Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Tbh I thought Taiwan historically had been part of China. Didn't the government pre Mao retreat to Taiwan and for a long time assert that IT was the real China and the communist mainland state not the real country?
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Tbh I thought Taiwan historically had been part of China. Didn't the government pre Mao retreat to Taiwan and for a long time assert that IT was the real China and the communist mainland state not the real country?
Yes, that's my point. I was questioning the assertion that Australia would be a Chinese province without US backing. While Taiwan, like Tibet and Hong Kong, is undoubtedly in the sights of Beijing, it's not at all clear that broader territorial expansion is their goal. To be clear, I think the Taiwanese have every right to govern themselves if that's their desire, I just don't think you can infer from the PRC's One China policy that they intend to incorporate Australia any more than they do Vietnam.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Historically China has been an expansionist empire. For that matter, one of the Chinese dynasties was the Mongols. I don't know quite where present Chinese borders are in relation to past borders. I'd be surprised if the southern borders especially are currently at their maximum extent. I believe most SE Asian nations have national heroes who historically kicked out the Chinese. That's ignoring territory that has formerly been part of Chinese client states.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
More the case that the UK was part of Hannover!
Until 1837 when we had Queen Victoria who was a woman and as such unable to be Elector of Hannover, the Salic Law I believe
And I'm sure that Donald Duck has been meddling with the weather. One low pressure system after the other from west to east I
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Hanover was never part of the UK.
Calais, Normandy and Aquitaine used to be part of England. In fact, quite a lot of medieval English kings and queens are buried in Normandy...
Actually, if we're talking medieval boundaries, quite a lot of Northern England used to belong to Scotland.
Technically, Normandy and Aquitaine were always part of France. This led to certain diplomatic complications, since Henry II of England was the peer of the King of France in his capacity as King of England, and his "loyal" subject in his capacities as Duke of Normandy and Duke of Aquitaine.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that "historically part of" can be made to expand considerably in scope if someone wishes to expand it.
Both the Mughals in India and the Qing in China commissioned art depicting European monarchs as tributaries.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Hanover was never part of the UK.
Calais, Normandy and Aquitaine used to be part of England. In fact, quite a lot of medieval English kings and queens are buried in Normandy...
Actually, if we're talking medieval boundaries, quite a lot of Northern England used to belong to Scotland.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. Didn't that make England a part of Normandy rather than the other way round? Hence the choice of burial place.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. Didn't that make England a part of Normandy rather than the other way round? Hence the choice of burial place.
William didn't conquer England. He asserted his claim to the throne against the usurper Harald Godwinson. All the lawyers and nobles afterwards agreed, at least if they wanted to keep their jobs.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Hanover was never part of the UK.
Calais, Normandy and Aquitaine used to be part of England. In fact, quite a lot of medieval English kings and queens are buried in Normandy...
That is, of course, why I selected Germany as an example. There was a brief period where monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain continued to claim, albeit in name only, the crown of France.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. Didn't that make England a part of Normandy rather than the other way round? Hence the choice of burial place.
William didn't conquer England. He asserted his claim to the throne against the usurper Harald Godwinson. All the lawyers and nobles afterwards agreed, at least if they wanted to keep their jobs.
The result is the same, England a vassal state of Normandy.
The early Hanoverian rulers of Britain had a number of titles in Germany. The second son of George the third was Duke of York,but also Herzog zu Braunschweig (Duke of Brunswick) and Fuerstbischof von Osnabruck (Prince bishop of Osnabruck) a position which he received at the age of one.
(It was decided after the 30 years war that the bishopric of Osnabruck would pass alternately from a Catholic bishopric to a Lutheran bishopric and then back to a Catholic bishopric and so on until Napoleon secularized all the independent prince bishoprics.)
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
1) Territorial expansion is not particularly necessary if you have economic power and leverage. Think of the US post wwII. That's where real power lies. Economics. And the Chinese have been working on that for the past 35 years all over the globe. Hence the ransom note to Australia.
2) China has already expanded territorially into the South China Sea, controlling areas previously in Philippine waters and more.
