Ma ZiXuan- I appreciate you contributing your thoughts. However, I believe your thesis is based on a selective reading of the facts and the history. China has a long territorial expansion which is how it came to be larger than the Roman Empire. It subjugated non-Han peoples in Yunnan, Tibet, Xinjian, Mongolia, and other western provinces. It also subjugated various tributary vassals in the premodern period. But its success also bred its weakness as size is difficult to manage (even with that Hanzi written language). And so, it has struggled to be cohesive. From roughly 1600 to 2000, China was economically marginal, politically fractured, and frequently unable to govern its own periphery — making non-expansion a condition of weakness, not cultural disposition. The "hide your light" doctrine of Deng explicitly prescribed acknowledges this: restraint was tactical, not principled. China today retains colonial-era conquests — Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia — where it violently suppresses indigenous majorities through mass detention, cultural erasure, and demographic displacement. Nothing in the Chinese nature prevented this nor has it constrained China in the CCP era. Weakness, not character, determines behavior.
Tibet (1950): Military invasion, annexation, and suppression of the 1959 uprising; the Dalai Lama government driven into exile; ongoing cultural and religious destruction
Xinjiang: 1–1.8 million Uyghurs detained without trial; forced sterilization campaigns; destruction of mosques and cemeteries; UN characterization of potential crimes against humanity
South China Sea (2013–2016): Dash 6 line in conflict with maritime law and asserting dominion over areas never controlled by ancient or modern China. Construction of seven artificial islands with military installations; 2016 arbitral tribunal ruling rejected; ongoing coercion of Philippine, Vietnamese, and Malaysian vessels
Hong Kong (2020): National Security Law imposed 27 years before the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration's expiry; Beijing declaring the treaty a "historical document with no practical significance"
Vietnam (1979): 200,000–300,000 troops launched a conventional cross-border invasion, capturing and destroying multiple northern cities before withdrawing
India (1962 and 2020): Initiated the 1962 Sino-Indian War; 2020 Galwan Valley clash killed 20 Indian soldiers; ongoing territorial pressure across the Line of Actual Control
Korea (1950–1953): Three million Chinese troops deployed offensively into South Korea; 180,000–400,000 Chinese deaths in a war prosecuted well beyond any defensive buffer logic
Taiwan: Repeated military exercises simulating blockade and invasion of a democratic self-governing island the PRC has never administered; explicit threats to use force to achieve unification
Economic coercion: Systematic trade punishment of Australia (wine, barley, coal, beef) after Canberra called for a COVID-origins inquiry; retaliation against South Korea over THAAD deployment; boycott pressure on Lithuania after it hosted a Taiwanese representative office
Overseas police stations and diaspora coercion: Documented operations in at least 53 countries pressuring Chinese nationals and dissidents abroad — an extraterritorial claim over persons that no genuinely non-expansionist power exercises
“Historically China behaved less like a maritime colonial empire (Britain/Spain) and more like a continental empire similar to Russia: expanding mainly into adjacent frontier regions rather than overseas territories.”
Not to mention the conquest of Southern China. In short, the transformation of China from a Yellow River civilization into a vast multiethnic empire-and its subsequent hanization-is one of the largest territorial expansions in world history.
Yes. I agree. For Chinese naval adventurism you need to go back over 500 years to Admiral Zheng. It's a fascinating story if you want to search. But its conclusion is that Naval missions got caught up in palace intrigue between the eunuchs and the [non-eunuchs]. I guess they had polarization, even back then ;~)
That said, this may be as much a function of its natural geography and threat/trade matrix which historically oriented it toward its land borders.
Until about 12 years ago when they started transforming small reefs and shoals into large artificial islands, especially in the Spratly Islands.
These give China military control of vital sea lanes, extending military reach hundreds of miles from its mainland, and facilitate claims to exclusive resource access (fisheries, oil, gas).
From an alternative vantage, ongoing Chinese behavior directly contradicts the peaceful coexistence meme:
Beijing's treatment of the overseas diaspora (huaqiao) belies a China that whose sovereign claims extend over ethnic Chinese persons, not merely territory. This extends to diaspora communities across Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Singapore, the Anglosphere, and beyond as a constituency that owes loyalty to Beijing pressuring Chinese-language media, monitors diaspora students through WeChat and informant networks, and operates overseas police stations in over fifty countries. No genuinely non-expansionist power claims jurisdiction over citizens of foreign states on the basis of ethnic heritage.
China's antagonistic relationship with the international legal and commercial order shows that it accepts its benefits while rejecting its constraints. It rejects international rulings and harasses its neighbors. In recent years China has built the world's largest navy, the largest standing army, and continues expanding nuclear arsenal.
With respect to China’s rapidly growing military capability, China faces no neighbor capable of threatening its territorial core. It has border disputes with India but India lacks the economic heft and the two nations are separated by the Himalayas. No country has the capability or stated intention to attack Chinese territory. China’s buildup is offensive in nature. The rhetoric toward Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines is not the language of a country managing security threats. It is the bellicose language of intimidation. It is also dangerously counterproductive as referenced by the recent election results in Japan.
