Bret Devereaux

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.

The PRC gets very upset when groups in liberal democracies criticize the PRC. Look at the response to the NBA or Activision-Blizzard. I'm not sure why we wouldn't expect those demands to censor speech to become stronger if we leave PRC to be a regional hegemon.

I am not suggesting this would be ideological in any sense. But a democracy which has free speech "except don't criticize the PRC's ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang" doesn't actually have free speech.