around the world? Solar panels were sold at loss for a decade subsidized by the government. Steel. Shipping. Electronics. Almost everything started off at loss - huge loss - subsidised by government until the local market competition were wiped out and then the prices were hiked. It's basically Uber but on a national state implemented level. Only China cannot be legislated back to not having a monopoly.

- Why does China spend billions on building a gigantic navy that is built solely for an offensive posture? They don't need what they currently have for a Taiwan fight. Their navy is sub-optimal for Amphibious assaults. Instead, they gear their navy for long distance expeditionary warfare and strike forces. What's the purpose of building this gigantic fleet?

- The sheer reluctance to make diplomatic friends and to resort to wolf-warrior diplomacy. Based off a bloody film series. Belittle, attack and bully all the neighbours around you.

 

[George Owen]

But how is China going to threaten the existence of the Western world? By calling China an existential threat you must think they're going to bring about the end of Western civilisation? I'm sure I've asked you about this a few times on here but I still don't understand why or how China is going to do this.

Western way of life is an existential threat to the whole world to be fair.

We are destroying this world with our insatiable hunger for consumption and dopamine.

So if China is serious about their survival long term, they have already realised and are working on bringing an end to the western world way of life. Its their responsibility.

Is that what are they doing though? What's the plan?

 

[maniak]

Afonso- I love your knowledge of tanks and stuff, but with regards China you come across as a mental conspiracy theorist- huge holes in your arguments that if made by nearly anyone else I would just put down to lack of intelligence. That can't be the case for you, so I'm struggling to understand why you are so passionate on the matter, while being so far removed from everyone else.

I would rather have my entire lifetime of MAGA candidates winning every presidential election from here until 2074 than China gaining more geopolitical relevance.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Western way of life is an existential threat to the whole world to be fair.

We are destroying this world with our insatiable hunger for consumption and dopamine.

So if China is serious about their survival long term, they have already realised and are working on bringing an end to the western world way of life. Its their responsibility.

Is that what are they doing though? What's the plan?

Ironic given you're talking about the country that produces more co2 than entire western world combined and the country that invented reels and shorts

 

[George Owen]

Ironic given you're talking about the country that produces more co2 than entire western world combined and the country that invented reels and shorts

Per capita I think they are not even in the top 10.

And even if maybe 1/3 of that CO2 is for the west consumption, that's why I ask if is that what they are really doing (destroying western world rather than simply be at the head of it). China middle class is surely getting more and more westernised in term on consumption patterns.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Per capita I think they are not even in the top 10.

And even if maybe 1/3 of that CO2 is for the west consumption, that's why I ask if is that what they are really doing (destroying western world rather than simply be at the head of it). China middle class is surely getting more and more westernised in term on consumption patterns.

The Chinese middle class is getting eroded the same way Western middle classes are.

Anyway, of the major countries in The Western World, only USA and Canada have a higher Co2 emission per capita.

 

[TwoSheds]

That's fine if it was used in isolation.

But couple that with their "industrial strategy" that involves flooding foreign markets with state subsidized products, killing local industry and making entire continents dependent on china's exports - does not paint a good picture.


What's the hole?

I didn't come to these conclusions overnight. I've spent years treating China as a potential great-power adversary for the West. Ive spent lots of time there, learnt the language, made friends there. Unfortunately all of this has just led me to believe that their intentions are catastrophic:

A few questions then:

- Why does China aggressively do its best to feck up local markets halfway around the world? Solar panels were sold at loss for a decade subsidized by the government. Steel. Shipping. Electronics. Almost everything started off at loss - huge loss - subsidised by government until the local market competition were wiped out and then the prices were hiked. It's basically Uber but on a national state implemented level. Only China cannot be legislated back to not having a monopoly.

- Why does China spend billions on building a gigantic navy that is built solely for an offensive posture? They don't need what they currently have for a Taiwan fight. Their navy is sub-optimal for Amphibious assaults. Instead, they gear their navy for long distance expeditionary warfare and strike forces. What's the purpose of building this gigantic fleet?

- The sheer reluctance to make diplomatic friends and to resort to wolf-warrior diplomacy. Based off a bloody film series. Belittle, attack and bully all the neighbours around you.

How is it different than what any other empire / superpower has done though?

 

[Attila]

That's fine if it was used in isolation.

But couple that with their "industrial strategy" that involves flooding foreign markets with state subsidized products, killing local industry and making entire continents dependent on china's exports - does not paint a good picture.


What's the hole?

I didn't come to these conclusions overnight. I've spent years treating China as a potential great-power adversary for the West. Ive spent lots of time there, learnt the language, made friends there. Unfortunately all of this has just led me to believe that their intentions are catastrophic:

A few questions then:

- Why does China aggressively do its best to feck up local markets halfway around the world? Solar panels were sold at loss for a decade subsidized by the government. Steel. Shipping. Electronics. Almost everything started off at loss - huge loss - subsidised by government until the local market competition were wiped out and then the prices were hiked. It's basically Uber but on a national state implemented level. Only China cannot be legislated back to not having a monopoly.

- Why does China spend billions on building a gigantic navy that is built solely for an offensive posture? They don't need what they currently have for a Taiwan fight. Their navy is sub-optimal for Amphibious assaults. Instead, they gear their navy for long distance expeditionary warfare and strike forces. What's the purpose of building this gigantic fleet?

- The sheer reluctance to make diplomatic friends and to resort to wolf-warrior diplomacy. Based off a bloody film series. Belittle, attack and bully all the neighbours around you.

"Belittle, attack and bully all the neighbours around you" Coming from an American that's remarkable

 

[ericking]

That's fine if it was used in isolation.

But couple that with their "industrial strategy" that involves flooding foreign markets with state subsidized products, killing local industry and making entire continents dependent on china's exports - does not paint a good picture.


What's the hole?

I didn't come to these conclusions overnight. I've spent years treating China as a potential great-power adversary for the West. Ive spent lots of time there, learnt the language, made friends there. Unfortunately all of this has just led me to believe that their intentions are catastrophic:

A few questions then:

- Why does China aggressively do its best to feck up local markets halfway around the world? Solar panels were sold at loss for a decade subsidized by the government. Steel. Shipping. Electronics. Almost everything started off at loss - huge loss - subsidised by government until the local market competition were wiped out and then the prices were hiked. It's basically Uber but on a national state implemented level. Only China cannot be legislated back to not having a monopoly.