3) Taiwan is a democracy that produces 90% of high end semi conductors and is the gate to 40% of the world's trade through linking the north island chain to the south. They can hold the world to ransom on these things if they take it.
4) As Dafyd and other's have mentioned, why is it okay to take something that doesn't want to be part of you if it historically was? That kind of attitude would legitimise Russia taking Ukraine, Italy taking the Holy Roman Empire or Britain taking back all its colonies.
5) They've circled Australia twice with their navy.
For one thing, Trump is rapidly eroding the US' soft power, while China at least has a consistent foreign policy.
Now here's the rub.
Do you want China leveraging you or the US? One is a communist state with clear human rights violations, the other a democracy, however mad or bad the current president is.
I know what I would choose. The lesser of the evils.
As for consistent and transparent foreign policy, the current US administration has recently published 2 documents for all to see on National Security Strategy (1st Nov 2025 and a new recent one Jan 2026). They are clear on Taiwan and other threats. Just as China is clear on taking Taiwan.
For one thing, Trump is rapidly eroding the US' soft power, while China at least has a consistent foreign policy.
Now here's the rub.
Do you want China leveraging you or the US? One is a communist state with clear human rights violations, the other a democracy, however mad or bad the current president is.
I know what I would choose. The lesser of the evils.
As for consistent and transparent foreign policy, the current US administration has recently published 2 documents for all to see on National Security Strategy (1st Nov 2025 and a new recent one Jan 2026). They are clear on Taiwan and other threats. Just as China is clear on taking Taiwan.
If only the current US administration didn't constantly attempt to subvert democracy/the rule of law, and weren't so picky about who was permitted human rights, and if only China weren't so obviously a capitalist economy.
If only it was all as simple as some paint it.
If you are going to survive the machinations of an authoritarian bastard regime - on the international stage - a predictable bastard regime maybe easier to manage than an unpredictable one.
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
1) Territorial expansion is not particularly necessary if you have economic power and leverage. Think of the US post wwII. That's where real power lies. Economics. And the Chinese have been working on that for the past 35 years all over the globe. Hence the ransom note to Australia.
2) China has already expanded territorially into the South China Sea, controlling areas previously in Philippine waters and more.
3) Taiwan is a democracy that produces 90% of high end semi conductors and is the gate to 40% of the world's trade through linking the north island chain to the south. They can hold the world to ransom on these things if they take it.
4) As Dafyd and other's have mentioned, why is it okay to take something that doesn't want to be part of you if it historically was? That kind of attitude would legitimise Russia taking Ukraine, Italy taking the Holy Roman Empire or Britain taking back all its colonies.
5) They've circled Australia twice with their navy.
It's not ok to threaten Taiwan, I made that abundantly clear. My question was about your claim that Australia would be a "province" of China without the US military. Was that hyperbole or merely bullshit?
You'd still prefer a communist state to a democracy?
The degree to which the US will be a democracy by the time Trump is done with it is a matter of concern to many US citizens and other people.
In any case, on present showing, if China moved against the Philippines or Indonesia or Australia, I believe Trump would bluster a lot and then back down as soon as China stood up to him.
It's really not possible to forecast accurately what China might or might not do, but there are two things that come to my mind:
1. The Chinese government - whatever its faults - is not insane;
2. Communism, in and of itself, is not necessarily a Bad Thing™, though it clearly has not always worked out very well...
YMMV, and if I were in Taiwan, or in Australia, with the Chinese navy trundling around my coasts, I expect mine would, too.
At this point, the Chinese PLA (People's Liberation Army) which includes land, sea and air forces has been beheaded with the purging of their top general who was accused of sharing nuclear plans with the paper tiger, the USA. It could take some time before that all settles out.
I would say at this point Trump wants to contain China. He forced Panama to cancel contracts with the Chinese over the Panama Canal. His stated reason for acquiring Greenland was to prevent China and Russia from developing sea lanes through the Arctic Circle into Europe. Then too, there is his reaction to the idea of Canada and China entering into a Free Trade Agreement hints he is not about to give up Australia.
