China taking over the world without military actions.

[DrBeer]

I don't understand it when you say that China is taking over the world without military action. Because I don't see anyway China is taking over the world. Chinese companies might be over the world, but that mean that they are taking over the world.

I can agree with you that most countries are allying with China in one way or the  other. But I  other ways Chinese are trying be all over the world. Which countries with the type of knowledge they have will do same. I know China is doing all this thing's to see if they can be able to take world power from the USA. So we all where China is heading to.

More precisely, China is increasing its influence and presence worldwide, but in a way that is the opposite of the US strategy. Instead of using force or imposing sanction, they opted for softer strategies such as economic cooperation, trade, investment, and creating financial traps.

They have not yet dominated the world but are gradually expanding their influence. They are quietly reshaping the global order in their favor and creating a multipolar world that weakens the US, and that is something the US dislike

That's a pretty controversial statement. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Sri Lanka is the most “striking example” of “friendly relations.” Right now, this country is deeply in debt to China, and it has also lost the facilities that “friendly China invested in Sri Lanka.” You can check it out, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
2. Russia. After Russia launched a terrorist war against Ukraine and received well-deserved sanctions and pariah status, “brotherly China” forced Russia to sell oil, gas, and timber at bargain prices and replaced (and in fact destroyed) Russia's automotive industry with its own cars.
And now it dictates any terms it wants to Russia with a smile.

There are many more examples in Africa, South America, and some other regions.

As they say in such cases, “With friends like these, who needs enemies!”

[Iranus]

That's a pretty controversial statement. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Sri Lanka is the most “striking example” of “friendly relations.” Right now, this country is deeply in debt to China, and it has also lost the facilities that “friendly China invested in Sri Lanka.” You can check it out, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
2. Russia. After Russia launched a terrorist war against Ukraine and received well-deserved sanctions and pariah status, “brotherly China” forced Russia to sell oil, gas, and timber at bargain prices and replaced (and in fact destroyed) Russia's automotive industry with its own cars.
And now it dictates any terms it wants to Russia with a smile.

There are many more examples in Africa, South America, and some other regions.

I'm simply saying that China is not using military force or violence, but instead expanding its influence through trade, investment, and even financial traps.

What is wrong with that? Has China ever attacked Sri Lanka with missiles or nuclear bombs, as the US has done to other countries?

As they say in such cases, “With friends like these, who needs enemies!”

In politics, national interest must come first, and only interests are permanent, not friendship. Just as the US is willing to devour its own brothers (Greenland) for the sake of national interests. I believe you understand that better than anyone else.

All superpowers are rotten, but we should pick the one that is less viscous and less evil.

[DrBeer]

That's a pretty controversial statement. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Sri Lanka is the most “striking example” of “friendly relations.” Right now, this country is deeply in debt to China, and it has also lost the facilities that “friendly China invested in Sri Lanka.” You can check it out, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
2. Russia. After Russia launched a terrorist war against Ukraine and received well-deserved sanctions and pariah status, “brotherly China” forced Russia to sell oil, gas, and timber at bargain prices and replaced (and in fact destroyed) Russia's automotive industry with its own cars.
And now it dictates any terms it wants to Russia with a smile.

There are many more examples in Africa, South America, and some other regions.

I'm simply saying that China is not using military force or violence, but instead expanding its influence through trade, investment, and even financial traps.

What is wrong with that? Has China ever attacked Sri Lanka with missiles or nuclear bombs, as the US has done to other countries?

As they say in such cases, “With friends like these, who needs enemies!”

In politics, national interest must come first, and only interests are permanent, not friendship. Just as the US is willing to devour its own brothers (Greenland) for the sake of national interests. I believe you understand that better than anyone else.

All superpowers are rotten, but we should pick the one that is less viscous and less evil.

1. Okay, I understand your concept. So you support what everyone used to blame “empires” like the British for, which conquered other countries in various ways and turned them into their raw material-producing, disenfranchised appendages?
  So, the fact that China is killing the economies of other countries, parasitizing on local markets, and driving the populations of these countries into eternal poverty is perfectly fine?

