Very interesting article. But I’m curious about why it would be censored? The setup mentions that the think tank isn’t “on the fringe.” And since it isn’t state supported, its views don’t purport to represent official thinking. Finally, any fair reading would conclude there’s not much radical here. So why the official reactions to these ideas at this particular time?
We don't know of course, but my speculation would be that because this is a live conflict, sensitivities are high, and the piece is unusually candid about Beijing potentially profiting from the war - it doesn't sit well with the official position of neutrality. It would be more embarrassing coming from a state entity, but being independent doesn't protect them from platform-level removal if they're espousing views that are unwanted in the public domain.
Jacob, that makes perfect sense. Next question is whether there’s a blanket banning of all such speculation or just some varieties? Did this specific think tank simply get ahead of accepted speculation?
Hundreds of thousands (and perhaps millions) will die in a 10 year war (many of them in African countries). Unlike Japan, China's closest relationships are in the 3rd world. When China was dirt poor, it helped to build the Tanzam railway. Could it be that it doesn't see "geopolitics" as a chessboard where you MUST keep grabbing power? It's also motivated by old fashioned notions of socialist solidarity?
I think the authors are saying that prolonged conflict would constitute a quagmire that drains US strength, so not necessarily claiming that this is already a prolonged conflict. Though of course, the sense is that they do expect it to be prolonged.
Very interesting article. But I’m curious about why it would be censored? The setup mentions that the think tank isn’t “on the fringe.” And since it isn’t state supported, its views don’t purport to represent official thinking. Finally, any fair reading would conclude there’s not much radical here. So why the official reactions to these ideas at this particular time?
We don't know of course, but my speculation would be that because this is a live conflict, sensitivities are high, and the piece is unusually candid about Beijing potentially profiting from the war - it doesn't sit well with the official position of neutrality. It would be more embarrassing coming from a state entity, but being independent doesn't protect them from platform-level removal if they're espousing views that are unwanted in the public domain.
Jacob, that makes perfect sense. Next question is whether there’s a blanket banning of all such speculation or just some varieties? Did this specific think tank simply get ahead of accepted speculation?
Hundreds of thousands (and perhaps millions) will die in a 10 year war (many of them in African countries). Unlike Japan, China's closest relationships are in the 3rd world. When China was dirt poor, it helped to build the Tanzam railway. Could it be that it doesn't see "geopolitics" as a chessboard where you MUST keep grabbing power? It's also motivated by old fashioned notions of socialist solidarity?
Three weeks does not a quagmire make.
I think the authors are saying that prolonged conflict would constitute a quagmire that drains US strength, so not necessarily claiming that this is already a prolonged conflict. Though of course, the sense is that they do expect it to be prolonged.
Yes. That is assured regardless. But having started down this path the worst thing will be to cut and run.