- Why does China spend billions on building a gigantic navy that is built solely for an offensive posture? They don't need what they currently have for a Taiwan fight. Their navy is sub-optimal for Amphibious assaults. Instead, they gear their navy for long distance expeditionary warfare and strike forces. What's the purpose of building this gigantic fleet?

- The sheer reluctance to make diplomatic friends and to resort to wolf-warrior diplomacy. Based off a bloody film series. Belittle, attack and bully all the neighbours around you.

Holes. Plural. They exist in all your anti-China rhetoric. The rare earth's point you made- that was in response to Trump's tariffs. The US started that. You state that Trump had the right idea- but he patently didn't, he did that to every country in attempt to leverage better short term returns.

The nationalism being aimed aggressively towards the West. Nationalism exists in every country as you also point out, often towards a historic aggressor. Nobody in Ireland likes the English, and I suspect that is true of a lot of countries around the world. Many would still like to achieve justice for historic wrong-doings. There is a reason why Black Panther did huge box office despite being a pretty average MCU movie. Whatever of it exists in China- you can't really blame them. A lot of the harm they suffered still exists in living memory in China.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Holes. Plural. They exist in all your anti-China rhetoric. The rare earth's point you made- that was in response to Trump's tariffs. The US started that. You state that Trump had the right idea- but he patently didn't, he did that to every country in attempt to leverage better short term returns.

The nationalism being aimed aggressively towards the West. Nationalism exists in every country as you also point out, often towards a historic aggressor. Nobody in Ireland likes the English, and I suspect that is true of a lot of countries around the world. Many would still like to achieve justice for historic wrong-doings. There is a reason why Black Panther did huge box office despite being a pretty average MCU movie. Whatever of it exists in China- you can't really blame them. A lot of the harm they suffered still exists in living memory in China.

Yes, though I highly doubt and correct me if I'm wrong, Irish politicians bang on about taking revenge on the British for the colonial endeavours, Thatchers death squads and Cromwell. I don't think you quite understand the ultra-nationalistic sentiment as well as the Han Supremacy element that China has right now. For all his other bollocks, Mao actually recognised this problem and openly stated that in China, having Han chauvinism is a terrible idea and would result in horrible outcomes.

Mao, Deng, Jiang, Hu all did their uttermost to try and dispel the ugly side of Chinese society. Xi actively encouraged it. That's why we are where we are at now.

Trump was correct to tariff China. The mistake was to tariff everyone else. If the idea is to create a trade zone that excludes China from US supply chains and find ways to leverage allies and partners to do so too (of which USA has many many), the decoupling could have succeeded. Alas, the prick decided to alienate all US allies and friends so it all went to shit.

The rare earth is just an example of the kind of leverage China has built and is more than willing to use. What's to stop China from just excluding the Western world from the most key important strategic resources it provides? Nothing.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

How is it different than what any other empire / superpower has done though?

How does the fact that it's happened before change the fact that it's an existential threat to the ones on the receiving end of it?

"Belittle, attack and bully all the neighbours around you" Coming from an American that's remarkable

1) I'm not American. Feels like I have to repeat this 1000 times.

2) This is such a silly post from someone who has little to no context on the military apparatus of the region.

The PLAN force composition is not designed to fight the above geopolitical mapping.

Hint: Every single base there outside of Australia and Diego Garcia is within direct range of Mainland Chinese Direct Fires and Indirect Fires. Why then pray tell, do they require aircraft carriers?

Hey we're only here to fight the Americans in Okinawa where practically our entire air force is within a 1 hour flight to, but let's build aircraft carriers to decrease the flight time to 45 minutes!

Here's a diagram for you:

 

[Balljy]

The rare earth is just an example of the kind of leverage China has built and is more than willing to use. What's to stop China from just excluding the Western world from the most key important strategic resources it provides? Nothing.

The issue is, we've built this situation. We (and by that I mean Western nations) explicitly exploited China for cheap labour, and offshored a lot of manufacturing there. If we're saying that they're leveraging that to gain political power I'm not convinced it's exactly unexpected and is almost certainly a direct result of Western exploitation.

I think a lot of nations are now regretting letting manufacturing going offshore, but that's not China's fault and it's up to the likes of the EU / USA to explain why prices have to go up or accept what China are offering.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

The issue is, we've built this situation. We (and by that I mean Western nations) explicitly exploited China for cheap labour, and offshored a lot of manufacturing there. If we're saying that they're leveraging that to gain political power I'm not convinced it's exactly unexpected and is almost certainly a direct result of Western exploitation.

I think a lot of nations are now regretting letting manufacturing going offshore, but that's not China's fault and it's up to the likes of the EU / USA to explain why prices have to go up or accept what China are offering.

Exploitation is certainly one way of putting it.

US gave China preferential treatment in the global markets for decades, lobbied for it actually, allowed China to ignore WTO trading rules. So this part was yes, not unexpected.

The goal was to eventually bring them into the fold as a full on ally, partner with a western style democratic system with shared geopolitical interests in a world order.

Jiang and the Shanghai Clique were the biggest proponents of that. Jiang radically liberalised Chinese Society and relations with the West were genuinely good. Under Hu, Jiang's protegee, took some steps further, embraced Western style financial institutions and relations with the West were still good. But the problem was factional infighting meant that there was no genuine contender for succession.

Furthermore, Xi's faction had gotten so powerful they were pushing through legislation that the Shanghai Clique disliked but couldn't really do much to stop. For example, the banning of Western websites beginning in 2009.

The biggest mistake the Shanghai clique made was backing Bo Xilai as the Contender to Xi, as then the corruption and murder scandal of Bo broke him and the Shanghai clique had no other candidate to support. Xi won the 2012 presidency by a landslide (he was practically unopposed).

Anyway, after Xi got into power, he consolidated everything, reversed all the liberal reforms that the Shanghai Clique had made and relationships with the West severely soured. Then he went on an "anti corruption drive" and purged many of the most powerful Shanghai clique senior members of the CCP, further reducing their influence.

Then he made himself permanent dictator, after his rivals had been jailed/executed.

Oh, and as a final feck you to the Shanghai Clique, he wheels out President Hu when he's ill and then drags him out kicking and screaming at the central committee meeting. For the world to see.