It would also be interesting to hear examples of where the US has used missiles and bombs to capture foreign markets. But please be specific: give 5-10 examples of countries that the US has bombed and turned into its economic appendages.

2. Greenland is not US policy, it is Trump's idiocy, who urgently needs to distract everyone's attention from the Epstein case. Pedophilia and other crimes will not only put an end to his presidency, but will most likely land him behind bars for life.

PS “All superpowers are rotten, but we should pick the one that is less viscous and less evil.” - remember one saying: when choosing between two evils, you are still choosing EVIL!

[Iranus]

It would also be interesting to hear examples of where the US has used missiles and bombs to capture foreign markets. But please be specific: give 5-10 examples of countries that the US has bombed and turned into its economic appendages.

Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Philippines....

2. Greenland is not US policy, it is Trump's idiocy, who urgently needs to distract everyone's attention from the Epstein case. Pedophilia and other crimes will not only put an end to his presidency, but will most likely land him behind bars for life.

It seems you are trying to defend America to the bitter end and find a way to blame Trump entirely for selling Ukraine out to Russia.

I believe you are also aware that the US has repeatedly inquired about purchasing and acquiring Greenland. If I remember correctly, they made an offer to buy the island during President Andrew Johnson's term in 1968.

PS “All superpowers are rotten, but we should pick the one that is less viscous and less evil.” - remember one saying: when choosing between two evils, you are still choosing EVIL!

The problem is there's no third option.

[DrBeer]

It would also be interesting to hear examples of where the US has used missiles and bombs to capture foreign markets. But please be specific: give 5-10 examples of countries that the US has bombed and turned into its economic appendages.

Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Philippines....

2. Greenland is not US policy, it is Trump's idiocy, who urgently needs to distract everyone's attention from the Epstein case. Pedophilia and other crimes will not only put an end to his presidency, but will most likely land him behind bars for life.

It seems you are trying to defend America to the bitter end and find a way to blame Trump entirely for selling Ukraine out to Russia.

I believe you are also aware that the US has repeatedly inquired about purchasing and acquiring Greenland. If I remember correctly, they made an offer to buy the island during President Andrew Johnson's term in 1968.

PS “All superpowers are rotten, but we should pick the one that is less viscous and less evil.” - remember one saying: when choosing between two evils, you are still choosing EVIL!

The problem is there's no third option.

1. Let's now take a closer look at the examples you gave.
Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, the Philippines—how exactly did the US take over these countries? Please provide specific facts. What segments of the US economy did they take from these countries?
2. Absolutely not! I don't care about the US, Swaziland, Australia, or Laos. I'm interested in facts and real actions. I can ask you a counter question—are you trying to defend China and its predatory, ruinous actions towards other countries?
3. There is always a choice. We usually invent boundaries for ourselves. In this case, you can choose not to choose China or the US, but instead create economic alliances with other countries, making the influence of the US or China less hostile.
 There is also the problem of propaganda and the imposition of narratives. China, for example, is trying to prove to everyone that it is, if not the world leader, then at least the second pole of the world. Although China itself has a lot of problems, which it is trying to “export” to other countries for its own salvation.

[abhiseshakana]

It would also be interesting to hear examples of where the US has used missiles and bombs to capture foreign markets. But please be specific: give 5-10 examples of countries that the US has bombed and turned into its economic appendages.

Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Philippines....

2. Greenland is not US policy, it is Trump's idiocy, who urgently needs to distract everyone's attention from the Epstein case. Pedophilia and other crimes will not only put an end to his presidency, but will most likely land him behind bars for life.

It seems you are trying to defend America to the bitter end and find a way to blame Trump entirely for selling Ukraine out to Russia.

I believe you are also aware that the US has repeatedly inquired about purchasing and acquiring Greenland. If I remember correctly, they made an offer to buy the island during President Andrew Johnson's term in 1968.

PS “All superpowers are rotten, but we should pick the one that is less viscous and less evil.” - remember one saying: when choosing between two evils, you are still choosing EVIL!

The problem is there's no third option.

