Bret Devereaux

And so it seems to me that this debate did take place in both policy and public circles, and that it is also true that a shift towards great power competition with China won in both, by some margin. "We debated and my side lost" is not the same as "no debate happened." 7/18

More broadly, I was frustrated in the discussion because saying 'no debate took place' precluded discussing *why* the stance has changed the way it has which in turn I thought didn't really present an understandable case for why Biden is going where he's going. 8/18

So here is my version of it, from what I've read. The fundamental problem is this: given China's size, economic influence and military power, and its clearly expressed territorial and hegemonic goals (e.g. Hong Kong, Nine Dash Line, skirmishes w/ India)...9/18

China's territorial goals - aggressive claim line in India (but that leaves out all but ~1 million of its people). All of Taiwan. Nine-dash (that it already possesses). It has settled all other disputes (a lot of them) peacefully. Not good, but not quite regional conquest

But of course a level of hegemony over smaller SE states. Many states lived under hegemony of superpowers during CW though. But it's clear Taiwan will pay a big price.

Though the plus might be - great power war chances are minimized. And apart from tech competition, economic ties can still be robust w/ mutual prosperity. The question for the US really is: can Americans be secure in such a world? What ultimately is the core national interest?

I would suggest that the PRC's attitude towards allowed speech in many other countries (e.g. a lot of the 'wolf warrior' diplomacy) suggests that PRC's goals would not be limited to territorial hegemony, but would include democratic backsliding.

Yes, on all issues of core Chinese interests - Tibet, Xinjiang, CCP, Taiwan, India claims. But Beijing doesn't care if country X has internal democratic battles over anything else. It lives happily for e.g. with deep debates in S.Korea and Pakistan.