Also, his people stole the submarine contract from the French. We want Australia to have nuclear sub capabilities as a way to retard China's expansion into the South China sea. Much cheaper for us if Australia can guard the sea lands through the southern end of the South China Sea than for the US to guard both ends. I believe the US military very much wants to preserve the alliance we have is Australia and New Zealand. After all, where would sailors from our carrier task forces go without your beaches for R % R.
The only problem I can see is if Trump gets more myopic. Nevetheless, I am hoping there will be a regime change within the next four years.
As a Kiwi I would be firmly opposed to Aotearoa/New Zealand owning or welcoming nuclear powered ships into our waters. I have picketed nuclear powered ships here in the past and would do so again.
As a Kiwi I would be firmly opposed to Aotearoa/New Zealand owning or welcoming nuclear powered ships into our waters. I have picketed nuclear powered ships here in the past and would do so again.
I know of no plans to offer nuclear vessels to New Zealand. Be sure you convey your thoughts to your parliament.
It's really not possible to forecast accurately what China might or might not do, but there are two things that come to my mind:
1. The Chinese government - whatever its faults - is not insane;
2. Communism, in and of itself, is not necessarily a Bad Thing™, though it clearly has not always worked out very well...
YMMV, and if I were in Taiwan, or in Australia, with the Chinese navy trundling around my coasts, I expect mine would, too.
China, however, is not truly communist. Tbh at this point both China and the US are both authoritarian regimes, but in China people don't have to work three jobs and sell blood plasma to make a living.
Dunno; you tell me. I’ve probably met a little more Chinese nationals than you or Pomona have: Oz is full of both the wealthy and the poor all desperate for permanent residence.
It is also salutary to reflect that China remains as a totalitarian state and that the genocide of the Uyghurs prevails.
Tbh at this point both China and the US are both authoritarian regimes, but in China people don't have to work three jobs and sell blood plasma to make a living.
The US still has a free press -for now - who are prepared to report on those things, and then ignore them come elections. As indeed does the UK. China does not have a free press.
For one thing, Trump is rapidly eroding the US' soft power, while China at least has a consistent foreign policy.
Now here's the rub.
Do you want China leveraging you or the US? One is a communist state with clear human rights violations, the other a democracy, however mad or bad the current president is.
I know what I would choose. The lesser of the evils.
As for consistent and transparent foreign policy, the current US administration has recently published 2 documents for all to see on National Security Strategy (1st Nov 2025 and a new recent one Jan 2026). They are clear on Taiwan and other threats. Just as China is clear on taking Taiwan.
If only the current US administration didn't constantly attempt to subvert democracy/the rule of law, and weren't so picky about who was permitted human rights, and if only China weren't so obviously a capitalist economy.
If only it was all as simple as some paint it.
The current US administration is bound by the constitution. The president does not have unlimited power at all, however it might feel like it to the democrats. Border control is a republican priority. Trump was popularly elected. That is democracy, whether you like it or not.
China is most definitely not a capitalist economy as we hoped it would be when we let them into the WTO. Heavy subsidies and control by the government. No free market there.
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
1) Territorial expansion is not particularly necessary if you have economic power and leverage. Think of the US post wwII. That's where real power lies. Economics. And the Chinese have been working on that for the past 35 years all over the globe. Hence the ransom note to Australia.
2) China has already expanded territorially into the South China Sea, controlling areas previously in Philippine waters and more.
3) Taiwan is a democracy that produces 90% of high end semi conductors and is the gate to 40% of the world's trade through linking the north island chain to the south. They can hold the world to ransom on these things if they take it.
4) As Dafyd and other's have mentioned, why is it okay to take something that doesn't want to be part of you if it historically was? That kind of attitude would legitimise Russia taking Ukraine, Italy taking the Holy Roman Empire or Britain taking back all its colonies.
5) They've circled Australia twice with their navy.
It's not ok to threaten Taiwan, I made that abundantly clear. My question was about your claim that Australia would be a "province" of China without the US military. Was that hyperbole or merely bullshit?
I believe I was responding to the Bishop's finger saying we would be next in Trump's world domination strategy. Which I believe was hyperbolic. So I was allowed a little poetic licence in kind.
