/siberia/ - Off-topic

>Why doesn’t China engage in Proxy-Wars with Amerikkka?
because it's stupid? let me draw your attention to the Day[9] Doctrine, expressed by Sean Plott in relation to free-for-all StarCraft 2 matches. it goes thusly:
>never attack in a free-for-all
>never attack in a free-for-all
>never attack in a free-for-all
this doctrine is incredibly simple, but great strategic wisdom is hidden within. why should the PRC waste precious resources and labor fighting wars when it could instead spend those resource and labor on macro? for comparison, every damn country in the EU is going to be sat with the bill for their careless war spending in Ukraine. to pay that debt off they will have to cut back even more on welfare. quality of life will fall even more. what benefit would the PRC get in doing the same?
geopolitics is a free-for-all. you don't attack in a free-for-all. by all means defend yourself. but never attack

Yeah why doesn't China imitate the great American successes of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

>is because they notice that proxy wars didn’t go so well for the Soviet Union so they think that they can just wait for America to fuck itself to death as it collapses under it’s own weight.
That's what I assumed they were doing, yeah. Funny how effective it is.

>>736130
Yeah it just really sucks when you live outside of China where you either live in America, an American puppet state, or a country being sanctioned or bombed by America

>they notice that proxy wars didn’t go so well for the Soviet Union
A lot of those proxy wars did go well though, and resulted in communist governments coming to power. Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, etc. Ironically the Chinese did wage proxy wars during the Cold War, but in the latter half these were typically *against* communists.

>>736100
china is out for itself, anyone it supports must in turn somehow benefit the han.

>>736100
Give it twenty years, history will repeat as the Soviet Union slips away from the minds of the leaders of the PRC.

i'll say it again, china is partly responsible for the economic failure of venezuela.

>>736170
but how many of those places have the consciousness to become proxies for china? like, imagine if tomorrow venezuela became a proxy and china decided to force their government to sell pdvsa in exchange for a 3-year prorogue on the china-us tariffs. would this be a net-positive for socialism? maybe. would the psuv accept such a deal? probably not

geopol is reactionary in the sense that it is a lower form of consciousness than socialist internationalism, it's like the difference between a soldier whose only objective is to survive, individually, and a soldier willing to sacrifice themself for a greater goal

surprisingly the key (so far) to diplomacy is minding your own business and giving milquetoast admonations, that despite doing nothing will give countries relief that you at least wont interfere in their business. this of course just fosters whatever majority demographic nationalism(in this can han nationalism) that youve gotta feed and will definitely have dire consequences later on(for the rest of the world but who cares, at least its not as bad as white nationalism(so far))but as long as you can keep your neocolonialisms under check and out of the radar, youll do fine. although the only disadvantage is that countries already well fed by the american sphere of influence youll probably never ever reach unless you fund a proxy war. so it all depends on how well you manage whatever you have since youre opting for non-expansion

>>736478
non-aggressive expansion*