I had another hope. But he recently passed away of heart attack(RIP). Li Keqiang was reasonable, about as uncorrupt as a CCP politician could be, didn't come from the same elitist circles that the CCP leadership usually comes from. He was really close friends with Hu Jintao, and was the centre-piece to the coalition that Hu founded which incorporated the Shanghai clique and other factions. He is the guy you see Hu, in the video above, tap on the shoulder for help. Unfortunately after his time as premier came to an end, rather than try to jig the system to stay on, he silently retired then unfortunately passed away.

The hope I have now is that Xi doesn't have a real succession plan, as of now. The best outcome is when he kicks the bucket, the CCP will somehow bring back power to the liberal (for CCP standards) Shanghai Clique and we will see a much less confrontational, ultra-nationalistic and militaristic China.

 

[Balljy]

Exploitation is certainly one way of putting it.

US gave China preferential treatment in the global markets for decades, lobbied for it actually, allowed China to ignore WTO trading rules. So this part was yes, not unexpected.

The goal was to eventually bring them into the fold as a full on ally, partner with a western style democratic system with shared geopolitical interests in a world order.

Jiang and the Shanghai Clique were the biggest proponents of that. Jiang radically liberalised Chinese Society and relations with the West were genuinely good. Under Hu, Jiang's protegee, took some steps further, embraced Western style financial institutions and relations with the West were still good. But the problem was factional infighting meant that there was no genuine contender for succession.

Furthermore, Xi's faction had gotten so powerful they were pushing through legislation that the Shanghai Clique disliked but couldn't really do much to stop. For example, the banning of Western websites beginning in 2009.

The biggest mistake the Shanghai clique made was backing Bo Xilai as the Contender to Xi, as then the corruption and murder scandal of Bo broke him and the Shanghai clique had no other candidate to support. Xi won the 2012 presidency by a landslide (he was practically unopposed).

Anyway, after Xi got into power, he consolidated everything, reversed all the liberal reforms that the Shanghai Clique had made and relationships with the West severely soured. Then he went on an "anti corruption drive" and purged many of the most powerful Shanghai clique senior members of the CCP, further reducing their influence.

Then he made himself permanent dictator, after his rivals had been jailed/executed.

Oh, and as a final feck you to the Shanghai Clique, he wheels out President Hu when he's ill and then drags him out kicking and screaming at the central committee meeting. For the world to see.



I had another hope. But he recently passed away of heart attack(RIP). Li Keqiang was reasonable, about as uncorrupt as a CCP politician could be, didn't come from the same elitist circles that the CCP leadership usually comes from. He was really close friends with Hu Jintao, and was the centre-piece to the coalition that Hu founded which incorporated the Shanghai clique and other factions. He is the guy you see Hu, in the video above, tap on the shoulder for help. Unfortunately after his time as premier came to an end, rather than try to jig the system to stay on, he silently retired then unfortunately passed away.

The hope I have now is that Xi doesn't have a real succession plan, as of now. The best outcome is when he kicks the bucket, the CCP will somehow bring back power to the liberal (for CCP standards) Shanghai Clique and we will see a much less confrontational, ultra-nationalistic and militaristic China.

Bringing them into the fold only makes sense to the US if you can keep the benefits surely? You've said that the US allowed them to ignore WTO rules and gave them preferential treatment. That was due to the cheap goods but the outcome was pretty inevitable with a population that size. Honestly though, we in the West loved what China could offer us as a cheap supplier but seemingly don't like what they can do by making them a major player.

That's worked for a couple of decades, but now we have a country which has rediscovered its economy & global strength. The rest of your post explains how that has happened, but it was pretty inevitable with a country the size of China in my opinion.

The US realised the mistake a decade ago; the Chips Act (although based on Taiwan) was them trying to onshore the biggest issue if something does happen, but there's a lot more to do and some pretty significant price rises to come if we want to reverse where a lot of our manufacturing comes from.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Bringing them into the fold only makes sense to the US if you can keep the benefits surely? You've said that the US allowed them to ignore WTO rules and gave them preferential treatment. That was due to the cheap goods but the outcome was pretty inevitable with a population that size. Honestly though, we in the West loved what China could offer us as a cheap supplier but seemingly don't like what they can do by making them a major player.

That's worked for a couple of decades, but now we have a country which has rediscovered its economy & global strength. The rest of your post explains how that has happened, but it was pretty inevitable with a country the size of China in my opinion.

The US realised the mistake a decade ago; the Chips Act (although based on Taiwan) was them trying to onshore the biggest issue if something does happen, but there's a lot more to do and some pretty significant price rises to come if we want to reverse where a lot of our manufacturing comes from.

I don't think it's inevitable in any sense of the word. The USA didn't see China's end goal as being a permanent cheap supply of labour. It saw China as a gigantic, 1.2 billion sized market for high-tech luxury US manufactured goods and services, of which came at a pricing point that required the people of China to be pretty middle income. But without them having geopolitical ambitions that seek to topple the exact order they benefited decades from.

Think India geopolitically, but the economics of China now.

I think a continuity of Shanghai Clique + Touban/Jiang/Hu would have seen this come to fruition. Hu's biggest failure was not carving a succession path. Li Keqiang came at the wrong time. Too young when Hu's term ended. Xi was too strong by the time Li had power.

 

[Balljy]

I don't think it's inevitable in any sense of the word. The USA didn't see China's end goal as being a permanent cheap supply of labour. It saw China as a gigantic, 1.2 billion sized market for high-tech luxury US manufactured goods and services, of which came at a pricing point that required the people of China to be pretty middle income. But without them having geopolitical ambitions that seek to topple the exact order they benefited decades from.

Think India geopolitically, but the economics of China now.

I think a continuity of Shanghai Clique + Touban/Jiang/Hu would have seen this come to fruition. Hu's biggest failure was not carving a succession path. Li Keqiang came at the wrong time. Too young when Hu's term ended. Xi was too strong by the time Li had power.

There's no way that's true. We in the West kept prices low for decades due to China (and other countries to be fair). If the US wanted to sell to the 1.2billion rather than use them, why did the vast majority of high-end luxury US companies goods and services get outsourced to that country then get imported back in? Sure, it's now slowly moving back but because of what's going on and costs are going to go up because of it.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

There's no way that's true. We in the West kept prices low for decades due to China (and other countries to be fair). If the US wanted to sell to the 1.2billion rather than use them, why did the vast majority of high-end luxury US companies goods and services get outsourced to that country then get imported back in? Sure, it's now slowly moving back but because of what's going on and costs are going to go up because of it.

