(02-11-2017, 09:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:(02-10-2017, 12:57 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(02-08-2017, 05:18 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I think you are depending on a thesis of authoritarian states as being inherently rational (in contrast to democracies) that I don't feel is sound.
The USSR and Mao's China had nukes, and they still fought border conflicts and had many divisions of troops on their respective borders.
Note that I never posited as all-out war as certain, only that in the absence of outside pressures their relation is unlikely to be one of perfect amity the way you keep proposing.
I did not propose perfect amity. I challenged your idea that Russia would prefer American hegemony to Chinese hegemony.
Just a quick sidebar. Russia has, and Russians as individuals have, a an innate insecurity about their place in the world. Russians have always thought that Europe looked down on Russia as a somewhat less acceptable member of the continent, and, over the centuries, they've internalized a lot of that. The Chinese have been similarly dismissive in the East. I agree that they jealously covet their position as a power, but they may be less excised about a distant hegemon than one of their border. I'm not saying its rational.
When Jordan and I are talking about hegemony, we are using the word to mean world leadership in the Modelski and Thompson cycle. They deliberately do not use the word hegemon because of its connotation as the most powerful country.
Portugal was the first world leader. Portugal was nowhere close to being the strongest power, both Spain and France were stronger. Portugal was the world leader because she pioneered new economic sectors that allowed her to build the first world-spanning commercial empire. The next leader was the Netherlands. Again it was not the strongest power, but it pioneered economic sectors which made it the (financially) richest power. They acquired much of Portugal's empire and added to it. Next was Britain, who was leader for two cycles. For the first cycle she also was not the strongest power. But she pioneered new economic sectors gave her sufficient financial clout to repeatedly defeat the physically stronger France in a series of wars. For the next cycle, she pioneered the industrial revolution, which allowed her to become the strongest power--an actual hegemon. The next country to industrialize after Britain was the US, which did it on a continental scale making her the strongest nation and then the world leader/hegemon. Only for the last two cycles have the world leaders been hegemonic. Assuming China become the next world leader she will be adjacent to a land-based great power like Portugal and the Netherlands were. Although these leaders were expansionary powers located on the continent, neither chose to use the wealth from their overseas enterprises to start continental wars. Spain did so choose and ended up being destroyed as a power--a lesson for future would-be hegemons.
My argument with Jordan is I see no reason for China to act as Spain did, and start exhausting wars in their interior, when there is an overseas empire waiting to be occupied as the old leader declines. As for the Russians, unlike Portugal and the Netherlands, China will be far stronger than they so there is no percentage in provoking a fight they can't win. Better to expand in the other direction.