From an alternative vantage, ongoing Chinese behavior directly contradicts the peaceful coexistence meme:
Beijing's treatment of the overseas diaspora (huaqiao) belies a China that whose sovereign claims extend over ethnic Chinese persons, not merely territory. This extends to diaspora communities across Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Singapore, the Anglosphere, and beyond as a constituency that owes loyalty to Beijing pressuring Chinese-language media, monitors diaspora students through WeChat and informant networks, and operates overseas police stations in over fifty countries. No genuinely non-expansionist power claims jurisdiction over citizens of foreign states on the basis of ethnic heritage.
China's antagonistic relationship with the international legal and commercial order shows that it accepts its benefits while rejecting its constraints. It rejects international rulings and harasses its neighbors. In recent years China has built the world's largest navy, the largest standing army, and continues expanding nuclear arsenal.
China faces no neighbor capable of threatening its territorial core. It has border disputes with India but Indian lacks the economic heft and the two nations are separated by the Himalayas. No country has the capability or stated intention to attack Chinese territory. China’s buildup is offensive in nature. The rhetoric toward Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines is not the language of a country managing security threats. It is the bellicose language of intimidation. It is also dangerously counterproductive.
I have the following impressions: China has few allies because it was so isolated from the region during the Cold War and only recently has the ability and desire to expand its influence. The base in Djibouti is a recent one, legacy of the Belt and Road Initiative one that, btw, exemplifies aggressive diplomacy. China was not very expansionist earlier because it ruled the "world" (ancient China) or was weak (Opium Wars). As an industrial powerhouse, the situation changes and history becomes a bad guide. Do you think bureaucratic inertia will keep them from aggressive trying to expand its influence in the region, or in the globe? It sure will take time for they to build the expeditionary capabilities that the US has, but they are already doing that because they are planning an invasion.
It's not a rhetorical question. My knowledge comes from blog posts and news, but I think this argument of "historical pacifism" resumes to "despite having the incentive to aggressive expand its influence, bureaucratic inertia will stall them".
On the contrast with Russia I recall this section from Brothers Karamazov as potentially emblematic of the imperial attitude. “…they gave her a letter from Siberia which had been awaiting her … in the letter written on the road from Ekaterinenburg, Vassya informed his mother that he was returning *to Russia*” It appears even today only European Russia counts as “Russian”, with the Siberia and peripheral republics as clients or imperial holdings.
Ma ZiXuan- I appreciate you contributing your thoughts. However, I believe your thesis is based on a selective reading of the facts and the history. China has a long territorial expansion which is how it came to be larger than the Roman Empire. It subjugated non-Han peoples in Yunnan, Tibet, Xinjian, Mongolia, and other western provinces. It also subjugated various tributary vassals in the premodern period. But its success also bred its weakness as size is difficult to manage (even with that Hanzi written language). And so, it has struggled to be cohesive. From roughly 1600 to 2000, China was economically marginal, politically fractured, and frequently unable to govern its own periphery — making non-expansion a condition of weakness, not cultural disposition. The "hide your light" doctrine of Deng explicitly prescribed acknowledges this: restraint was tactical, not principled. China today retains colonial-era conquests — Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia — where it violently suppresses indigenous majorities through mass detention, cultural erasure, and demographic displacement. Nothing in the Chinese nature prevented this nor has it constrained China in the CCP era. Weakness, not character, determines behavior.
Tibet (1950): Military invasion, annexation, and suppression of the 1959 uprising; the Dalai Lama government driven into exile; ongoing cultural and religious destruction
Xinjiang: 1–1.8 million Uyghurs detained without trial; forced sterilization campaigns; destruction of mosques and cemeteries; UN characterization of potential crimes against humanity
South China Sea (2013–2016): Dash 6 line in conflict with maritime law and asserting dominion over areas never controlled by ancient or modern China. Construction of seven artificial islands with military installations; 2016 arbitral tribunal ruling rejected; ongoing coercion of Philippine, Vietnamese, and Malaysian vessels
Hong Kong (2020): National Security Law imposed 27 years before the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration's expiry; Beijing declaring the treaty a "historical document with no practical significance"
Vietnam (1979): 200,000–300,000 troops launched a conventional cross-border invasion, capturing and destroying multiple northern cities before withdrawing
India (1962 and 2020): Initiated the 1962 Sino-Indian War; 2020 Galwan Valley clash killed 20 Indian soldiers; ongoing territorial pressure across the Line of Actual Control
Korea (1950–1953): Three million Chinese troops deployed offensively into South Korea; 180,000–400,000 Chinese deaths in a war prosecuted well beyond any defensive buffer logic
Taiwan: Repeated military exercises simulating blockade and invasion of a democratic self-governing island the PRC has never administered; explicit threats to use force to achieve unification
Economic coercion: Systematic trade punishment of Australia (wine, barley, coal, beef) after Canberra called for a COVID-origins inquiry; retaliation against South Korea over THAAD deployment; boycott pressure on Lithuania after it hosted a Taiwanese representative office
Overseas police stations and diaspora coercion: Documented operations in at least 53 countries pressuring Chinese nationals and dissidents abroad — an extraterritorial claim over persons that no genuinely non-expansionist power exercises
https://chatgpt.com/share/69abb0e0-7c2c-8001-8e3e-491810edde65
“Historically China behaved less like a maritime colonial empire (Britain/Spain) and more like a continental empire similar to Russia: expanding mainly into adjacent frontier regions rather than overseas territories.”