It's a two way street right?

Importing giant numbers of raw resources doesn't make sense if nobody is able to consume the vast amount of goods you produce from those resources.

Win-win scenario for all parties. China gets richer, US makes a lot of money from China's giant market.

China's genuine issue is its geopolitical aims that threatens all of this. If the economic situation was the same but Xi's foreign policy wasn't so militant and he didn't rally ethno-nationalism in the way he did - things would be very different vis-a-vis Western China relations.

 

[ericking]

Yes, though I highly doubt and correct me if I'm wrong, Irish politicians bang on about taking revenge on the British for the colonial endeavours, Thatchers death squads and Cromwell. I don't think you quite understand the ultra-nationalistic sentiment as well as the Han Supremacy element that China has right now. For all his other bollocks, Mao actually recognised this problem and openly stated that in China, having Han chauvinism is a terrible idea and would result in horrible outcomes.

Mao, Deng, Jiang, Hu all did their uttermost to try and dispel the ugly side of Chinese society. Xi actively encouraged it. That's why we are where we are at now.

Trump was correct to tariff China. The mistake was to tariff everyone else. If the idea is to create a trade zone that excludes China from US supply chains and find ways to leverage allies and partners to do so too (of which USA has many many), the decoupling could have succeeded. Alas, the prick decided to alienate all US allies and friends so it all went to shit.

The rare earth is just an example of the kind of leverage China has built and is more than willing to use. What's to stop China from just excluding the Western world from the most key important strategic resources it provides? Nothing.

Dude, this conversation is exhausting- you are effectively delusional on the matter- I'm not going to engage after this post, there is genuinely no point as you are so fixed in your beliefs.

With regards anti-British sentiment amongst Irish politicians- it clearly doesn't serve any purpose now, and would be counter-productive to antagonize an important economic partner, and with Ireland having an increasing non-Irish population would cost votes. I suspect we will see some of it come through whenever reunification with NI comes into play. Joe Biden's speech at the Irish Parliament on his state visit was pretty heavy with anti-British sentiment, and he was clearly playing to what he thought his audience would appreciate.

With regards Trump's tariffs against China- you clearly agree that it had nothing to do with long-term security, so how can you even repeat it as an argument in your favour? It's clearly a broken clock being right twice a day.

Your question about why do they need aircraft carriers. The answer is so obvious, that I absolutely refuse to believe you don't know the answer, and you have tossed that out in the hope some people will just accept it as they might a Daily Mail headline.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Dude, this conversation is exhausting- you are effectively delusional on the matter- I'm not going to engage after this post, there is genuinely no point as you are so fixed in your beliefs.

With regards anti-British sentiment amongst Irish politicians- it clearly doesn't serve any purpose now, and would be counter-productive to antagonize an important economic partner, and with Ireland having an increasing non-Irish population would cost votes. I suspect we will see some of it come through whenever reunification with NI comes into play. Joe Biden's speech at the Irish Parliament on his state visit was pretty heavy with anti-British sentiment, and he was clearly playing to what he thought his audience would appreciate.

With regards Trump's tariffs against China- you clearly agree that it had nothing to do with long-term security, so how can you even repeat it as an argument in your favour? It's clearly a broken clock being right twice a day.

Your question about why do they need aircraft carriers. The answer is so obvious, that I absolutely refuse to believe you don't know the answer, and you have tossed that out in the hope some people will just accept it as they might a Daily Mail headline.

Yeah Trump didn't have the right thing in mind when he did it - but it was still the correct thing to do - creating an exclusionary zone. Wrong idea, right implementation - on its own - obviously tariffing everyone else was just bonkers.

Sorry, they do not. No amount of your aggressive posting will change the fact that Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (Which is what Type 004 is going to be) is for very long distance power projection, something which China does not need for the 1st and 2nd island chains.

Again, point out the need for that if those islands are within range of normal land based aircraft. The force composition of PLAN is for deep sea excursions into the Pacific and beyond. Explain to me one use case of a Nuclear aircraft carrier in a defensive posture.

I'm sorry but it's only exhausting to you because of ignorance.

 

[ericking]

How can ignorance be exhausting? Making the same argument over and over again is the exhausting bit. You say ignorance, and I say delusional subjectivism. But I won't be making any more posts on the matter, but my fear this becomes a thread where the only posts are made are yours because everyone else does the same thing as me.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

How can ignorance be exhausting? Making the same argument over and over again is the exhausting bit. You say ignorance, and I say delusional subjectivism. But I won't be making any more posts on the matter, but my fear this becomes a thread where the only posts are made are yours because everyone else does the same thing as me.

You haven't actually presented an argument. You're just basically saying I'm wrong, implying that China is not a threat, but backed that up with no substance.

Of course, this also implies that both the Republicans and Democrats are wrong, Obama was wrong with the Asian pivot, Biden was wrong, Europe is wrong, the EU is wrong, UK is wrong, Japan is wrong, South Korea are wrong etc etc.

 

[africanspur]

Why do the US, France, UK, Spain, India? Italy and Japan have aircraft carriers?

 

[maniak]

Why do the US, France, UK, Spain, India? Italy and Japan have aircraft carriers?

Because they want to attack other countries, obviously. The Azores will only be safe when the spanish navy is effectively dismantled. Sadly no one else seems to think this way but me.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Why do the US, France, UK, Spain, India? Italy and Japan have aircraft carriers?

Because India wants to project power into the Indian ocean? It's in a geopolitical deadlock with China and needs that side secure.

US's is for pretty obvious reasons. It's to maintain the status quo and to maintain its current position.

UK's was originally built to follow established NATO/American naval doctrine but hilariously there's now talk of a permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific for 1 of the CSG's to aid USA.

France's CDG is both for imperial reasons (Maintain the Franco Union which is where most of its deployments have been) but also a bit of a vanity project.

Spain does not have one since the last one retired. There are talks of maybe building one but there's a lot of push back because it's deemed redundant. The previous one was built for the same reason as Italy.

Italy's was built solely with NATO doctrine in mind and to lessen the burden of the USN when it came to operations in the 6th Fleet.

