I assume you mean states, and not nations.
But right now? Not many. But it isn't for a lack of trying, but rather a lack of reach and ability.
I meant country so yes state. Not necessarily a nation or state made of of an ethnic group for an ethnic group.
That actually can ruin countries. China has already tried using cheap capital investment and building projects to force other states into a subservient position. The fact that it doesn't work is because China lacks the means of enforcing debt collection.
That can ruin nations yes, but not that severely. Oh don't get me wrong economic parasitism is bad and hurt the people being exploited, but the Chinese won't be trying to spread homosexual acceptance, or trying to encourage more children to be considered trans and put on puberty blockers, or ending the religion of foreign people. Stuff like active measures is done by people who sincerely believe in it. It's ironically a western thing where it is the religion of people and what they believe and making them be "good" that is important. The Chinese just want to trade with their business partners, they may want leverage, but they don't condemn their arab trade partners for killing gays, or for being sexist, or for being muslim instead of atheists. They don't care if you are like them as long as they are profiting.
You're only telling half the story.
Iraq fell apart due to American mismanagement after the war. Because Bush couldn't comprehend that Iraq is not a nation-state, but a state that imposes its will upon several different national identities. Hence, it requires a dictator to remain stable. When Bush removed the dictator and tried to introduce democracy, it basically ignited internal conflict. The Iranians then built upon that in order to undermine Iraq as a rival state and to reduce American influence.
As for Syria, that's more complicated. Syria was already in a state of civil war, again because a local dictator controls various ethnic groups. Russia, for their own geo-political goals, moved in and "helped" the Syrians by shifting the war from one that involved static combat with defensible positions, into a mobile conflict that the Syrians were not good at. Then ISIS swept in. Then the US came in and tried to stabilize the region, which means picking sides, which means picking the Kurds. Which meant plummeting relations with the Syrians and the Turks.
I can't read minds so I don't know what was inside Bush's mind, but sufficient stupidity can be indistinguishable from malice. Does it really matter why Bush led America to fuck up Iraq, only that he did it without Iraq doing something recently to justify an attack by America. If there was an invasion in Iraq after they invaded in the 90's thats diffrent but you can't use something from 10 years in the past as justification for now.
That's true. But NOT because the US likes to interfere. The US's idea of interfering in the Middle East was to introduce stability. That it backfired was due to naivety on American politicians, malicious intent by local powers such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and lines drawn up by former European powers who had taken the land from the Ottomans and didn't care who liked who. The US's whole point for the past seventy years has been to keep the region at a simmering boil, instead of allowing it to explode.
The US will become the greatest threat to world peace not because it likes to interfere with other countries. Because it's geopolitical strategy was aimed at producing peace and the status quo. WAS. The US is stepping down from that role intentionally and when it does so, the system that it put in place will implode, setting off wars and conflicts that the US held back through intervention.
I mean doing nothing is not a threat to world peace. Like I said earlier trying to change people to be more like you to convert to your political beliefs support for democracy for neo cons, accepting gay rights, and critical race theory for liberals is one of the worst parts of our culture. And the part that leads to constant unending strife.
There is really no good way to spin what is happening with China and its minorities. The fact that they're doing this out of mislead realist pragmatism is not any better than Germany doing it out of disgust for Jews or America doing it out of paranoia of Japanese attacks.
I am not spinning it as a good, thing. All three of those actions are bad, I'm not some Chinese nationalist who will say "The Uighers are terrorists they should all be locked up in camps!" I'm just saying that, it is similar to what nations like the US did in the past, and durring the height of the war on terror there were people posting stuff like that online. It's not some massive never before seen breech on how the way nations are run. As long as China keeps it's atrocities to itself and doesen't conquer others or export it's odious ideology other nations that are not threatened by it because of being neighbors won't see it as a threat.
A couple of things.
First, China is a Civilization-State. It is formed from a handful of nations. All of which are more likely to rebel against central authority in the near future. Second, China is not an economic superpower. It could have been and somewhere in the far future, it may be--but it cannot be that now.
1) One-Child Policy. China very quickly slimmed down their newborn population for the past few decades. That means the China of tomorrow, will not have enough people to buy things. It has also created a demographic internal crises, as there are now millions of more men than there are women.
Isn't China, still the 2nd in GDP after us? If they aren't an economic super power then no one but us is. I mean the one child policy is bad, for their demographics but they do have plenty of people, even if the population does shrink they would still be the highest in the world, and the forecasts saying it will lead to Chinese collapse I find to not be very credible.
2) Overleverage. China's central government never cared about profits for a company. That was a bonus. Instead they just shoved massive amounts of cash through the system to keep it running. So if a company is complete shit, it doesn't get shut down. It just gets more loans to make the shithole work. But China can't keep that going forever.
Isn't that stuff just for China to spread those companies, to try and build connections into other nations? The point was never to make a profit. But if they did expect them to make a profit it's just the failure of communism, so I will take your word for it I don't know about economics.
3) Free Trade. Is ending. It started with Trump and it is continuing under Biden. Don't believe me? Think how fondly the Chinese looked upon Biden's admin hiring a lawyer of Taiwanese descent to be his lead woman. Worse, the US Navy is not going to keep protecting their trade, just so the Chinese can increase their own military power. Those days are over. Which means...
This is true. Well as long as we can have actual populists who did similar things to Trump. But I'm worried because those of Biden's ilk the globalists will go along with China, and Amazon and other big business want to be able to trade with China.
4) Local rivals. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and more---they all don't want to be under the Chinese boot. Japan's long-range navy is actually larger than the long-range navy of China. Which means that China can't protect its assets in terms of oils, raw materials, or produced finished goods.
This is true, and if we oppose China. I'd rather have us not be in the lead role always trying to lead everything and shoulder all the burden. I'd rather have us help our allies by providing supplies and some people but let us be not sending the most ships and soldiers into the thick of the fighting.