But really? No. Not hyperbolic. As the Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte recently said, Europe would not be able to defend itself without the US. Neither would Australia.
The Chinese military has expanded itself something like 1000% in the last few decades. Without the deterrent of a stronger army, we would have been a Chinese province. I mean why not. We are one of the most mineral resources rich country in the world. China devours our iron ore.
We have, like Europe, absolutely no significant deterring military to speak of.
You'd still prefer a communist state to a democracy?
The degree to which the US will be a democracy by the time Trump is done with it is a matter of concern to many US citizens and other people.
In any case, on present showing, if China moved against the Philippines or Indonesia or Australia, I believe Trump would bluster a lot and then back down as soon as China stood up to him.
Not according to their recent National Security Strategies released publicly.
For one thing, Trump is rapidly eroding the US' soft power, while China at least has a consistent foreign policy.
Now here's the rub.
Do you want China leveraging you or the US? One is a communist state with clear human rights violations, the other a democracy, however mad or bad the current president is.
I know what I would choose. The lesser of the evils.
As for consistent and transparent foreign policy, the current US administration has recently published 2 documents for all to see on National Security Strategy (1st Nov 2025 and a new recent one Jan 2026). They are clear on Taiwan and other threats. Just as China is clear on taking Taiwan.
If only the current US administration didn't constantly attempt to subvert democracy/the rule of law, and weren't so picky about who was permitted human rights, and if only China weren't so obviously a capitalist economy.
If only it was all as simple as some paint it.
The current US administration is bound by the constitution.
No, it's meant to be bound by the constitution but the bonds are very weak now SCOTUS is largely in Trump's pocket (or, more correctly, that of his handlers in the Heritage Foundation). Hitler was elected too. So was Duterte. "Border control" is literally hundreds of miles from shooting citizens in the street.
At this point, the Chinese PLA (People's Liberation Army) which includes land, sea and air forces has been beheaded with the purging of their top general who was accused of sharing nuclear plans with the paper tiger, the USA. It could take some time before that all settles out.
I would say at this point Trump wants to contain China. He forced Panama to cancel contracts with the Chinese over the Panama Canal. His stated reason for acquiring Greenland was to prevent China and Russia from developing sea lanes through the Arctic Circle into Europe. Then too, there is his reaction to the idea of Canada and China entering into a Free Trade Agreement hints he is not about to give up Australia.
Also, his people stole the submarine contract from the French. We want Australia to have nuclear sub capabilities as a way to retard China's expansion into the South China sea. Much cheaper for us if Australia can guard the sea lands through the southern end of the South China Sea than for the US to guard both ends. I believe the US military very much wants to preserve the alliance we have is Australia and New Zealand. After all, where would sailors from our carrier task forces go without your beaches for R % R.
The only problem I can see is if Trump gets more myopic. Nevetheless, I am hoping there will be a regime change within the next four years.
Oh I do like you. Measured. Intelligent. Informed. Happy to converse with your friend that doesn't like your views.
Tbh at this point both China and the US are both authoritarian regimes, but in China people don't have to work three jobs and sell blood plasma to make a living.
The US still has a free press -for now - who are prepared to report on those things, and then ignore them come elections. As indeed does the UK. China does not have a free press.
uh huh. And then some.
Communism is great in theory but it doesn't work in reality.
The current US administration is bound by the constitution. The president does not have unlimited power at all, however it might feel like it to the democrats.
You're funny. The current US Supreme Court, for example, has ruled that the President is immune to criminal prosecution for anything that is an official action - that's undefined but presumably implies that official actions do include things that he might otherwise be liable to criminal prosecution for.
Border control is a republican priority. Trump was popularly elected. That is democracy, whether you like it or not.
Shooting citizens was not part of his manifesto. Also, arresting people who've already been given leave to remain in the country is not border control.
Et cetera.
Just because Trump.was democratically elected doesn't make his government democratic. Trump has already attempted to overturn the results of one election.
China is most definitely not a capitalist economy as we hoped it would be when we let them into the WTO. Heavy subsidies and control by the government. No free market there.
The technical term for the Chinese arrangement is state capitalism. That is, industry is controlled by the people who have capital who happen to be part of a highly corrupt state apparatus.