Japan does not have one and is constitutionally not allowed to have them.


Now, all of these are mostly (UK and US aside) very small (20ktonne to 40k) carriers that carry a small complement of aircraft.

Let's look at strategic positions of China.

It's building aircraft carriers that are gigantic, bigger than anything other than UK/US have. The next one is nuclear. Yet there's no basing rights outside of Djibouti. It's latest supply ship requirements is 10,000km range.
The SCS is already militarized as hell, with island installations on reefs, and air coverage from Hainan/Qingdao etc.
It's useless in a fight in the 1st/2nd island chains. It won't even be deployed because why bother when you have 50 airfields within range of those islands.
They're built for deep pacific operations despite not having any tangible interests there.

So you have these aircraft carriers that don't meet any of the requirements for the 1st/2nd Island chain. It's not a necessity for the SCS. They don't have basing access to the pacific and there are no interests there.

So you build a fleet whose operational purpose is deep oceans into the Pacific, where China has practically no trade, no base access and no sovereign territory or interests.

The only logical conclusion you can draw from this is that they're preparing for what happens after the 1st and 2nd Island chains have fallen and the reverse island hopping necessities that may happen after that.

Either that or the PLAN are just idiots who are building vanity projects, which I don't believe for a second.

 

[Attila]

Because India wants to project power into the Indian ocean? It's in a geopolitical deadlock with China and needs that side secure.

US's is for pretty obvious reasons. It's to maintain the status quo and to maintain its current position.

UK's was originally built to follow established NATO/American naval doctrine but hilariously there's now talk of a permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific for 1 of the CSG's to aid USA.

France's CDG is both for imperial reasons (Maintain the Franco Union which is where most of its deployments have been) but also a bit of a vanity project.

Spain does not have one since the last one retired. There are talks of maybe building one but there's a lot of push back because it's deemed redundant. The previous one was built for the same reason as Italy.

Italy's was built solely with NATO doctrine in mind and to lessen the burden of the USN when it came to operations in the 6th Fleet.

Japan does not have one and is constitutionally not allowed to have them.


Now, all of these are mostly (UK and US aside) very small (20ktonne to 40k) carriers that carry a small complement of aircraft.

Let's look at strategic positions of China.

It's building aircraft carriers that are gigantic, bigger than anything other than UK/US have. The next one is nuclear. Yet there's no basing rights outside of Djibouti. It's latest supply ship requirements is 10,000km range.
The SCS is already militarized as hell, with island installations on reefs, and air coverage from Hainan/Qingdao etc.
It's useless in a fight in the 1st/2nd island chains. It won't even be deployed because why bother when you have 50 airfields within range of those islands.
They're built for deep pacific operations despite not having any tangible interests there.

So you have these aircraft carriers that don't meet any of the requirements for the 1st/2nd Island chain. It's not a necessity for the SCS. They don't have basing access to the pacific and there are no interests there.

So you build a fleet whose operational purpose is deep oceans into the Pacific, where China has practically no trade, no base access and no sovereign territory or interests.

The only logical conclusion you can draw from this is that they're preparing for what happens after the 1st and 2nd Island chains have fallen and the reverse island hopping necessities that may happen after that.

Either that or the PLAN are just idiots who are building vanity projects, which I don't believe for a second.

you’re assuming that every capability China builds must be part of a maximalist war plan

carriers dont have to be optimised for the first island chain to make sense...they’re political and strategic tools for signalling, deterrence, hedging against base denial, and complicating US re-entry, not proof of an imperial endgame. operating east of the island chains is about leverage and escalation control, not marching across the Pacific, and treating every Chinese capability as evidence of catastrophic intent is threat inflation...not analysis.

lay off the call of duty kid

 

[AfonsoAlves]

you’re assuming that every capability China builds must be part of a maximalist war plan

carriers dont have to be optimised for the first island chain to make sense...they’re political and strategic tools for signalling, deterrence, hedging against base denial, and complicating US re-entry, not proof of an imperial endgame. operating east of the island chains is about leverage and escalation control, not marching across the Pacific, and treating every Chinese capability as evidence of catastrophic intent is threat inflation...not analysis.

lay off the call of duty kid

Good thing that the DoD share my opinion and not yours and are fortifying all the Pacific islands with bases, anti air defense systems and garrisons. Heck this is the one thing that even hegseth agreed with and didn't try to chop up.

Furthermore, guess the building of long distance amphibious assault ships is also just leverage huh?

I don't know why everyone fails to recognise chinas troop movements deployments and plans.

When Russia does this everyone is rightfully alarmed but when China does it people make all sorts of excuses for them. Insane.

Times like this is when im really happy military planning isn't based on popular sentiment and democracy.

Guess you would be arguing in defence of German naval buildup in 1905 too eh?

 

[Attila]

Good thing that the DoD share my opinion and not yours and are fortifying all the Pacific islands with bases, anti air defense systems and garrisons. Heck this is the one thing that even hegseth agreed with and didn't try to chop up.

Furthermore, guess the building of long distance amphibious assault ships is also just leverage huh?

I don't know why everyone fails to recognise chinas troop movements deployments and plans.

When Russia does this everyone is rightfully alarmed but when China does it people make all sorts of excuses for them. Insane.

Times like this is when im really happy military planning isn't based on popular sentiment and democracy.

Guess you would be arguing in defence of German naval buildup in 1905 too eh?

Well isn't their job to plan for worst case scenarios. doesn't mean your china paranoias about them wanting to end the west is true

pointing out china’s behaviour is structurally predictable for a rising power isn’t “making excuses"

what do you expect china to do exactly?

1. accept US primacy in their back yard indefinitely
2. rely on land based missiles alone
3. build a balanced navy which includes aircraft carriers

 

[Bert_]

If China has the resources to build expeditionary capable warships then why wouldn't they? I assume they desire power projection as much as any other nation capable of achieving it.

Having that capability is obviously a threat to the US/it's allies though. Not directly, both have nukes. But China could start doing what the US has been doing for 80 years, and using it's military power to gain control or influence over nations thousands of miles away. The latest addition to the 500 year story of overseas colonial Empires.

 

[africanspur]

Because India wants to project power into the Indian ocean? It's in a geopolitical deadlock with China and needs that side secure.

US's is for pretty obvious reasons. It's to maintain the status quo and to maintain its current position.