1. Let's now take a closer look at the examples you gave.
Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, the Philippines—how exactly did the US take over these countries? Please provide specific facts. What segments of the US economy did they take from these countries?
2. Absolutely not! I don't care about the US, Swaziland, Australia, or Laos. I'm interested in facts and real actions. I can ask you a counter question—are you trying to defend China and its predatory, ruinous actions towards other countries?
3. There is always a choice. We usually invent boundaries for ourselves. In this case, you can choose not to choose China or the US, but instead create economic alliances with other countries, making the influence of the US or China less hostile.
 There is also the problem of propaganda and the imposition of narratives. China, for example, is trying to prove to everyone that it is, if not the world leader, then at least the second pole of the world. Although China itself has a lot of problems, which it is trying to “export” to other countries for its own salvation.

I think the more suitable idiom for these multipolar era is the hornbill died in the middle" (when two elephants were fighting).
China Rusia action challanging USA automatically be channeled into economic pressure, proxy war , inflation and crisis. Big countries competition leaves developing and under developing country as victims. Both China and US not angel, entering each power orbit not always  take side but rather a strategy because sometimes neutrality is not safety.  US and China don't offer friendship, they offering alignment. Choice of alliance for every country will depend on its national interest tendency. If a nation face regional deterence and nees financial stability based on USD, US is the best choice for security umbrella. A nation can choose China, if need economic machine for infrastructure, export and asia market access. A country will choose alliance not with the most powerfull nations but with whom make them stronger.

Don't forget power behaves like power, if China have previledge like US, they will rule the world like US even worst.

Fun fact, many nation hate and critisize US but many country also rely on US, especially in crisis situation almost all nation run to USD, inderectly US successfully provide global trusted currency, isnt it a public good, (with note, not free, US give first to take more) Beside that we can not forget that massive globalization are US real contribution with its offshoring, trade deficit & deindustrialization. US navy domination also give important contribution, can you imagine global sea trade lanes condition, cost of export import will  very expensive because full of instability. Last but not least even many global institution (WTO, NATO, UN, IMF, worldbank) now fragile but in their golden era mostly US injected funding for their lives.

So we can say that US's sacrifices is strategic investation not altruism, to avoid lost on its investation, US do hegemony through institution. Lets imagine, if US sell democracy and liberty, China will sell development and equality, don't be deceived, they have the same purpose as many nations merged in to their orbit. Kindly be noted for super power, global stability is foundation of domination.

I am not racist, but what China worst than US, what China do in my country is speechless. One example, they are investor and fund smelter building, they requires, all material come from China, senior midlle engeneering also from China but they also send thousand of production worker as engeneering. Funny thing, China execute China corruptor in their country but they promote and practicing bribe in my country. On company level, i never saw such practice on US company, they reject tip money or bribe to finish a case faster. (based on my real experiences for almost 25 years handling import export custom many big foreign company opening factory in Indonesia)

[beerlover]

That's a pretty controversial statement. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Sri Lanka is the most “striking example” of “friendly relations.” Right now, this country is deeply in debt to China, and it has also lost the facilities that “friendly China invested in Sri Lanka.” You can check it out, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
2. Russia. After Russia launched a terrorist war against Ukraine and received well-deserved sanctions and pariah status, “brotherly China” forced Russia to sell oil, gas, and timber at bargain prices and replaced (and in fact destroyed) Russia's automotive industry with its own cars.
And now it dictates any terms it wants to Russia with a smile.

There are many more examples in Africa, South America, and some other regions.

As they say in such cases, “With friends like these, who needs enemies!”

This is how they are taking over countries, that is their goal, not with weapons or missiles or death, but with money. USA for example can go and take a leader of a nation (even though a dictator) from his bed and bring him to justice, that is military power, that is gun power, and as long as you do that, you are going to be powerful too.

China instead went with another method, just use your power to make others be in debt to you, and get the most out of them and profit yourself and ally them to yourself via money so you grow in power. You may not like the way it is, but we the world do not like your USA kind of ways neither, so for us both of them are same, at least in China version they are evil people who do not kill us.

[IronRubleS]

We can't blame USA only because of how they moved manufacturing to China, it was also China that made that happen and a possibility. While it has caused many sweat shops, deaths, and poverty, it has moved it there with tears and blood but made it happen.

