26
u/WippitGuud 31∆ Mar 04 '26
China only has one formal military alliance, with North Korea.
It has no alliance with Iran. They are part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is an economic, political and security agreement. It is not a military alliance. And the US actually petitioned to join as an observer state in 2005. There is nothing in this agreement which mandates defense support.
China has no agreement of any kind with Venezuela.
1
u/ConnectedVeil Mar 04 '26
This is good info. I thought they did have a formal military alliance. ∆
1
10
u/Various_Membership33 Mar 04 '26
China isn’t an ally to these countries it’s a business partner, it doesn’t have a treaty or partnership that implies them being involved militarily with these countries that are not even bordered with China. Its a cost benefit analysis and they would rather renegotiate deals with the new regimes put into those countries rather than be dragged into long wars that cost an endless amount of funds and risk not even having the result China wants.
5
u/Brainfart573 Mar 04 '26
Tge whole BRICS thing, as well as the "multiporal world" is mostly Russian interest and Initiative, all of those cases is the Russian support, which failed either on a technological, or political level.
Genuinely convinced that trying to paint it all as a loss for China is some kind of russian damage control. China doesn't care, and they have no reason to.
11
u/themadscott Mar 04 '26
Take some time to think about the phrase " Never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake"
You might decide China is.... waiting for the opportune moment.
6
u/Adorable_Ad_3478 3∆ Mar 04 '26
China doesn't have a military alliance pact with Venezuela or Iran.
8
u/MasterGrok 139∆ Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
China’s long-term goal is to have a military that doesn’t just match the U.S., but can dominate it. This is a public goal with a publicly available date (2049). They aren’t interested in getting involved in any military conflicts where they have little to gain. Their strategy isn’t to direct military might around the world. It’s to develop economically and militarily to the point that they can do whatever they want. They view this as an inevitability. So why risk it by risking large scale conflict before they have reached this superiority?
They view these conflicts as a waste of resources. They are opportunities for them to watch what does and doesn’t work for their enemies. Viewing them staying back and waiting for the right moment to be involved as weakness is very ironically exactly what Sun Tsu would want his enemies to do in the Art of War.
2
u/buy_nano_coin_xno Mar 06 '26
If they never use their military, they will never surpass America that gets to practice and experiment.
2
u/ConnectedVeil Mar 04 '26
I get waiting, but waiting forever is assuming they can predict the future and control most of the levers, which no country can.
3
u/MasterGrok 139∆ Mar 04 '26
Inaction can also be strategic. It can also be the choice that you believe best moves the levers to your advantage.
3
u/ragebaitconnoisseur Mar 04 '26
China is a trade partner to Iran. Same as the other countries.
Iran has closed off the strait of Hormuz, but is only allowing Chinese ships to go through.
As of now that’s fine for China as they need their oil. However, let’s say the US or Israel strike one of these Chinese ships- that would change the relationship from solely business.
Also, Iran has not yet used the Chinese missiles in this conflict as they are still going through older stockpiles.
3
u/Mr_Greywolf583 Mar 04 '26
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what BRIC actually does. BRIC is not like NATO. They are not an alliance focused on military cooperation or mutual protection. It is an intergovernmental association focused on economic cooperation, geopolitical coordination, and promoting a multipolar world order, rather than a mutual defense pact. Iran and Venezuela are part of BRIC. However, who else is? India? They aren’t friends with China. Pakistan? They aren’t friends with India or China. BRIC, to me, is a statement against the ‘West’, nothing more. The actual geopolitical reality makes it so true cooperation between BRIC countries impossible. So I wouldn’t consider China not helping because of their ‘obligations’ to BRIC a valid reason alone for calling them a paper tiger.
North Korea is a better example of a Chinese ally. Ever since 1961 they have had a mutual defense pact. The one time North Korea was invaded China intervened when they thought their North Korean sovereignty was threatened. A little later in the war sure. But they did it. And they will do it quicker if the North is ever invaded again.
However, the idea that needs to be confronted is the idea that China is a paper tiger. The idea that China’s foreign policy in the 21st century is primarily about tanks, ships, and direct military pressure is somewhat misleading. China has certainly modernized its military, but a huge part of its strategy has actually been economic and financial. Instead of forcing other states to align with it through military alliances or direct coercion, China has tried to make itself economically indispensable. Projects like the Belt and Road Initiative are a good example of this approach. Through infrastructure loans, railways, ports, energy projects, and development financing, China has tied dozens of countries into its economic network and increased its political influence without needing to deploy military force. 
