Do you think that strategy is from their rulers? And do you think that when the rulers die, that strategy will live on?

I think it will pass like every other empire/business: ruined by future generations who did not toil for it and who will trade it for short term gain.

I don't think the obsession with the short-term is necessarily the natural state of people, especially not in leadership. There were buildings built in times past knowing full well that it would take decades and even centuries to complete.

But I think long-term thinking requires a unified people in a democracy, or a non-democratic system. Democracy in a divided society makes long-term stuff basically impossible when the next guy who comes in will just undo it to spite you. And long-term visions often come with short-term costs without anything yet to show for it, which can then be weaponized against you. Oh and the best trick of all is doing something with short term benefit and mid-term costs, and then blame the consequences of your own actions on the next guy in office. Excessive printing of money is an obvious and extremely common example of this.

> China will patiently build the largest Navy and infiltrate the political landscape of Taiwan until they just peacefully transfer back into the fold.

I don't think this would work, they can't manipulate a sophisticated Western political system without actual sovereignty over the land. Western soft power is just that good.

If China had a playbook that could accomplish that, they would have used that instead for assimilating Hong Kong instead of what they ended up doing. They tried, but HK resisted Chinese influence HARD. So China stopped offering carrots and brought out the stick.

The west is very naive. A lot of the current state of the world is a result of western politicians believing the "end of history" theories of the 1980s - the idea that any country would naturally become a free market liberal democracy as it grew richer.

China is building soft power. We have Chinese funded teaching in British universities, lecturers moved from teaching a course because they upset Chinese students (who supported the regime), open apologists at places like Jesus College, Cambridge, agents building influence with MPs....

I agree Taiwan is unlikely to easily agree to be taken over by China, but that is because they know what living under Chinese rule will be like, not because of the soft power of the west.

The limiting factor to Chinese soft power development is its need to remain authoritarian. Folks will accept living under one if that's all they know. But if you didn't grow up with the brainwashing nobody will trust you and everything is transactional. You see Chinese attempts to exert political control over its diaspora and it never works as well as they would like.

Where the West's soft power essentially comes from in is in being the alternative to authoritarianism and it really doesn't have to be any more than that. The West will operate its own authoritarian regimes, like Puerto Rico, and Hawaii before it became a state, and the Phillipines, and these folks are perhaps the most oppressed of all. The West knows authoritarianism extremely well and is far better at the carrot / stick game of manipulating people.

When your carrots consist of patently self-serving deals to other autocrats at the expense of the public, the public eventually gets wise and puts pressure on the autocrat. The West can offer much more lucrative arrangements for all around, like that of building Taiwan's semiconductor industry. It's become a source of national pride for them and has created middle classes, a necessity for a modern political system.

I don’t know man, I would have believed this wholeheartedly ten years ago. But people are choosing true authoritarianism in droves. People just keep voting for Trump, Orban, Erdogan, and Le Pen. Trump is extremely transactional.

All of which is great news for China, and a great victory for their ‘do nothing: win’ policy.

I don't think authoritarian is the right term for critiques here. Try to define it in a way that one can't simply turn it around and apply it to people you probably don't want it to be applied to. For instance the actions taken during COVID, and against people during COVID, could easily be framed as extremely authoritarian. But then, like now, claims of authoritarianism were more of a proxy for 'I don't like the actions of this government' with authoritarianism just a framing of convenience.

In general the trends of the past were largely a product of globalism, and globalism is dying. So I expect we'll enter more into a historical zones of influence global status quo. For instance anybody who doesn't think Chinese soft power is growing exponentially should visit basically anywhere in Asia now a days. A decade ago China had relatively minimal influence, now it's everywhere driven in large part by just absolutely massive numbers of Chinese tourists as well as expats. A rapidly expanding middle class in a country of 1.4 billion has an impact that's basically impossible to overstate.

They always have. The present isn’t super special, and I think Europeans (speaking as one) realize this a bit easier, because we see populist governments rise and fall again, over and over, in different countries.

Populism is notoriously brittle, and almost every European populist party has eventually fallen once they gained actual power, because it turns out governing is complicated and can’t be done effectively while maintaining that beautiful, simple, enticing narrative that brought you into power.

But the Chinese government is not populist in the same sense, often quite the contrary. Their legitimacy seems to be derived from the fact that they have achieved real results for their population, which means they will eventually hit a different road block.

In uni, my friends used the phrase “simple solutions for complex times” as an insult for political ideas. Cutting the Gordian Knot only works well if your father spent half his life perfecting a new military doctrine for you. Still, it’s amazing how many people have “how hard can it be?” attitudes about everything but their own career/field.

Yes, it will surely all end in calamity, whether anyone here experiences it themselves or not. Humans have a major (among many) flaw, in the nasty tendency to believe they not only have a sufficient understanding of sufficient enough things, but that they also know the effects their perceived perfect choices and actions will have on such a complex system. Many religions have stories capturing this folly, the most famous possibly being the Tower of Babel, which were are furiously building in spite of what many humans call God, while others believe they have no more need for a God greater than themselves.

Orban just tried to ban the yearly Pride parade and inadvertently turned it into the largest protest against his rule ever. Trump barely took the election and may have even stolen it, if recent news is to be believed.

meh, not like protests work

see Tblisi or Belgrade :(

Electing Trump and supporting Netanyahu doesn't help much with the soft power thing.