Basically, people who are living a better life in China today, can do that thanks to their parents working in terrible conditions. But China realized decades ago, if they ruin the lives of just a single generation and make them get all the jobs, then the future would be much better and they were right. It's difficult to make that decision, but they are getting the fruits of their labour now.

Meanwhile, I believe that it is reasonable to state that the cost was very high and not all people equally enjoyed the benefits. Of course, the standard of living was raised in general, but so many workers had to pay a price that they did not want to pay. This does not imply that the process should be completely justified, therefore, whereas the long term outlook seems successful. It is rather a lesson that development can take so much pain as a trade-off.

[DrBeer]

It would also be interesting to hear examples of where the US has used missiles and bombs to capture foreign markets. But please be specific: give 5-10 examples of countries that the US has bombed and turned into its economic appendages.

Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Philippines....

2. Greenland is not US policy, it is Trump's idiocy, who urgently needs to distract everyone's attention from the Epstein case. Pedophilia and other crimes will not only put an end to his presidency, but will most likely land him behind bars for life.

It seems you are trying to defend America to the bitter end and find a way to blame Trump entirely for selling Ukraine out to Russia.

I believe you are also aware that the US has repeatedly inquired about purchasing and acquiring Greenland. If I remember correctly, they made an offer to buy the island during President Andrew Johnson's term in 1968.

PS “All superpowers are rotten, but we should pick the one that is less viscous and less evil.” - remember one saying: when choosing between two evils, you are still choosing EVIL!

The problem is there's no third option.

1. Let's now take a closer look at the examples you gave.
Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, the Philippines—how exactly did the US take over these countries? Please provide specific facts. What segments of the US economy did they take from these countries?
2. Absolutely not! I don't care about the US, Swaziland, Australia, or Laos. I'm interested in facts and real actions. I can ask you a counter question—are you trying to defend China and its predatory, ruinous actions towards other countries?
3. There is always a choice. We usually invent boundaries for ourselves. In this case, you can choose not to choose China or the US, but instead create economic alliances with other countries, making the influence of the US or China less hostile.
 There is also the problem of propaganda and the imposition of narratives. China, for example, is trying to prove to everyone that it is, if not the world leader, then at least the second pole of the world. Although China itself has a lot of problems, which it is trying to “export” to other countries for its own salvation.

I think the more suitable idiom for these multipolar era is the hornbill died in the middle" (when two elephants were fighting).
China Rusia action challanging USA automatically be channeled into economic pressure, proxy war , inflation and crisis. Big countries competition leaves developing and under developing country as victims. Both China and US not angel, entering each power orbit not always  take side but rather a strategy because sometimes neutrality is not safety.  US and China don't offer friendship, they offering alignment. Choice of alliance for every country will depend on its national interest tendency. If a nation face regional deterence and nees financial stability based on USD, US is the best choice for security umbrella. A nation can choose China, if need economic machine for infrastructure, export and asia market access. A country will choose alliance not with the most powerfull nations but with whom make them stronger.

Don't forget power behaves like power, if China have previledge like US, they will rule the world like US even worst.

Fun fact, many nation hate and critisize US but many country also rely on US, especially in crisis situation almost all nation run to USD, inderectly US successfully provide global trusted currency, isnt it a public good, (with note, not free, US give first to take more) Beside that we can not forget that massive globalization are US real contribution with its offshoring, trade deficit & deindustrialization. US navy domination also give important contribution, can you imagine global sea trade lanes condition, cost of export import will  very expensive because full of instability. Last but not least even many global institution (WTO, NATO, UN, IMF, worldbank) now fragile but in their golden era mostly US injected funding for their lives.

So we can say that US's sacrifices is strategic investation not altruism, to avoid lost on its investation, US do hegemony through institution. Lets imagine, if US sell democracy and liberty, China will sell development and equality, don't be deceived, they have the same purpose as many nations merged in to their orbit. Kindly be noted for super power, global stability is foundation of domination.

