Originally Posted by zraver

I do not think China is better at strategy, just different. The end result is do you achieve your goals. America has pulled off some master strokes of diplomacy that rival anything ever achieved by anyone. It just different from China's. GN called it right that Chinese culture conditions a certain mindset and this mindset conditions a certain thinking that prefers the indirect approach. Is this mindset better? Who is trying to get to the moon, and who has been there. A lot of people forget that for all the direct action the US had to take an indirect approach- going to the moon, Marshall Plan, Kissinger's mission etc. One could even argue that the increasing but informal ties between India and the US are the indirect approach. As Russian control over Indian arms decreases China loses a possible political lever china can possibly employ in a US-Taiwan vs PRC dispute to keep India quiet about its own issues with China. Plus as India gains strength China is forced to devote more and more precious high tech air and naval assets to keep a balance of power which means less to menance Taiwan. Same story for Pakistan's increasing ties with the US. It indirectly lessens China's ability to menace India via a third party forcing China to take on more of the load itself. In this case the Chinese cat is busy swatting at a bunch of (toy) mice while the pet owner slowly pulls the strings across the floor for thier enjoyment. Yes the cat can scratch the owner, but if the cat doesn't play the owner has a wide range of options to retaliate. Throw the cat out (cut off access to markets), swat it with a rolled up newspaper to putting the cat down completely (war), getting a new cat (setting up rivalries with other markets) etc.