(Free market and capitalism are not synonymous. A monopoly imposed by a capitalist firm or cartel is just as much a monopoly as one imposed by the state. For that matter, a market is still free even if the state is subsidising industries that would otherwise fail to provide universal or niche service.)
In any case, on present showing, if China moved against the Philippines or Indonesia or Australia, I believe Trump would bluster a lot and then back down as soon as China stood up to him.
Not according to their recent National Security Strategies released publicly.
And you believe the Trump government will stick by anything it has announced publicly? Oh you sweet delicate flower.
Comments
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Tbh I thought Taiwan historically had been part of China. Didn't the government pre Mao retreat to Taiwan and for a long time assert that IT was the real China and the communist mainland state not the real country?
Not so bothered about Trump’s supposed advances on Oz as I doubtas he even knows where Terra Australis is.
Yes, that's my point. I was questioning the assertion that Australia would be a Chinese province without US backing. While Taiwan, like Tibet and Hong Kong, is undoubtedly in the sights of Beijing, it's not at all clear that broader territorial expansion is their goal. To be clear, I think the Taiwanese have every right to govern themselves if that's their desire, I just don't think you can infer from the PRC's One China policy that they intend to incorporate Australia any more than they do Vietnam.
Historically China has been an expansionist empire. For that matter, one of the Chinese dynasties was the Mongols. I don't know quite where present Chinese borders are in relation to past borders. I'd be surprised if the southern borders especially are currently at their maximum extent. I believe most SE Asian nations have national heroes who historically kicked out the Chinese. That's ignoring territory that has formerly been part of Chinese client states.
Not that this makes Trump any more palatable.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Hanover was never part of the UK.
Sounds like a bad airport novel.
Until 1837 when we had Queen Victoria who was a woman and as such unable to be Elector of Hannover, the Salic Law I believe
And I'm sure that Donald Duck has been meddling with the weather. One low pressure system after the other from west to east I
Calais, Normandy and Aquitaine used to be part of England. In fact, quite a lot of medieval English kings and queens are buried in Normandy...
Actually, if we're talking medieval boundaries, quite a lot of Northern England used to belong to Scotland.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that "historically part of" can be made to expand considerably in scope if someone wishes to expand it.
Both the Mughals in India and the Qing in China commissioned art depicting European monarchs as tributaries.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. Didn't that make England a part of Normandy rather than the other way round? Hence the choice of burial place.
That is, of course, why I selected Germany as an example. There was a brief period where monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain continued to claim, albeit in name only, the crown of France.
The result is the same, England a vassal state of Normandy.
(It was decided after the 30 years war that the bishopric of Osnabruck would pass alternately from a Catholic bishopric to a Lutheran bishopric and then back to a Catholic bishopric and so on until Napoleon secularized all the independent prince bishoprics.)
Well-spotted. But the words would be reversed: The Hanover Handover.
1) Territorial expansion is not particularly necessary if you have economic power and leverage. Think of the US post wwII. That's where real power lies. Economics. And the Chinese have been working on that for the past 35 years all over the globe. Hence the ransom note to Australia.
2) China has already expanded territorially into the South China Sea, controlling areas previously in Philippine waters and more.
3) Taiwan is a democracy that produces 90% of high end semi conductors and is the gate to 40% of the world's trade through linking the north island chain to the south. They can hold the world to ransom on these things if they take it.
4) As Dafyd and other's have mentioned, why is it okay to take something that doesn't want to be part of you if it historically was? That kind of attitude would legitimise Russia taking Ukraine, Italy taking the Holy Roman Empire or Britain taking back all its colonies.
5) They've circled Australia twice with their navy.
Now here's the rub.
Do you want China leveraging you or the US? One is a communist state with clear human rights violations, the other a democracy, however mad or bad the current president is.
I know what I would choose. The lesser of the evils.
As for consistent and transparent foreign policy, the current US administration has recently published 2 documents for all to see on National Security Strategy (1st Nov 2025 and a new recent one Jan 2026). They are clear on Taiwan and other threats. Just as China is clear on taking Taiwan.
cross posted. You'd still prefer a communist state to a democracy?
