Peter Zeihan's analysis of the state of affairs in China seem to indicate that a major conflict (kinetic or economic) is a non-starter. It appears that China is using the global misconception of their ability to project themselves to achieve goals they don't have the leverage for otherwise.
Zeihan gets a lot right about China (demographics, much of their economic fundamentals, etc.) but seems to underestimate their capacity for irrational outcomes. Although such a war would be anathema to the interests of the regime, their regular military posturing in multiple potential theaters of conflict (Taiwan, South China Sea, India) could result in an incident from which they cannot walk back, lest they lose face (losing face is seen as worse than death in Chinese culture). Although they likely have doctrines in place they could use to deescalate, their mixed messaging and incremental attempts at expansion could still result in a serious conflict moving forward. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Peter Zeihan's analysis of the state of affairs in China seem to indicate that a major conflict (kinetic or economic) is a non-starter. It appears that China is using the global misconception of their ability to project themselves to achieve goals they don't have the leverage for otherwise.
Zeihan gets a lot right about China (demographics, much of their economic fundamentals, etc.) but seems to underestimate their capacity for irrational outcomes. Although such a war would be anathema to the interests of the regime, their regular military posturing in multiple potential theaters of conflict (Taiwan, South China Sea, India) could result in an incident from which they cannot walk back, lest they lose face (losing face is seen as worse than death in Chinese culture). Although they likely have doctrines in place they could use to deescalate, their mixed messaging and incremental attempts at expansion could still result in a serious conflict moving forward. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.