i am wary of this rheotoric, i have heard on podcasts the ussr was extremely hesistant and critical of the soviet afghan governments killing of people, and despite stating so multiple times upon deploying soviet troops into afghanistan were unable to solve the issue and continued the mindless deaths of the people of afghanistan.

war is a crude form of politics, and another form of competition.

the contradictions from war waged by a socialist state will be many. i have heard it said socialism cannot sustain it self with weapons of war - that the steel of rifles barrels could have built bridges and incubators.

not to mention the foreign actors who wish to see the PRC collapse, we all know very well that the capitalist have the power to make mountains of ant hills

China will be fine. If they can survive in the 70s when they're completely surrounded by hostile countries they have border skirmishes with on top of being a bit of a pariah state, they'll be fine now.

They should have years ago but they wont. In the end even in the worst case and these terrorists do make it to China they'll treat it as their own internal affair, do whatever needs to be done and then have Xi meet with whatever dipshit is replacing Blinken and Yellen every few months.

China has been consistent. The best description I've seen is BRICS is not anti-west but rather non-west. They want to claim independence from western(US) influence and intervention yet they want to be treated as equals and be friendly. Sadly this naive idea is exactly what dominates right now and it is bound to fail no matter what.

Very deep questions need to be asked but they wont. China will do everything to keep the economic miracle going while crying US bad and doing nothing about it. Taiwan is a dead end issue given China's own technological development.

China maintains their current foreign policy because they learned from the mistakes of the USSR.

The USSR did the opposite of non-interference and actively tried to ferment revolutions or arm socialist orgs around the world. While this isn't a bad thing, it resulted in the Soviets overextending themselves and getting bogged down in proxy wars and a frankly unnecessary arms race with the US. When the Soviets went into Afghanistan to fight the US-backed Islamists, they lost far more than they gained, and the Afghan people ended up turning against them.

The collapse of the USSR and loss of the Cold War gave China much to reflect on, and ultimately, they fine-tuned their Marxist ideology to suit the post-Cold War Unipolar world. And it has worked for them thus far.

Whether they will need to fine-tune it again as we head into a multi-polar world still dominated by Neoliberal Capitalism remains to be seen.

The longer they wait the weaker the west will be when it happens. The west us powered by capitlaism and well, there is this tendency for the rate of profit to fall over time.

I know they're usually very measured about these things, but they need to erase these guys like they erased the cia proxy force parachuted into Tibet.

Xi's comically large blender

Like a sort of Global Liberation Army?

China icing a bunch of CIA proxies for the price of half a ham sandwich and a handful of change, pocket lint, and a bobby pin they found in a parking lot.

The US is paying them to harass China. If China overreacts the Us will pay them alot more and they might win so.ething in a little war

Xinjiang is around 45% Uyghurs and 42% Han. You don't even need a security force of just Uyghurs. Xinjiang isn't like Tibet at all. This was why Uyghur separatism didn't have much chance of succeeding. You're not going to pull off a separatist movement where the ceiling of support is 45% of the province.

actually, to be further contrarian to this rhetoric- this is not inherently true atleast not to the spectrum desired, from my understanding of jordan and egypt in our circles, they are understood to be lackeys of the west and oppress their own people, as the ruling class and military elements are provided immense material benefit.

one could say that the oppression and that material conditions(not living in horrific shit) have worked in tandem to suppress effective dissent (or not being effectively organised cough vanguard cough). of course there are protests that are immediately suppressed from time to time, and stories of people being kidnaped after expressing dissent in egypt. but that would require a westerner to pay attention to be aware of such circumstances, which our legacy media does not inform them on, nor does our mainstream influencers (that are selectively not shadow banned).

this must mean that our legacy news media and social media influencers will not report on the falseness of the conditions in this district. that while a total ughyur security force may reduce munitions to hurl, and existing conditions where there is a lack of protests outburst (which were the indicator of oppression in egpyt) - your run of the mill westerner will not be informed or told of this as they are not beneficial to the dominating capitalist powers.

they will instead be told of every instance where intentional misinterpretation can lead to ideas of mass oppression of a uyghur people.

reminds of lenin quote

my end statement is that this rhetoric i initially expressed can be reduced to insignificance, that the only way to effectively sway people of the west is to build rapport with them (atleast more rapport than the totality of the news outlets and influencers) and seem reasonable (or offer material benifits as roderic day wrote in his essay on brainwashing), there will be no mass dissonance for the general westerner who materially benefits from the status quo and they may more or less be happy with their current material conditions

willing to change my mind on my logic, if someone wants to discuss

my personal position is that i really want the PRC to be a force of positive change in the world, but tbh i am unsure of how to conduct analysis to find the absolute truth - knowing that everybody is biased in some way and tbh to sift through everything is a pain, i can see why most people will simply default to whatever materially benefits them more