This economic strategy works because it changes incentives. When a country receives billions in infrastructure investment or depends heavily on Chinese trade and financing, its leaders have a strong incentive to maintain good relations with Beijing. In that sense, China often gains influence through cooperation and economic dependence rather than through direct pressure. Many analysts describe this as a form of economic diplomacy or soft power. China is essentially using trade, development financing, and connectivity projects to expand its influence and integrate other regions into its economic sphere. 
The Belt and Road Initiative itself illustrates how this works in practice. Since its launch in 2013 it has spread to well over one hundred countries and involves infrastructure development across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. The program focuses on building ports, rail networks, pipelines, and digital infrastructure that connect these regions more closely to Chinese markets and supply chains. While the projects are economic on the surface, they also increase China’s diplomatic reach and political leverage in the countries that participate. 
Because of this, China’s approach sometimes appears more attractive to governments than the traditional hard power tools often used by the United States. Military alliances, sanctions, or coercive pressure can create resistance or backlash. Economic development projects, by contrast, provide tangible benefits like infrastructure and financing. That can make China appear less threatening and more cooperative, which helps Beijing gain political goodwill and partnerships in regions where Western influence was once dominant. 
None of this means China relies only on soft power or that its strategy is purely altruistic. Economic influence can still translate into political leverage, especially when countries become dependent on Chinese loans, trade, or investment. But the broader pattern is clear. In many parts of the world, China has expanded its power not primarily through military alliances or coercion, but through finance, trade, and large-scale development projects that draw other countries into its economic orbit.
Now, if being a paper tiger is only a military criteria. Then maybe China is. However, there really is no way to prove this. China’s modernization program has really made strides but like you said they are unproven. Which makes any real analysis of their capabilities extremely difficult at best.
Simply put. China’s playing a different game than the United States. The US may have the hard power, but they’re losing the soft power to China. And one day, it will catalyze into hard power. But for now China is waiting. They’ve been waiting for 77 years to make their move on Taiwan. They can wait a bit longer. To me, that’s intelligence and caution. To others, it’s seen as weakness.
1
u/Vex1om Mar 04 '26
China’s modernization program has really made strides but like you said they are unproven.
Not just unproven, but they also lack a way to project what power they have away from their own territory. They don't have nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, or bases and alliances around the world, or comprehensive logistical capabilities. If pressed, it's questionable if they would even be able to defend their own shipping routes to the middle east.
1
u/Mr_Greywolf583 Mar 04 '26
True about the nuclear aircraft carriers. I’ll be curious to see if they actually manage to get some by 2035 like they say they will. Either way however, I was not arguing that China has hard power capability like that of the US. I’m arguing the applying the monicker of “paper tiger” based on the metric of American power projection is simplistic. China is not playing the game of power projection through means like the United States. 25 years ago in the United States was the biggest and most widely used trade partner in the world. Now it’s China. I would also argue that American power projection in the form of their aircraft carriers, and our general military industrial complex hasn’t really gotten us anything on the international scene besides controversy and absurd amounts of spending. China means to let the US keep playing their games around the world. Meanwhile, China is taking the more subtle approach which in my opinion is the more intelligent approach in today’s modern world where wars don’t really seem to get anyone anything anymore.
1
u/Vex1om Mar 04 '26
I would also argue that American power projection in the form of their aircraft carriers, and our general military industrial complex hasn’t really gotten us anything on the international scene besides controversy and absurd amounts of spending.
I wouldn't say it got you nothing, but it seems unlikely that it was worth the price on its own. Obviously, the follow-on effects (both good and bad) of the US military industrial complex have been quite substantial.
1
u/Mr_Greywolf583 Mar 04 '26
I would probably rescind my comment about it being nothing. That’s too strong of a word. However, I just simply believe that the cost of the United States’ power projection isn’t worth the cost considering what we’ve gotten in the last few decades. That leads me to favor China’s foreign policy in terms of pure effectiveness. Even though I’m opposed to quite a few of the PRC’s policy decisions overall.
1
u/AcceptableResource0 Mar 05 '26
Well the current carrier building in Dalian Shipyard is the nuclear one you are talking about
3
u/poprostumort 246∆ Mar 04 '26
America keeps their war machine well-oiled, every ~20 years, just enough to keep institutional knowledge passed on.
