@Furunculus:
That is endemic in army culture is it not: army officials who talk the strong talk, even if it is a good for nothing endeavour. That's kind of what armies do: “look I've got 500 tanks now, so don't tell me what I can and cannot do”. And up to a certain degree there is a point. As I see it much of this line of reasoning boils down to a few simple observations; and the rhetorical device of dialogue:
“China should not kid itself that the US is going to treat China anytime soon like the UK; despite the fact that China owns nearly a quarter of the US. And why should it let the US decide its foreign policy? China is after all not some random 10 million inhabitant nation; it is basically the single largest nation on earth in terms of headcount. So why should China not throw some weight around to get the US to realize it owes China more money; that it owes China something more than it currently seems aware of?”
Of course this professor goes well beyond that, in asserting that China must “sprint” to become the top of the food chain of international relations. But that is up to a degree to be expected from a comfortable armchair general position; combined with perhaps a little too high a dose of the PLA-aid.
Bookmarks