zlacker

>>campus+(OP)
Well, if they want to learn from the US, they should ship their manufacturing capacity and intellectual property off to their geopolitical rival for short-term monetary gain.

>>lenerd+O7
China was actually trying to heavily establish offshoring in the Philippines—but that has seemingly dried up with the increasing South China Sea tensions.

>>derefr+o9
Same with India before 2020 - China used to be India's largest FDI partner before the Galwan crisis.

After that, the Indian government "persuaded" Chinese players to sell off their Indian assets to Indian, Taiwanese, Korean, Japanese, and American players instead.

4 years later, the GlobalTimes - which was extremely provocative against India - has started pushing out content arguing that India should begin reopening it's economy to Chinese players.

>>alephn+Ua
I swear a lot of wars get started by guys like Xi who after seizing power internally try to seize power externally and it often ends really really badly for the host country.

Seriously, the leader of Germany in the 1930's, Stalin, Putin, Saddam Hussein, now Xi. All seized power domestically and then couldn't help themselves when it came to neighboring countries.

>>Gibbon+3K
Obviously this is heated topic, but did it ends really bad for USSR under Stalin rule (until his death)? I mean it was bad for many citizens but other areas were actually ok-ish considering war destructions.

I’m not trying to make point about Stalin. Just trying to find if this is really a rule, but my historical knowledge is pretty limited. Intuitively I feel any overpowered political entity end up like shit. But interesting to see real data.

>>para_p+UL
Of course it was bad. But the point was about starting wars.

Stalin did start many wars, disastrous invasion of Finland, invasion of Poland, Molotov-Ribentrop pact with Germany and so on.