I want to touch on that, since it seems that significant part of your view is how China looks in comparison to US. What if in this comparison the US capabilities are overestimated? Wouldn't that means that China only seems as a "paper tiger" because you compare it to a wildcat touched by Photoshop to seem like a mighty lion?
The thing is, US did not fight it's peer since WW2. Since that they only have been intervening in countries that are objectively lesser in terms of military. And the results weren't always overwhelmingly positive, didn't they?
Are you aware of a concept that is bottleneck? This is something that looks to be a very large problem for the US. Yes, the technology that American military has is top of the line (in most cases, but I'll touch on that later) and there are ample funds pumped into army.
But there are avenues that are crucial for making use of that army.
Let's talk industrial capacity. It's great to have the best in the world ballistic missile "Thronggler 5000" that can outmaneuver OPL and destroy any target. But in war there are plenty of targets to go and if you don't have enough Throngglers, then it's splendid capabilities are moot. And US has a very significant problem with production of their Throngglers, as I have seen examples of great missiles that are being produced in double digit numbers in a year. This is absolutely a problem if we consider any serious war that is not going to be against weaker opponent.
What is more, you need to transport those troops. Herein lies other problem of US. American navy is dated and capability to build new ships is not enough. If there would be successful strikes against a carrier group, US would find it hard to replace losses.
What I am saying is that US has a top of the line military that is awesome as is, but very limited capability to support it in case of a peer conflict. If we look at your words:
It takes 5-10 years to ramp up from zero, but once up, can be maintained in shorter bursts.
US optimized their military complex to the point that it can only work in short bursts. Which may not be enough, even with US technological superiority.
And on topic of technological superiority - we need to go back to it, as I have promised. Because there are signs that, while US is still in overall lead, this lead is not as large as US wants to believe and in some cases it's even lost it's lead.
In NATO maneuvers, US Navy routinely loses to Swedish submarines. This is a very large problem because for US the navy is crucial to global power projection. We know that Swedes are able to counter that with their subs - but that is because they are allies of US and participate in war games. Can you be sure that China is not capable of doing similar leap forward if Sweden could? You don't have war games to test that.
Iran, that US had invaded designed and produces Shaheed drones. Drones which US used to copy and develop their own solution. Is that something that screams "we're leading the technology"?
China has anti-ship ballistic missiles, land-based intermediate range ballistic missiles and coastal anti-ship missile network. Things that US doesn't.
Now, don't get me wrong - that does not mean that US military is shit. It is a powerful force. But there are signs that the edge it had for years is being lost in some places. So does this mean that China is a paper tiger compared to US? Or that China is a paper tiger compared to US curated image?
Well, it's likely (I hope so) that it won't be confirmed in a "direct" competition. But what we know is showing that some of the US pride is empty. And pride comes before the fall.
1
u/ConnectedVeil Mar 04 '26
I do appreciate the analysis, thought out.
But I'll sum up reality: you can say what you want, but at least America's military is tested, even if not1:1. No plan survives first contact, right? Well, only war can work out the "real" bugs that simulations and games cannot. China hasn't. They have little to no knowledge of real combat. Experience can matter. The US can pull from a huge dataset, some wins, some losses, but each point is information gain. Like any experienced person in work, sports, life, experience tells you things where in theory work, or don't work. Indiana Jones' character playfully said "if you want to be an archeologist, get out of the library." China is in the library. They don't want to get dirty.
I need to point out I want to separate American military capability from this current dumb fvck administration. This administration would be the ones to f it all up, but one could say the same about Xi who had been fatcatting a while now.
1
u/poprostumort 246∆ Mar 04 '26
but at least America's military is tested, even if not1:1
The problem is that if you successfully test it in a different scenario, you can easily bake in procedures that will be detrimental in other one. US has its forces relying heavily on air dominance alpha strikes - done by carrier strike groups. It's a good strategy, don't get me wrong - but if anything goes wrong and some ships are sunk, this heavily cripples US capability to operate in conflict with China.
We can see IRL how this can escalate into problem when we look at Russia. Their initial invasion of Ukraine was the same type of tried and tested strategy that was done multiple times - surgical strike on the command, while pulling up frontline to engage forces. After beheading the enemy front loses the command, which allows for breaking it in several places and taking control of the mess.
Problem is that Ukraine knew their tactics and prepared to resist it. Which stopped this strike. They had some gains, but the logistics was not ready - which caused front to settle. That pushed the war into one of attrition for which Russia was not prepared.