If only the current US administration didn't constantly attempt to subvert democracy/the rule of law, and weren't so picky about who was permitted human rights, and if only China weren't so obviously a capitalist economy.
If only it was all as simple as some paint it.
It's not ok to threaten Taiwan, I made that abundantly clear. My question was about your claim that Australia would be a "province" of China without the US military. Was that hyperbole or merely bullshit?
In any case, on present showing, if China moved against the Philippines or Indonesia or Australia, I believe Trump would bluster a lot and then back down as soon as China stood up to him.
1. The Chinese government - whatever its faults - is not insane;
2. Communism, in and of itself, is not necessarily a Bad Thing™, though it clearly has not always worked out very well...
YMMV, and if I were in Taiwan, or in Australia, with the Chinese navy trundling around my coasts, I expect mine would, too.
I would say at this point Trump wants to contain China. He forced Panama to cancel contracts with the Chinese over the Panama Canal. His stated reason for acquiring Greenland was to prevent China and Russia from developing sea lanes through the Arctic Circle into Europe. Then too, there is his reaction to the idea of Canada and China entering into a Free Trade Agreement hints he is not about to give up Australia.
Also, his people stole the submarine contract from the French. We want Australia to have nuclear sub capabilities as a way to retard China's expansion into the South China sea. Much cheaper for us if Australia can guard the sea lands through the southern end of the South China Sea than for the US to guard both ends. I believe the US military very much wants to preserve the alliance we have is Australia and New Zealand. After all, where would sailors from our carrier task forces go without your beaches for R % R.
The only problem I can see is if Trump gets more myopic. Nevetheless, I am hoping there will be a regime change within the next four years.
I know of no plans to offer nuclear vessels to New Zealand. Be sure you convey your thoughts to your parliament.
China, however, is not truly communist. Tbh at this point both China and the US are both authoritarian regimes, but in China people don't have to work three jobs and sell blood plasma to make a living.
That's true of most places, no?
It is also salutary to reflect that China remains as a totalitarian state and that the genocide of the Uyghurs prevails.
The current US administration is bound by the constitution. The president does not have unlimited power at all, however it might feel like it to the democrats. Border control is a republican priority. Trump was popularly elected. That is democracy, whether you like it or not.
China is most definitely not a capitalist economy as we hoped it would be when we let them into the WTO. Heavy subsidies and control by the government. No free market there.
I believe I was responding to the Bishop's finger saying we would be next in Trump's world domination strategy. Which I believe was hyperbolic. So I was allowed a little poetic licence in kind.
But really? No. Not hyperbolic. As the Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte recently said, Europe would not be able to defend itself without the US. Neither would Australia.
The Chinese military has expanded itself something like 1000% in the last few decades. Without the deterrent of a stronger army, we would have been a Chinese province. I mean why not. We are one of the most mineral resources rich country in the world. China devours our iron ore.
We have, like Europe, absolutely no significant deterring military to speak of.
Not according to their recent National Security Strategies released publicly.
No, it's meant to be bound by the constitution but the bonds are very weak now SCOTUS is largely in Trump's pocket (or, more correctly, that of his handlers in the Heritage Foundation). Hitler was elected too. So was Duterte. "Border control" is literally hundreds of miles from shooting citizens in the street.
Oh I do like you. Measured. Intelligent. Informed. Happy to converse with your friend that doesn't like your views.
uh huh. And then some.
Communism is great in theory but it doesn't work in reality.
Shooting citizens was not part of his manifesto. Also, arresting people who've already been given leave to remain in the country is not border control.
Et cetera.
Just because Trump.was democratically elected doesn't make his government democratic. Trump has already attempted to overturn the results of one election.
The technical term for the Chinese arrangement is state capitalism. That is, industry is controlled by the people who have capital who happen to be part of a highly corrupt state apparatus.
(Free market and capitalism are not synonymous. A monopoly imposed by a capitalist firm or cartel is just as much a monopoly as one imposed by the state. For that matter, a market is still free even if the state is subsidising industries that would otherwise fail to provide universal or niche service.)