I am not racist, but what China worst than US, what China do in my country is speechless. One example, they are investor and fund smelter building, they requires, all material come from China, senior midlle engeneering also from China but they also send thousand of production worker as engeneering. Funny thing, China execute China corruptor in their country but they promote and practicing bribe in my country. On company level, i never saw such practice on US company, they reject tip money or bribe to finish a case faster. (based on my real experiences for almost 25 years handling import export custom many big foreign company opening factory in Indonesia)

1. I asked for substantiated examples to support your previous statement, and I would still be grateful if you could provide them, as this would make the dialogue more systematic and prevent us from “jumping around”! Let's respond even if the answers are not very pleasant, but at least it will be an honest dialogue!
 
2. “China and Russia's actions challenging the US automatically translate into economic pressure, proxy wars, inflation, and crisis.” Look, you started with another incorrect statement and built a whole story around it. China and Russia are not opposing the US. Yeah, right. Let me explain.
Russia is just a random player who comically pretends to be either a great country or a new empire like the USSR If it weren't for the terrorist wars that Russia has unleashed over the past decade, one could say that it's a ridiculous show and not a country. Today, Russia is a “spare bowl of rice” for China, or more simply, a submissive raw materials appendage.
But with Russia's help, China is “poking the world system with a stick” and watching the reaction. Russia is also a “guinea pig” for China — why get your hands dirty when you have such a submissive “tester”

Today, China is TRYING to COMPETE with the US, but not to DESTROY the US. The problem is that China's economy has been, is, and will continue to be:
- dependent on Western markets (export-oriented economy)
- dependent on Western technology, as strange as that may sound All China has is what the West has given it or allowed it to take.
These two facts are enough to understand that it is more profitable for China to have a symbiotic relationship, with some recognition as “another world leader.” But this is more for the self-satisfaction of the Chinese Communist Party

3. You still defend China with stories about its positive steps
 I can give examples of similar steps taken by the US From saving Russia (in the 19th century) and the USSR (in the 20th century, yes, that's also a fact ) to rebuilding Germany and many other countries, where the US built plants and factories, helped rebuild the economy, and create a constitutional state.
For example, they are helping our country to resist Russian terrorists who have unleashed a massacre in my country, providing financial assistance, weapons, and necessary information.

By the way, what do you think about Russia's approach to “conquering the world”? How would you rate it?
 

PS I'm still waiting for answers to my previous post

[pooya87]

OP is making a major mistake here which I didn't see being pointed out. China is indeed taking over the world with military action but the action is being carried out by the US regime. The destabilization they are causing has been pushing the world toward China and the Chinese know very well how to take advantage of it and create a "dependency"! All they had to do was to open their arms.

[Agbamoni]

There is a myth on how the US took over America from the Native Americans. How they poisoned the food shipped to the native Americans during trade, taking over the land without any war. This shows that there are things in life that are more important than show of power. The military needs food and other amenities to survive right? China has high production of what we use for daily live, if these things are not provided life will be difficult for everyone. When you control the circulation of all this, you are already winning without throwing a single punch.

[Fortify]

China is taking over the world stage without any military actions. All good students on  history will bear me witness that, power has always been taken over by force and military might in the past all global powers has been taken over by military actions. But China the second largest economy in the world and the most populated country in the world is taken over power in the world stage subtly as they continue to expand their interest in all continent without firing a single shot.

How has China been able to do this.

China has been able to successfully lay grib on the rest of the world by  investing in infrastructure and what China terms as strategic investments. Digital networking, investing in infrastructure such as Rail way, power stations, building of hospital and schools, and finally systems. Another thing to consider too is investments in
the world Rare earth minerals and natural resources this is the new world order and China is leading on this areas no wonder more countries are aligning with china. While the West and American is concerned more about using force and military actions to enforce their will on others country just as we are experiencing in the world  today. China is busy expanding more influence on the rest of the world. This is going to count moving forward.