UK's was originally built to follow established NATO/American naval doctrine but hilariously there's now talk of a permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific for 1 of the CSG's to aid USA.

France's CDG is both for imperial reasons (Maintain the Franco Union which is where most of its deployments have been) but also a bit of a vanity project.

Spain does not have one since the last one retired. There are talks of maybe building one but there's a lot of push back because it's deemed redundant. The previous one was built for the same reason as Italy.

Italy's was built solely with NATO doctrine in mind and to lessen the burden of the USN when it came to operations in the 6th Fleet.

Japan does not have one and is constitutionally not allowed to have them.


Now, all of these are mostly (UK and US aside) very small (20ktonne to 40k) carriers that carry a small complement of aircraft.

Let's look at strategic positions of China.

It's building aircraft carriers that are gigantic, bigger than anything other than UK/US have. The next one is nuclear. Yet there's no basing rights outside of Djibouti. It's latest supply ship requirements is 10,000km range.
The SCS is already militarized as hell, with island installations on reefs, and air coverage from Hainan/Qingdao etc.
It's useless in a fight in the 1st/2nd island chains. It won't even be deployed because why bother when you have 50 airfields within range of those islands.
They're built for deep pacific operations despite not having any tangible interests there.

So you have these aircraft carriers that don't meet any of the requirements for the 1st/2nd Island chain. It's not a necessity for the SCS. They don't have basing access to the pacific and there are no interests there.

So you build a fleet whose operational purpose is deep oceans into the Pacific, where China has practically no trade, no base access and no sovereign territory or interests.

The only logical conclusion you can draw from this is that they're preparing for what happens after the 1st and 2nd Island chains have fallen and the reverse island hopping necessities that may happen after that.

Either that or the PLAN are just idiots who are building vanity projects, which I don't believe for a second.

So what are the JS Kaga and Izumo then?

Just to understand then, any western or western allied country which builds aircraft carriers: normal and needed to project power.

Any Chinese aircraft carrier built to project power, a threat to the very fundamental basis of the west itself. Why should the world’s second largest economy want to do anything beyond its EEZ?

A question that isn’t relevant for the west it seems.

 

[711]

So what are the JS Kaga and Izumo then?

Just to understand then, any western or western allied country which builds aircraft carriers: normal and needed to project power.

Any Chinese aircraft carrier built to project power, a threat to the very fundamental basis of the west itself. Why should the world’s second largest economy want to do anything beyond its EEZ?

A question that isn’t relevant for the west it seems.

That's right. And if Afonso is saying the West needs to be aware of Chinese capability and have enough defensive capability to deter any aggression then he would be right too. I do have a problem in that @AfonsoAlves tends to throw so many things into his argument to prove his point that I'm not always sure what his underlying point is, but that might be just me unable to take in too much at once of course.

 

[golden_blunder]

The oil tanker the US seized yesterday off Venezuela supposedly is owned by China

 

[TwoSheds]

The oil tanker the US seized yesterday off Venezuela supposedly is owned by China

Tasty!

 

[AfonsoAlves]

So what are the JS Kaga and Izumo then?

Just to understand then, any western or western allied country which builds aircraft carriers: normal and needed to project power.

Any Chinese aircraft carrier built to project power, a threat to the very fundamental basis of the west itself. Why should the world’s second largest economy want to do anything beyond its EEZ?

A question that isn’t relevant for the west it seems.

Call them what the Japanese themselves call them ("Multi purpose destroyers" or "Multi-Role Cruisers" both of which are hilariously made up terminologies), but they're simply not aircraft carriers.

If you really want to do a direct comparison to something in Western militaries, it's basically a LHD/LPD. Something akin to USS Wasp or HMS Albion.

Which, no matter how you want to classify it, is not an aircraft carrier in just about any metric.

Just because a plane can take off from it, does not make it an aircraft carrier. Just like how a vehicle with a gun isn't necessarily a tank.


The rest of your post misses the point entirely. The crux of the problem isn't that "China isn't allowed to build aircraft carriers." There is no moral or legislative restraint (apart from on Japan) that decides which country should or should not build aircraft carriers.

The question that should be asked is, "What purpose does an aircraft carrier serve for the country building it?" followed by, "How should we react to that?"

Let's take for example Italy. It's pretty much the country most invested in the Mediterranean, out of the developed countries. Given that the US 6th Fleet is always chronically under-resourced (mainly because, let's be honest other than some exercises up the Bosphorus and the occasional flair up in North Africa, there's not a lot of the US 6th Fleet to actually do), it makes strategic sense for Italy to have something ready and quickly deployable in case something does happen.

Look at the service history of Cavour. Prior to 2024, it's been to 3 places. USA for training, The Mediterranean sea, and once to Haiti, to provide aid for an earthquake. The strategic onus on this was clear. "We're a backup for the Americans in case something gets rough and they cannot afford to put resources here."

Let's do this for China:

Is it part of a larger, broader naval coalition with standard doctrines to assist? Nope.
Does it have far reaching territories, or pledged alliances? A few, Djibouti, but not really enough to justify large carriers.
What is it's current medium term strategic naval objectives? Break the island chains. Is a carrier useful in this fight? Not really, no.
What about Straits of Malacca and the Indian Ocean? Possibly, but China has land based assets that are accessible and there's also 0 strategic interests there. Well, Straits of Malacca is a strategic interest but you have about 20 land bases accessible to there so again, what's the point of a carrier?

So it makes people think. Why? Why does China need aircraft carriers - especially so quickly and urgently? Also trying to create overmatch with the USA on that field.

Hence, it makes all the countries around it go, "What the feck" in response. And everyone has fully gone, "WTF". When you have little strategic reason to do something, and you start fully committing to it, of course analysts and security apparatuses of other nations are going to try to figure out what the hell you're trying to achieve and react accordingly.

By the way Aircraft Carriers are just one example. Their entire navy composition is just insane for the kind of geostrategic position its in.

When you start building a fleet designed for deep strikes into the Pacific then, well, don't be surprised that everyone assumes you're gearing up to do a deep strike into the Pacific.

India have started doing naval exercises with NATO. France/Italy/Germany have started doing long term naval deployments into the Indo-Pacific. Netherlands are rapidly increasing their surface fleet. The Philippines are buying/building asymmetric area denial platforms. Japan has recently stated it feels like it needs Nuclear Weapons to ensure its own survival. South Korea in the past half decade has pumped absurd amount of money into its defense industry.

