The news talk about Kallas, not foreign ministers. Things have changed since Afghanistan.

He is saying that if the EU wants to do a trade war the USA will deliver.

Preppers once were the unreasonable ones. What else will be seen in a new light?

Most People don’t choose Capitalism over Socialism for its values but for the material benefits. If those benefits are gone the majority won’t hold out for the benefit of their elite.

An April 2025 report by the European Chamber of Commerce in China found that China surpassed its goals for achieving domestic dominance in the auto industry. Of the ten strategic sectors highlighted in the report, China has achieved technological dominance in shipbuilding, high-speed rail, and electric cars. However, it has yet to meet its targets in aerospace, advanced robotics, and the growth rate in manufacturing value-added.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025

China could be stagnating but I think that is the bolder claim.

As per the Global Innovation Index in 2022, China was considered one of the most competitive in the world, ranking eleventh in the world, third in the Asia & Oceania region, and second for countries with a population of over 100 million.[4] In 2024, China is still ranked 11th.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_China

Is there reason to believe that the West can outpace China for years to come?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-industrial-robots-installed

Not all robots produced by China, but it gives me the impression that they will lead also robotics soon.

Basically at least one Rafaele in service by India got shot down by Pakistan in the recent clashes.

https://feddit.org/post/15336025

That moment is already gone.

Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. In international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood and deserves to be recognized as such.

In this case the neighborhood is the world.

How strong will China be in 20 years if China doesn’t attack Taiwan and China continues its development uninterrupted?

What’s the counter argument? What will prevent China from leading in all key technologies in 10 or 20 years?

They are linked, but differently. Without Taiwan, China can be locked into a naval blockade. China doesn’t fully become a pole in a multipolar world without Taiwan. But they don’t have to conquer it. Technological progression will make the Taiwanese want to join China. Only a war could prevent this which means that China will not launch an invasion.

Since people don’t read my long comment: The bold part is only suggested by the author and was never said by the minister.

comments suggest … Beijing’s mounting preparation to launch its own possible invasion into Taiwan.

The Chinese minister fears a US war with China instead.

Unipolary didn’t have strict rules either.

Neither is convenient for me because there will be a very inconvenient war. It’s just that people only count when there is an election, and then they only count as a manipulatable resource. Otherwise nobody in power cares about what people want.

You are right about your expectations about future wars. It’s time to come up with something to make a better future.

Sure. Unfortunately that’s not what counts. Also history is more complicated and doesn’t start in 2014.

Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.

Ukraine seems to be more of a unipolar project than a multipolar project. The important part is the last part of the last sentence.

David C. Hendrickson, in his article in Foreign Affairs on November 1, 1997, saw the core of the book as the ambitious strategy of NATO to move eastward to Ukraine’s Russian border and vigorously support the newly independent republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which is an integral part of what Hendrickson said could be called a “tough love” strategy for the Russians. Hendrickson considers “this great project” to be problematic for two reasons: the “excessive expansion of Western institutions” could well introduce centrifugal forces into it; moreover, Brzezinski’s “test of what legitimate Russian interests are” seems to be so strict that even a democratic Russia would probably “fail”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

Of course there can also be wars in the multipolar world. But there are enough started by the US that peace seems to be secondary.

The US wants to stay the hegemon but China is advancing technology faster than the US. The conflict is about the multipolar world. Unfortunately the US, and the EU, haven’t explained why they don’t want to be part of a multipolar world.

The US will lose hegemony during the next ten years if nothing changes. Going from 4.1x to 3.3x in 25 years won’t be relevant for that transition.

This also assumes that China cannot change their child policy once more.

Thus, a big war is coming.

Wang hasn’t said it. He almost said the opposite. Please check my other comment for details.

They don’t have those plans. That’s insinuated to distract from what the minister actually said and implied.

I have poined this out in the other post: https://feddit.org/post/15221478

This article is slightly misleading if compared with the SCMP article which has big implications on understanding the global power dynamics. Draw your own conclusions.

SCMP:

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union’s top diplomat on Wednesday that Beijing does not want to see a Russian loss in Ukraine because it fears the United States would then shift its whole focus to Beijing, according to several people familiar with the exchange.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/china-tells-eu-it-cannot-afford-russian-loss-ukraine-war-sources-say

https://web.archive.org/web/20250704053134/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/china-tells-eu-it-cannot-afford-russian-loss-ukraine-war-sources-say

vs

As the war in Ukraine drags on, Wang’s reported comments suggest that Russia’s war in Ukraine may serve China’s strategic needs as focus is deviated away from Beijing’s mounting preparation to launch its own possible invasion into Taiwan.

It’s subtle, but the attack on Taiwan is an interpretation. The minister means something else.

If the economic development continues, Taiwan will want to join China. Thus the focus of the US is interpreted differently by China, more like the focus Iraq or Afghanistan received.

SCMP:

During a marathon four-hour debate on a wide range of geopolitical and commercial grievances, Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.

Some EU officials felt he was giving her a lesson in realpolitik, part of which focused on Beijing’s belief that Washington will soon turn its full attention eastward, two officials said. One interpretation of Wang’s statement in Brussels is that while China did not ask for the war, its prolongation may suit Beijing’s strategic needs, so long as the US remains engaged in Ukraine.

vs

that they believed Wang was providing Kallas with a lesson in realpolitik during the four-hour encounter.

No mentioning of the “history lessons and lectures”, which is a friendlier way of saying that he has referenced past behavior that suggest that the EU is in the wrong.

There seems to be ignorance about what is going to happen even right at the top of the EU. The Chinese minister is calling bullshit. Yet Kallas must have already known better.

Yes, go on from there. Shit happened. What will be next?

Article 42 of the EU.

At least they will wait until the end of the war in Ukraine or until it spreads. If they believe that Putin will attack a member, they will be in a great negotiation position if the EU needs their weapons. Nato doesn’t make support obligatory so they can hold out until the EU caves.