You should be careful overestimating how much other countries can and will ever trust China. When America conquered the world through soft power, it was mainly because they had all these open and transparent systems that they applied to their own free markets, which they usually asked for in return of trade deals. So while a country could make a lot of money selling back to the USA, it did require opening up some of their previously closed industries in return, this was usually a good deal. However China tends to be much more selfish in trade deals, we'll build you a railway but you must give us ownership of this key port or mine for a hundred years - which often turns out to be a very unfair deal which countries wake up to later on. A lot of backroom deals with current leaders are done, which are not necessarily in the best long term interests of partner countries. Eventually all these scandals do make their way out and further break trust with any future Chinese trade. Short term, they might look like they get ahead, long term the opaque Chinese government structure cannot be overcome.

[Abiky]

There is a myth on how the US took over America from the Native Americans. How they poisoned the food shipped to the native Americans during trade, taking over the land without any war. This shows that there are things in life that are more important than show of power. The military needs food and other amenities to survive right? China has high production of what we use for daily live, if these things are not provided life will be difficult for everyone. When you control the circulation of all this, you are already winning without throwing a single punch.

Let's not forget that China holds important rare Earth metals. It's also the "world's manufacturing facility". You can see how relevant China is these days. It simply can't be ignored. During US President Trump's trade war with China, both countries suffered dearly. It was for a short period of time as they reached a deal. But if prolonged, it would've been "hell to pay".

A direct confrontation (war) between the US and China will take a huge hit to the global economy as we know it. China is smart by avoiding direct military escalation with America and its peers. It only uses economic leverage whenever it needs to (like threatening to stop exporting rare Earths to the US, etc). I'd say slowly but surely, China will take over the world alongside Russia. They'll be the ones that will move full steam ahead with a New World Order. Just you wait and see.

[DrBeer]

That's a pretty controversial statement. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Sri Lanka is the most “striking example” of “friendly relations.” Right now, this country is deeply in debt to China, and it has also lost the facilities that “friendly China invested in Sri Lanka.” You can check it out, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
2. Russia. After Russia launched a terrorist war against Ukraine and received well-deserved sanctions and pariah status, “brotherly China” forced Russia to sell oil, gas, and timber at bargain prices and replaced (and in fact destroyed) Russia's automotive industry with its own cars.
And now it dictates any terms it wants to Russia with a smile.

There are many more examples in Africa, South America, and some other regions.

As they say in such cases, “With friends like these, who needs enemies!”

This is how they are taking over countries, that is their goal, not with weapons or missiles or death, but with money. USA for example can go and take a leader of a nation (even though a dictator) from his bed and bring him to justice, that is military power, that is gun power, and as long as you do that, you are going to be powerful too.

China instead went with another method, just use your power to make others be in debt to you, and get the most out of them and profit yourself and ally them to yourself via money so you grow in power. You may not like the way it is, but we the world do not like your USA kind of ways neither, so for us both of them are same, at least in China version they are evil people who do not kill us.

Okay, let's go with your approach I'll take your statement and draw the following conclusion:
between such situations:
- the not-so-legal isolation of the president of another country, who illegitimately appointed himself president of Venezuela, usurped power, drove his people into poverty, destroyed the economy, and whose resignation is demanded by the entire population of Venezuela, which will ultimately lead to an improvement in the standard of living of the population and the country's emergence from isolation.
and
- driving the country into debt for centuries to come, fraudulently appropriating its resources and assets using corrupt schemes.

Do you consider the second option, which essentially amounts to total economic slavery and the destruction of the country's economy, to be more acceptable?
 
 

[slapper]

It would also be interesting to hear examples of where the US has used missiles and bombs to capture foreign markets. But please be specific: give 5-10 examples of countries that the US has bombed and turned into its economic appendages.

Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Philippines....

2. Greenland is not US policy, it is Trump's idiocy, who urgently needs to distract everyone's attention from the Epstein case. Pedophilia and other crimes will not only put an end to his presidency, but will most likely land him behind bars for life.

It seems you are trying to defend America to the bitter end and find a way to blame Trump entirely for selling Ukraine out to Russia.

I believe you are also aware that the US has repeatedly inquired about purchasing and acquiring Greenland. If I remember correctly, they made an offer to buy the island during President Andrew Johnson's term in 1968.

PS “All superpowers are rotten, but we should pick the one that is less viscous and less evil.” - remember one saying: when choosing between two evils, you are still choosing EVIL!