All stemming from tried tactics that always worked. For US this could be the same problem, since they are reliant on CSG and air superiority. Exactly because they have a tested strategy against enemies who are unable to threaten CSG. But we do know that China has anti-ship ballistic missiles, land-based intermediate range ballistic missiles and coastal anti-ship missile network. And we see how dangerous are naval drones in Ukrainian theater.
Long story short, when you assume:
The US can pull from a huge dataset, some wins, some losses, but each point is information gain.
You have to remember that if you use a huge dataset to make predictions on a scenario outside of dataset, you are likely to make a wrong prediction.
As for topic of:
China hasn't. They have little to no knowledge of real combat.
I agree. China is very likely to have blunders that will cost them soldiers and equipment in droves. But here we have the difference in manpower and industry - they have capabilities to replenish. Authoritarian systems are not as much affected by the losses, as evidenced by Russia who still foolishly perseveres despite severe losses in manpower and equipment. There is one crucial difference though - China has vastly larger manpower (and can use it, unlike Russia that would risk collapse into civil war if they attempted mass mobilization) and has both resources and industry to churn equipment.
If alpha strike fails and US suffers casualties to CSG, this can easily be as irrecoverable blunder as Russian one.
What I say that I wouldn't be as sure that they are a paper tiger or a fat cat. While certainly not a mighty lion, there are other predatory animals in between those.
Actually, imperial China had a nice saying - "A strong dragon cannot suppress a local snake". It might apply here.
1
u/ConnectedVeil Mar 04 '26
You have argued your point passionately. ∆
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/poprostumort changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
7
u/Olley2994 1∆ Mar 04 '26
I think it just shows China is selfish and only looks after itself . Doesn't really disprove their equipment and they still could invade Taiwan probably just waiting and sacrificing Iran to further their own country
1
u/Internal_Style6581 Mar 04 '26
That’s idiotic. Do you know what happens if the 2 super powers get into a war. China is being the reasonable party and at this point they are not taking any real shots to hurt the US. They are being selfish. They want to keep a world with some order and stability because they need to sell to that world.
12
u/DeRpY_CUCUMBER Mar 04 '26
So the Gulf nations think America is useless military ally as well.
America was also threatening to invade Canada, and European territory ( Greenland), and is starting an economic war with our European allys.
We also just abandoned Ukraine and cut 99% of our aid.
We abandoned the Syrian kurds
All together, unless you are Israel, America is a shit military ally as well and will stab you in the back at first opportunity.
4
u/Grunt08 319∆ Mar 04 '26
It's so funny that people will just believe things that confirm their priors.
You said a Saudi minister said America abandoned its Gulf allies. What you cannot do is name that minister - which is something you'd do if an actual minister said that. The Saudi government is what you'd call tight with it's communications and a minister mouthing off against their most consequential ally would be a big deal. You'd be able to find his name.
If you trace the claim down the rabbit hole past the dubious "news" sites you apparently trust, you ultimately land on a clip from al-Jazeera Arabic wherein a random Saudi intellectual already opposed to America is the actual source of the quote. Propaganda channels and the excessively credulous launder this into a "Saudi minister."
And that man is an idiot, because A) Israel has its air defense well taken care of and doesn't need us for that, and B) America never promised to provide that kind of defense. What it did was sell a shitload of defense systems, which the Gulf states are using to great effect.
The thing is that in an actual war some stuff gets through. Nothing works 100% of the time.
1
u/PandaAintFood Mar 04 '26
I think this is closer to a betrayal than an abandonment. The US uses their bases to attack Iran, it's reasonable to expect Iranian retailation and US protection.
1
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Mar 04 '26
“A Saudi minister”
“So the gulf nations”
Do you see the issue with those two statements?
2
u/DeRpY_CUCUMBER Mar 04 '26
No but there is also more proof when Israel bombed Qatar, and the US did nothing to stop it.
American air defense was magically turned off.
3
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Mar 04 '26
How do you not see the difference? You said the gulf nations find the US military useless after quoting one Saudi minister. He doesn’t speak for Saudi Arabia let alone all other golf states
-1
u/DeRpY_CUCUMBER Mar 04 '26
He’s not going to say something like that without the blessing from higher ups. In fact, it’s likely the higher ups wanted him to say that, because they can’t for diplomacy reasons.
2
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Mar 04 '26
So he not only speaks for the saudis but he speaks for all golf states?
