Replies

China is an empire. As such, they are subject to the insurrectionist forces normal empires generally face.

Question I’d like answered is what does it cost the Central Government to garrison all of its territories.

The Mongolians can’t stand the Chinese. We know where Tibet stands, but we also know that Tibet is the one thing they will die holding onto (this is where all the water is).

Russia’s election was eye opening. Assad’s in trouble in Syria. Whither China?

You have to wonder whether China will look to be thrown into the briar patch like the USSR was. True, the USSR flew apart. However, Russia was then no longer obligated to prop up all of the satellites and territories. The cost of running the empire went down, since the cost of support was baked into the benefits of ‘freedom’ for the satellites and territories.

That the freedom only SORT of came to Ukraine and others is the best part for Russia. They can meddle at no charge in their sphere of influence.

Maybe China learns from this and cuts some of its ‘losers’.

It has always been the case that China would rather shoulder the huge overhead of empire maintenance than take the economically viable path, forgoing unrealistic territorial ambition. It has turned into an ingrained tradition for two milenia. One China is their destiny, as far as China is concerned. However, there used to be a long period of time in which their empire broke up, and they first fought one another to near extinction and warring states persisted for centuries. When it is overwhelmingly untenable to maintain an empire, they relented with great reluctance.

We will see if this pattern repeats in the future or the cycle is broken for good. As it stands now, I see the breakup and long period of multiple 'Chinas,' not China.