The problem is there's no third option.

1. Let's now take a closer look at the examples you gave.
Venezuela, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, the Philippines—how exactly did the US take over these countries? Please provide specific facts. What segments of the US economy did they take from these countries?
2. Absolutely not! I don't care about the US, Swaziland, Australia, or Laos. I'm interested in facts and real actions. I can ask you a counter question—are you trying to defend China and its predatory, ruinous actions towards other countries?
3. There is always a choice. We usually invent boundaries for ourselves. In this case, you can choose not to choose China or the US, but instead create economic alliances with other countries, making the influence of the US or China less hostile.
 There is also the problem of propaganda and the imposition of narratives. China, for example, is trying to prove to everyone that it is, if not the world leader, then at least the second pole of the world. Although China itself has a lot of problems, which it is trying to “export” to other countries for its own salvation.

I think the more suitable idiom for these multipolar era is the hornbill died in the middle" (when two elephants were fighting).
China Rusia action challanging USA automatically be channeled into economic pressure, proxy war , inflation and crisis. Big countries competition leaves developing and under developing country as victims. Both China and US not angel, entering each power orbit not always  take side but rather a strategy because sometimes neutrality is not safety.  US and China don't offer friendship, they offering alignment. Choice of alliance for every country will depend on its national interest tendency. If a nation face regional deterence and nees financial stability based on USD, US is the best choice for security umbrella. A nation can choose China, if need economic machine for infrastructure, export and asia market access. A country will choose alliance not with the most powerfull nations but with whom make them stronger.

Don't forget power behaves like power, if China have previledge like US, they will rule the world like US even worst.

Fun fact, many nation hate and critisize US but many country also rely on US, especially in crisis situation almost all nation run to USD, inderectly US successfully provide global trusted currency, isnt it a public good, (with note, not free, US give first to take more) Beside that we can not forget that massive globalization are US real contribution with its offshoring, trade deficit & deindustrialization. US navy domination also give important contribution, can you imagine global sea trade lanes condition, cost of export import will  very expensive because full of instability. Last but not least even many global institution (WTO, NATO, UN, IMF, worldbank) now fragile but in their golden era mostly US injected funding for their lives.

So we can say that US's sacrifices is strategic investation not altruism, to avoid lost on its investation, US do hegemony through institution. Lets imagine, if US sell democracy and liberty, China will sell development and equality, don't be deceived, they have the same purpose as many nations merged in to their orbit. Kindly be noted for super power, global stability is foundation of domination.

I am not racist, but what China worst than US, what China do in my country is speechless. One example, they are investor and fund smelter building, they requires, all material come from China, senior midlle engeneering also from China but they also send thousand of production worker as engeneering. Funny thing, China execute China corruptor in their country but they promote and practicing bribe in my country. On company level, i never saw such practice on US company, they reject tip money or bribe to finish a case faster. (based on my real experiences for almost 25 years handling import export custom many big foreign company opening factory in Indonesia)

If your economy runs on dollars and your security is dependent on US naval routes then choosing Washington isn't really a choice. It's merely continuing as already laid out by others. Same with BRI debt traps in the opposite direction.

Narrative falls apart when you take a look at the actual mechanics. Offshoring was used to create massive corporate profits. Deficits were sustainable just because of dollar hegemony. Naval protection ensured trade routes that were more to the American economic interests. It is necessary to neglect all the material outcomes from these packs when re-packaging them as sacrifices. Those were investments that have massive returns. Cheap labor for corporations, cheap goods for consumers, reserve currency status means infinite deficits with zero consequences.

The real question is not whether China would be worse if things were reversed. Probably would be. The question is why are we stuck with choosing between different flavors of domination instead of creating something that does not require a hegemon? But that threatens everybody that's benefiting from the current arrangements so.

[Iranus]

China will take over the world alongside Russia. They'll be the ones that will move full steam ahead with a New World Order. Just you wait and see.

I look forward to a new world order without US authoritarianism, but I also do not want Russia and China to dominate the world. Because there is no guarantee they will not become a second the US.