Not to mention the conquest of Southern China. In short, the transformation of China from a Yellow River civilization into a vast multiethnic empire-and its subsequent hanization-is one of the largest territorial expansions in world history.
Yes. I agree. For Chinese naval adventurism you need to go back over 500 years to Admiral Zheng. It's a fascinating story if you want to search. But its conclusion is that Naval missions got caught up in palace intrigue between the eunuchs and the [non-eunuchs]. I guess they had polarization, even back then ;~)
That said, this may be as much a function of its natural geography and threat/trade matrix which historically oriented it toward its land borders.
Until about 12 years ago when they started transforming small reefs and shoals into large artificial islands, especially in the Spratly Islands.
These give China military control of vital sea lanes, extending military reach hundreds of miles from its mainland, and facilitate claims to exclusive resource access (fisheries, oil, gas).
From an alternative vantage, ongoing Chinese behavior directly contradicts the peaceful coexistence meme:
Beijing's treatment of the overseas diaspora (huaqiao) belies a China that whose sovereign claims extend over ethnic Chinese persons, not merely territory. This extends to diaspora communities across Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Singapore, the Anglosphere, and beyond as a constituency that owes loyalty to Beijing pressuring Chinese-language media, monitors diaspora students through WeChat and informant networks, and operates overseas police stations in over fifty countries. No genuinely non-expansionist power claims jurisdiction over citizens of foreign states on the basis of ethnic heritage.
China's antagonistic relationship with the international legal and commercial order shows that it accepts its benefits while rejecting its constraints. It rejects international rulings and harasses its neighbors. In recent years China has built the world's largest navy, the largest standing army, and continues expanding nuclear arsenal.
With respect to China’s rapidly growing military capability, China faces no neighbor capable of threatening its territorial core. It has border disputes with India but India lacks the economic heft and the two nations are separated by the Himalayas. No country has the capability or stated intention to attack Chinese territory. China’s buildup is offensive in nature. The rhetoric toward Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines is not the language of a country managing security threats. It is the bellicose language of intimidation. It is also dangerously counterproductive as referenced by the recent election results in Japan.
From an alternative vantage, ongoing Chinese behavior directly contradicts the peaceful coexistence meme:
Beijing's treatment of the overseas diaspora (huaqiao) belies a China that whose sovereign claims extend over ethnic Chinese persons, not merely territory. This extends to diaspora communities across Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Singapore, the Anglosphere, and beyond as a constituency that owes loyalty to Beijing pressuring Chinese-language media, monitors diaspora students through WeChat and informant networks, and operates overseas police stations in over fifty countries. No genuinely non-expansionist power claims jurisdiction over citizens of foreign states on the basis of ethnic heritage.
China's antagonistic relationship with the international legal and commercial order shows that it accepts its benefits while rejecting its constraints. It rejects international rulings and harasses its neighbors. In recent years China has built the world's largest navy, the largest standing army, and continues expanding nuclear arsenal.
China faces no neighbor capable of threatening its territorial core. It has border disputes with India but Indian lacks the economic heft and the two nations are separated by the Himalayas. No country has the capability or stated intention to attack Chinese territory. China’s buildup is offensive in nature. The rhetoric toward Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines is not the language of a country managing security threats. It is the bellicose language of intimidation. It is also dangerously counterproductive.
I have the following impressions: China has few allies because it was so isolated from the region during the Cold War and only recently has the ability and desire to expand its influence. The base in Djibouti is a recent one, legacy of the Belt and Road Initiative one that, btw, exemplifies aggressive diplomacy. China was not very expansionist earlier because it ruled the "world" (ancient China) or was weak (Opium Wars). As an industrial powerhouse, the situation changes and history becomes a bad guide. Do you think bureaucratic inertia will keep them from aggressive trying to expand its influence in the region, or in the globe? It sure will take time for they to build the expeditionary capabilities that the US has, but they are already doing that because they are planning an invasion.
It's not a rhetorical question. My knowledge comes from blog posts and news, but I think this argument of "historical pacifism" resumes to "despite having the incentive to aggressive expand its influence, bureaucratic inertia will stall them".
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free
On the contrast with Russia I recall this section from Brothers Karamazov as potentially emblematic of the imperial attitude. “…they gave her a letter from Siberia which had been awaiting her … in the letter written on the road from Ekaterinenburg, Vassya informed his mother that he was returning *to Russia*” It appears even today only European Russia counts as “Russian”, with the Siberia and peripheral republics as clients or imperial holdings.