All in all, everyone is hugely alarmed right now with what they perceive to be very very aggressive and maximalist Chinese ambitions.

Sure, outside of some brazen DoD officials, nobody has outright said, "Yeah there's war afoot and we're all going to get wrecked," but it's pretty obvious what everyone is thinking.

Simple analogy:

If Chile started building aircraft carriers - nobody would really care.
If Argentina started building aircraft carriers - people would be incredibly alarmed, especially in Britain.

Its all about the strategic position and what they represent.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Well isn't their job to plan for worst case scenarios. doesn't mean your china paranoias about them wanting to end the west is true

pointing out china’s behaviour is structurally predictable for a rising power isn’t “making excuses"

what do you expect china to do exactly?

1. accept US primacy in their back yard indefinitely
2. rely on land based missiles alone
3. build a balanced navy which includes aircraft carriers

How does US have primacy in their backyard? Could you not argue the same for China with Australia? Live fire exercises 13 miles from the coast of East Australia right by a naval base without warning. Basing rights and security agreements with loads of small islands near NZ and AUS.

Does China have primacy in USA's backyard because of it's trade arrangements and economic ties with the South American countries?

Come on can you stop making intellectually dishonest arguments? Nobody is arguing China should rely on land based missiles alone!

When China is 80 miles from Taiwan, and consequently a bit more away is Okinawa etc, you don't need aircraft carriers!

Right, so China has all these unsinkable airbases that is within a 30 minute flight to the 1st island chain...which holds 1000 strike/fighter aircraft between them...but obviously spending 25 Billion RMB on a floating airfield that can hold 50 Su-33 derivatives is way more important! Cause we can get 10 miles closer to Taiwan (despite it going to be a hell for naval survivability in that sea), and cut our sortie times by 1/10th! For those 60 aircraft.

As for your point 3 i'm not going to address it because it makes a really incorrect and wrong assumption. That China is building a balanced navy. It's not. It's incredibly lopsided and top heavy and bizarre and nobody truly understand what the PLAN are trying to do (maybe even they fully don't.) But for fighting the 1st island chains, it ain't.

 

[africanspur]

Call them what the Japanese themselves call them ("Multi purpose destroyers" or "Multi-Role Cruisers" both of which are hilariously made up terminologies), but they're simply not aircraft carriers.

If you really want to do a direct comparison to something in Western militaries, it's basically a LHD/LPD. Something akin to USS Wasp or HMS Albion.

Which, no matter how you want to classify it, is not an aircraft carrier in just about any metric.

Just because a plane can take off from it, does not make it an aircraft carrier. Just like how a vehicle with a gun isn't necessarily a tank.


The rest of your post misses the point entirely. The crux of the problem isn't that "China isn't allowed to build aircraft carriers." There is no moral or legislative restraint (apart from on Japan) that decides which country should or should not build aircraft carriers.

The question that should be asked is, "What purpose does an aircraft carrier serve for the country building it?" followed by, "How should we react to that?"

Let's take for example Italy. It's pretty much the country most invested in the Mediterranean, out of the developed countries. Given that the US 6th Fleet is always chronically under-resourced (mainly because, let's be honest other than some exercises up the Bosphorus and the occasional flair up in North Africa, there's not a lot of the US 6th Fleet to actually do), it makes strategic sense for Italy to have something ready and quickly deployable in case something does happen.

Look at the service history of Cavour. Prior to 2024, it's been to 3 places. USA for training, The Mediterranean sea, and once to Haiti, to provide aid for an earthquake. The strategic onus on this was clear. "We're a backup for the Americans in case something gets rough and they cannot afford to put resources here."

Let's do this for China:

Is it part of a larger, broader naval coalition with standard doctrines to assist? Nope.
Does it have far reaching territories, or pledged alliances? A few, Djibouti, but not really enough to justify large carriers.
What is it's current medium term strategic naval objectives? Break the island chains. Is a carrier useful in this fight? Not really, no.
What about Straits of Malacca and the Indian Ocean? Possibly, but China has land based assets that are accessible and there's also 0 strategic interests there. Well, Straits of Malacca is a strategic interest but you have about 20 land bases accessible to there so again, what's the point of a carrier?

So it makes people think. Why? Why does China need aircraft carriers - especially so quickly and urgently? Also trying to create overmatch with the USA on that field.

Hence, it makes all the countries around it go, "What the feck" in response. And everyone has fully gone, "WTF". When you have little strategic reason to do something, and you start fully committing to it, of course analysts and security apparatuses of other nations are going to try to figure out what the hell you're trying to achieve and react accordingly.

By the way Aircraft Carriers are just one example. Their entire navy composition is just insane for the kind of geostrategic position its in.

When you start building a fleet designed for deep strikes into the Pacific then, well, don't be surprised that everyone assumes you're gearing up to do a deep strike into the Pacific.

India have started doing naval exercises with NATO. France/Italy/Germany have started doing long term naval deployments into the Indo-Pacific. Netherlands are rapidly increasing their surface fleet. The Philippines are buying/building asymmetric area denial platforms. Japan has recently stated it feels like it needs Nuclear Weapons to ensure its own survival. South Korea in the past half decade has pumped absurd amount of money into its defense industry.

All in all, everyone is hugely alarmed right now with what they perceive to be very very aggressive and maximalist Chinese ambitions.

Sure, outside of some brazen DoD officials, nobody has outright said, "Yeah there's war afoot and we're all going to get wrecked," but it's pretty obvious what everyone is thinking.

Simple analogy:

If Chile started building aircraft carriers - nobody would really care.
If Argentina started building aircraft carriers - people would be incredibly alarmed, especially in Britain.

Its all about the strategic position and what they represent.

I mean they are being modified to allow F35s to take off from them. And they have I believe conducted exercises to do that. Going by your own description, why bother doing that, when they’re literally an island nation with a whole chain of unsinkable carriers?

I have no doubt that China has ambitions further afield than Taiwan. Just as the USA’s ambitions is not just Canada and Mexico, just as the USSR’s was not just Eastern Europe, Britain’s was not the North Sea and Rome’s was not Italy. That to me makes complete sense, even if I personally do not benefit from a multi polar world where the west is no longer hegemonic.