Instead, a multipolar world with power distributed more evenly among many countries would be much better than focusing on a single superpower. When power is distributed evenly, the ability to check and restrain each other improves, and the abuse of power is reduced.

[fruktik]

Yeah they are gunning for Taiwan

The world now has 3 super villains.

USA
Russia
China

They will all be grabbing and annexing land and countries.

Times will be very hard the next 10 years for any smaller weaker country.

How aptly described the villains. Couldn't have said it better.

I'm just not sure Russia will have any influence on the world in the near future. It's already a third-world country, or even worse. After its access to global oil and gas markets was almost completely cut off, the economic situation has deteriorated to incredible levels. You can't even imagine how bad things are. A few more weeks and they could default. A financial crisis is already looming. Can it end quickly? No, it can't. The country will plunge into poverty and chaos for decades. The situation will be exactly like Cuba now. I can say with certainty that this is inevitable.

[barbara44]

Let's not forget that China holds important rare Earth metals. It's also the "world's manufacturing facility". You can see how relevant China is these days. It simply can't be ignored. During US President Trump's trade war with China, both countries suffered dearly. It was for a short period of time as they reached a deal. But if prolonged, it would've been "hell to pay".

A direct confrontation (war) between the US and China will take a huge hit to the global economy as we know it. China is smart by avoiding direct military escalation with America and its peers. It only uses economic leverage whenever it needs to (like threatening to stop exporting rare Earths to the US, etc). I'd say slowly but surely, China will take over the world alongside Russia. They'll be the ones that will move full steam ahead with a New World Order. Just you wait and see.

One thing about China is that, they are bigger in land size than people realize. I do get that they have a huge manpower because of their population, but the reality is that they also have the land for it, and they use that population and land size to maximum by working hard to get the most out of those rare materials.

From stuff like lithium and gold and silver and copper, to even coal, but also they use that manpower to build stuff with it directly and sell it under their own brand now instead of just working as manufacturers for the west. This is how they got rich, not just by working for others, but built their own companies as well, sure most of those came from stealing ideas from west, but they made it cheap and now they are taking over many industries.

[Leon_jesus]

China is taking over the world stage without any military actions. All good students on  history will bear me witness that, power has always been taken over by force and military might in the past all global powers has been taken over by military actions. But China the second largest economy in the world and the most populated country in the world is taken over power in the world stage subtly as they continue to expand their interest in all continent without firing a single shot.

How has China been able to do this.

China has been able to successfully lay grib on the rest of the world by  investing in infrastructure and what China terms as strategic investments. Digital networking, investing in infrastructure such as Rail way, power stations, building of hospital and schools, and finally systems. Another thing to consider too is investments in
the world Rare earth minerals and natural resources this is the new world order and China is leading on this areas no wonder more countries are aligning with china. While the West and American is concerned more about using force and military actions to enforce their will on others country just as we are experiencing in the world  today. China is busy expanding more influence on the rest of the world. This is going to count moving forward.

It's just common sense; you don't see a Chinese president damaging the global economy, you don't see a pedophile president trying to avoid prison after being caught. Any powerful nation is developed in knowledge, but any leader driven by hatred seeks their own self-destruction.

[Abiky]

I look forward to a new world order without US authoritarianism, but I also do not want Russia and China to dominate the world. Because there is no guarantee they will not become a second the US.

Instead, a multipolar world with power distributed more evenly among many countries would be much better than focusing on a single superpower. When power is distributed evenly, the ability to check and restrain each other improves, and the abuse of power is reduced.

Well, China and Russia are both authoritarian. And their presence in the mainstream world is rising at an alarming rate. They simply can't be ignored. Considering that the West has failed to curb Russia's war efforts in Ukraine, it seems to me that authoritarianism will reign supreme in the future. Not even the US was able to successfully "punish" China with its trade war.

While the US continues to struggle with domestic issues, China is already one step ahead in the game by adopting the latest technologies. It already has a CBDC of its own, widespread EVs and EV charging stations, and massive use of robotics and AI. The US is moving one step backwards, while China and other rivals are moving forward. It's the harsh truth we're facing these days. I guess communism won. We'll see what happens in the long run.