nam wrote:They want to rule like US, but in an emperor style. US because of democracy tolerates criticism from any country. CCP with history of emperor and all doesn't tolerate criticism. Hence all the wolf warrior drama..
I feel it is a myth, that Chinese prefer not to fight. They have a history of violence. And still use violence. They are a bully nation and bullies back off when the opponent can cause similar level of violence.
They haven't attacked us because we are quite strong.
I think reality is more nuanced. Yes they have a history of violence. But - all that violence is directed inward. China dominates the
list of most devastating wars by casualties. Half the top 10 are internal Chinese wars and rebellions. This isn't simply about them having a large population. Greater India historically had similar population, and yet India has only one entry in the top 20 - the Mughal-Maratha Wars from 300-350 years ago, which is #16. In comparison, Chinese rebellions account for half the top 10 .
When it comes to external wars, China has really gone all in just once - in the Korean War. It has been credibly argued that the Korean intervention was largely to cement CPC control over China and ensure that their rule wouldn't weaken within a year of them coming to power (in 1949). Beyond that, Chinese conflicts have all been localized, taking advantage of a weak or distracted rival (India in 1962, Vietnam right after the conclusion of the Vietnam war).
Otherwise, the preferred Chinese doctrine is to win by being overbearing and compelling the other side to give up. They don't deploy soldiers to shoot and make their claim. They deploy the construction personnel to build and make things a fait accompli, then continuously perform incremental salami slicing. This approach stops working in some places. USSR for example, responded viciously in 1969, setting the doctrine that Russia would respond with disproportionate force. Mao was always more paranoid about USSR than of the west, leading to the Sino-US thaw.
A defensive response to Chinese salami slicing doesn't work, as 6 decades of Indian strategy shoes. It is too costly because defense requires more effort. What could work is the new Indian doctrine of continuous LAC 'readjustments' that salami slice them instead. Now that they have the infrastructure over testy ground, they need to bear the much higher costs of defending that.
Like a bully, China thrives on a rival who is too unsure of how to respond. It won't take head on against another country with a long record of being a bully when it has to (Russia), but entities like India, Philippines or Indonesia, it sees as sufficiently pliant that it can just build a road across, a collection of observation posts wherever suits them, or even an artificial island where needed, then bluster 'what are you going to do about it ?'
When dealing with others, China has historically always preferred to take the path of deceit first to build a position strong enough for them to put up a bluff behind. They don't shoot and overwhelm the US way because they don't have the base of mobile assets and logistics to do that. So now, as India starts taking back piece after piece of LAC and continuously redefine LAC to suit us, it compels China to do something they're not used to doing - deal with someone with the military capability to dismantle their bullying facade on the ground.
The instinctive response of a bully to pushback is to puff their chest out even more - "HQ6s in Tibet / IRBMs in Aksai Chin / Liaoning dropped in Pangong Tso" . All tailored to the same goal, i.e. look as overbearing and threatening as possible and compel the other side to retreat. Their set pieces here are very predictable.