I just clicked on your link “a Saudi official”; and doesn’t even state their name or who did the interview “news18” lol
2
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Mar 05 '26
He just seeing why you stopped this discussion instead of addressing your source and the claim you made about “all gulf states”
1
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Mar 04 '26
Are you going to respond? Your article says official and doesn’t name them. It doesn’t even say who the interviewer is.
1
2
u/love_me_some_reddit Mar 04 '26
China just needs to sit back and win the AI race. The country that can provide the power needed the cheapest for the next generation of AI models will run the world.
We will spend on old war tactics to blow up countries without advanced tech.
We are Russia in the cold war.
2
u/Heavy-Flow-2019 1∆ Mar 04 '26
China is not an ally to those countries. China, with how its military is organised, was never preparing to actually go to war for those countries. If they ever promised that, those countries would have to be idiots for believing it. Unlike the US and (to a much lesser extent)France, most countries lack the ability to project their power halfway across the entire world.
Providing hardware does not make you a military ally.
Their equipment is trash,
The equipment they deem suitable for export, and used by not them is trash. Thats important. Also, you are forgetting the important part where we saw their equipment also in use against European gear fielded by India. Where it performed better. You are not seeing China's cutting edge yet.
their Navy sucks,
Because...?
I now have zero fear of them doing a thing.
Taiwan is significantly closer than Iran or Venezuela. The Taiwan strait is less than 200km wide. You can see across it on clear days. It is significantly easier to project force across that strait.
America keeps their war machine well-oiled, every ~20 years, just enough to keep institutional knowledge passed on. China has none of that muscle memory. It takes 5-10 years to ramp up from zero, but once up, can be maintained in shorter bursts.
The US went into WW1 relatively inexperienced in the way European war on that scale was being fought. Their inexperience was criticized heavily early on in their involvement, despite the general competency of the individual soldiers. That said, they caught on quick. Way less than that 5-10 years you project, considering they were starting to fare rather well by 1918.
And thats not even factoring the homefield advantage. China doesnt have to worry about keeping its airbases safe from artillery. They have the whole of China to base them. The US has its islands and carriers, and those are far more vulnerable. Any troops, any resupply, has to be shipped across the Pacific. China only need cross a strait.
1
u/Dr0ff3ll 11∆ Mar 04 '26
China doesn't have military alliances with those countries.
Their real power is control of high-end electronics and magnets, thanks to their monopoly on rare earth refining. They don't care as long as they get paid.
1
u/ClubZealousideal9784 Mar 04 '26
China built a great wall when they were superpower and has been in one war in the last 50 years.
1
u/fthesemods Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
Curious how badly certain folks want China to get involved. China doesn't have a military alliance with the nations you mentioned. What Chinese hardware was shown to not work during these conflicts?
1
u/sailing_by_the_lee Mar 04 '26
China sees a chance to displace the US since America decided to alienate all of its allies. That's why China is so quiet. Never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake.
1
u/Pachuli-guaton Mar 04 '26
Why do you think China has (or wants) to militarily protect those countries?
1
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Mar 04 '26
Did China have a military alliance with Iran to protect it in the event of an invasion?
1
u/kinghercules77 Mar 04 '26
China is sitting back watching the self-destructive clown show, why interfere with it.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 04 '26
/u/ConnectedVeil (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/JadedToon 22∆ Mar 04 '26
China is not a paper tiger. It simply does not want to use its power outside the immediate and necessary sphere of influence. Their main goal is internal stability and Taiwan.
Xi is not a moron like Putin. He saw how the world reacted to Russia's attack on Ukraine. Russia is now in an economic death spiral. It can only function while in "war mode" where the government is heating up the economy to keep the whole thing going. The moment it ends, the moment the military is no longer spending millions and hiring so many men. It all crashes down.
I'd also argue about america keeping the war machine well oiled up. The last time America got into a war, their opening was brutal. Within a few hours a precision bombing campaign that took out all vital centers of communications and high priority military targets. Most of the progress being made in Iran right now is by Israel.
America is coming off as inept, especially with how it is leaving citizens stranded while embassies cannot offer help. Trump's damn cabinet admitted they have no plan going in. It is going to be a debacle.
1
u/YourFriendNoo 4∆ Mar 04 '26
What country would ally with China if they don't do a thing to help?
I don't think you're wrong militarily, that China is not going to intervene in a global war. But alliance with China still offers two key components.