It also makes complete sense that the surrounding countries are uncomfortable. This is both a consequence of proximity and geography with regards to the various islands and claims in the South China Sea and Chinas own belligerence. Japan and South Korea also have disputes for example, even though they are technically under the same umbrella.

Our points don’t seem to be aligning here. Your point seems to be that the surrounding countries should be worried about a military rise of China (sure I get that), and the USA and the west should be worried because China will strike at the US heartland itself (leading to you previously saying that the US can only defend itself by hemming in China from the 1st island chain onwards. Perhaps think about how it would sound if someone made the opposite claim?). And that China should only be focusing on military assets to help it defend the South China Sea.

Whereas I don’t see the need for the worlds 2nd largest economy to restrict its military planning to its immediate backyard only, especially when the worlds largest economy rings it in and has engaged in strikes against multiple countries this year, as well as multiple invasions in this century.

 

[GazTheLegend]

@AfonsoAlves even if I agree with the gist of 90% of your thoughts on the topic -

My feelings on the Western powers and their leadership are so vitriolic right now that there's a self-hating part of me that simply doesn't care if China DOES have designs on usurping a position as a global hegemon. The powers that be in America, the UK and Europe clearly hate us (the "common" working people) and simply wouldn't care if we all crumbled to dust. China on the other hand has spent all the money and influence it's garnered ever since entering the WTO enriching it's cities, aggressively pursuing the best people, avoiding dangerous dopamine traps for it's children (like limiting gacha games), trying to think what's going to happen in 40 years rather than 4. Compare this with the UK civil service that would take 25 years to build a stretch of A road, and China is building nuclear power plants at massive rates.

There's one "scary" power in all this and it's not China. It's us. Try asking the British people if they'd go and fight and die for a country like in World War 1, which arrests them for writing words on the internet, tells them they are dangerous for hoisting flags, and let's the infrastructure literally crumble to dust around us while China controls British steel, the Czechs run Royal Mail, India runs Jaguar Land Rover and the Netherlands run our trains. Britain has been sold piece by piece. There's nothing left to fight for. The old arguments "China arrests people for posting things online!" "It's a terrifying police state!" Just don't hold water for me in modern Britain. We have all the authoritarianism and none of the safety in inner cities. I'm not joking when I say I saw a guy walk into a shop and pick a bottle of prosecco out of the m and s in the train station in Birmingham on Sunday when United were playing there, and 4 security eventually got there - and did -nothing- but watch. It's something I've read a lot about happening in London, and it's one thing reading and watching it online, it's quite another seeing it happen firsthand. And no doubt in my mind: Europe and America are trying to go the same way..

China might not be as "nice" to global peoples if they do become more than a peer power, which is a scary thought. But to many people, America has been a terror, as has Britain historically.

 

[Pickle85]

@AfonsoAlves even if I agree with the gist of 90% of your thoughts on the topic -

My feelings on the Western powers and their leadership are so vitriolic right now that there's a self-hating part of me that simply doesn't care if China DOES have designs on usurping a position as a global hegemon. The powers that be in America, the UK and Europe clearly hate us (the "common" working people) and simply wouldn't care if we all crumbled to dust. China on the other hand has spent all the money and influence it's garnered ever since entering the WTO enriching it's cities, aggressively pursuing the best people, avoiding dangerous dopamine traps for it's children (like limiting gacha games), trying to think what's going to happen in 40 years rather than 4. Compare this with the UK civil service that would take 25 years to build a stretch of A road, and China is building nuclear power plants at massive rates.

There's one "scary" power in all this and it's not China. It's us. Try asking the British people if they'd go and fight and die for a country like in World War 1, which arrests them for writing words on the internet, tells them they are dangerous for hoisting flags, and let's the infrastructure literally crumble to dust around us while China controls British steel, the Czechs run Royal Mail, India runs Jaguar Land Rover and the Netherlands run our trains. Britain has been sold piece by piece. There's nothing left to fight for. The old arguments "China arrests people for posting things online!" "It's sad terrifying police state!" Just don't hold water for me in modern Britain. We have all the authoritarianism and none of the safety handrails. And no doubt in my mind: Europe and America are trying to go the same way..

China might not be as "nice" to global peoples if they do become more than a peer power, which is a scary thought. But to many people, America has been a terror, as has Britain historically.

Let's be honest, this is casting China in a very positive light. What about the Uyghur genocide? Or the systematic censorship? Or the way it infringes on the population's civil liberties?

The bolded sounds worryingly like Reform taking points. Damned woke libs.

 

[GazTheLegend]

Let's be honest, this is casting China in a very positive light. What about the Uyghur genocide? Or the systematic censorship? Or the way it infringes on the population's civil liberties?

The bolded sounds worryingly like Reform taking points. Damned woke libs.

That's cherry picking my post to an insane degree. I mean the ironic thing is that your post here (also now bolded) are literal Farage talking points about China. Yeah I'm being way too lenient on the Chinese government, but it's exasperation with the way things have gone here. Damned far right!

 

[Pickle85]

That's cherry picking my post to an insane degree. I mean the ironic thing is that your post here (also now bolded) are literal Farage talking points about China. Yeah I'm being way too lenient on the Chinese government, but it's exasperation with the way things have gone here. Damned far right!

Eh? Those aren't talking points, those are literal problems with China. Those are serious political/societal issues. I've never heard Farage go hard on China. Where is it that he hits them on this?

 

[GazTheLegend]

Eh? Those aren't talking points, those are literal problems with China. Those are serious political/societal issues. I've never heard Farage go hard on China. Where is it that he hits them on this?

My point being it's a lazy and boring trope to say something like "oh that sounds like a reform talking point blah blah" or "woke" or anything else as if that instantly disqualifies something.as being incorrect, because anyone could do the same to you. It's a ridiculous thing to do and it's part and parcel of modern internet dialogue. I'm happy to be politically homeless and never side with anyone, but this notion that one "side" or talking points are wrong and thus you can instantly demolish an argument by making out that someone sounds like a reform voter or a green voter or whatever needs to die.

And there's plenty of hawkish and critical comments Farage has made regarding China. I don't want to go trawling for the most fitting and apt ones but surely it's not a surprise that the most xenophobic and hawkish politician has been xenophobic and hawkish about the Chinese government. For me personally I think Reforms links to Russia are much more worrying.