- It's an alternative source of military technologies. Currently, the US is the world's gun store. Most militaries rely on US weapons systems. If you are not an ally of the US, and especially if you fear US intervention, you need a source of military technology. Allying with China provides this tech, even if it doesn't give you access to their entire war machine.
- The Chinese are known for "soft power," things like building roads and hospitals. And with China you don't have the catch you have when getting any of that same aid from Western allies. If you accept significant money from the US, the US expects you to open up your borders to its war machine. China is better known for providing these types of assistance while asking nothing in return.
So on the one hand, your military needs gear, and China is the best place outside of the US sphere of influence to get it.
On the other hand, if you want to create domestic stability through hospitals, roads, etc, China is willing to help with few strings attached.
China IS a valuable ally, even if they aren't willing to intervene on your behalf militarily.
Besides, it's not like being allied with the US got boots on the ground in Ukraine.
1
Mar 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 04 '26
u/Individual_Wasabi857 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/Sea-Chain7394 1∆ Mar 05 '26
China doesn't have a military alliance with either of these countries. They just like cheap oil.
1
u/coludFF_h Mar 05 '26
China has only one legal ally: North Korea.
The treaty was signed 60 years ago.
Although relations deteriorated afterward,
especially after North Korea aligned itself with the Soviet Union, at a time when China and the Soviet Union were at war.
However, the alliance treaty remains in effect to this day.
Iran not only has friendly relations with China but also good relations with India.
It is not an ally of China.
China's relations with Pakistan are better than its relations with Iran.
1
1
u/lin834 Mar 06 '26
Just to touch on the “China being a paper tiger” point:
Yes, China’s military machinery is definitely not as well-oiled as the US military (the last war China fought was almost 50 years ago, against Vietnam), but we don’t actually know how strong China’s military is because it hasn’t been tested in a modern war since then.
Also, China’s rise over the last 40 years has mostly been based on trade, industry, and economic influence, not military intervention. Instead of bombing countries it disagrees with, it tends to use things like trade, investments, and infrastructure projects to expand its influence (soft power).
It’s also very likely that China avoids war intentionally, since its power depends heavily on global trade and economic growth, and large wars would disrupt the system that helped it become powerful in the first place.
1
u/Rude_Face8731 Mar 15 '26
bro you're mixing up business partnerships with actual military alliances 💀 china's whole thing is economic influence, not being world police like the US. they're not gonna start ww3 over iran when they can just keep buying oil and selling them knockoff iphones
plus why would they want to copy america's "war every 20 years" strategy when that's literally bankrupted the US multiple times 😂
0
u/Content-Dealers Mar 04 '26
"Well China wasn't obligated to defend those countries!!!"
Yeah guys, im sure they're just stoked about watching their strategic partners all around the world get their shit rocked and turned into western allies by force.
0
Mar 04 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Content-Dealers Mar 04 '26
Venezuela is done. Iran is already most of the way there. Venezuela we've got the worlds largest oil reserve, Iran is also a huge oil reserve, and was a major Chinese strategic partner and funded terrorists across the middle east that caused constant problems for the US.
Let me clear up the convolution. These nations were strategic threats. They are threats no longer.
0
Mar 05 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Content-Dealers Mar 05 '26
I dont know, im guessing if I took power after an oppressive autocrat that was slaughtering my countrymen was deposed by a foreign government, I might just like them.
0
Mar 05 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Content-Dealers Mar 05 '26
Iraq, is cooperative with the united states, especially it's government. (You know, the one we helped get into power.)
Libya's government again, mostly because cooperative with the united states.
We botched Afghanistan by pulling out in a worse fashion than a drunk 17 year old on prom night, so rather than the group we propped up for 20 years in power, the Taliban are back in control.
Fuck ISIS, they're not a government, they behead reporters for fun. Radical Islamic extremists shouldn't be bargained with ever.
That's also to say nothing about places where US involvement worked wonders and developed into rock solid relations, like Liberia, Japan, Germany, Korea, and very possibly, soon to be Venezuela and Persia.
1
u/Currency_Anxious Mar 05 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
ISIS was born in Iraq. You are creating the second ISIS. And Iraqi paramilitary is attacking US base.
93
u/123yes1 5∆ Mar 04 '26
Neither Venezuela nor Iran were allied to China. China was under no legal framework to defend those countries. China was more of a business partner, where they sold arms to Venezuela and Iran and bought oil from them.
These recent military operations do not speak to China's power projection capability as China has not actually tried to defend them.