China cannot sustain themselves with the resources they have. They've seen the world react to Russia, many countries cutting Russia off financially in many ways. China could probably not survive as a nation if they were economically cut off. Yes many countries would be hurting for some time without being able to import goods but things like food, fertilizer, etc. are kinda key.
China also has a shrinking population, much like Russia, and throwing your young and middle aged men into war isn't going to help population numbers.
I think you underestimate the resilience of the Chinese people. They came out of the bloodiest civil convulsion in centuries, to become the second largest economy, and the fastest growing one, ever (well in known human history, anyway).
That being said, sure they face challenges. But I don't think they could "not survive" if isolated. They are probably one of the few places that could survive isolation: abundant agricultural land, immense manufacturing capability, incredible ability to mobilize millions of people toward survival activities, world's largest coal reserves.
If put in that position, they would be more likely to wage war to secure the things they needed, cannibalize other steel for war purposes, etc. I don't think the "China is too weak to fight a war" makes sense.
I think there's multiple levels in which it fails: if you accept it is weak, you must also accept that weak, cornered people are the most dangerous; if you accept it is strong, you must accept it can fight. Truly, it has a mix of both qualities, but I don't think the idea of it being "too weak to fight" has a solid basis.
In a more morbid sense, you could consider the lockdowns as training for the population for wartime curfew and associated hardships.
> They came out of the bloodiest civil convulsion in centuries, to become the second largest economy, and the fastest growing one, ever (well in known human history, anyway).
But how much of that is simply regression towards the mean after an extended bad outlier? All the most miraculous recoveries first require being very sick.
It seems like every country gets similar boosts when it industrializes, and we shouldn't be surprised when it is more-pronounced in a large country of high population in natural resources.
Hard to say how much. Certainly for a long period of history China was the most developed country in the world by various indexes of development (for one example see Morris' Why the West Still Rules for discussion of a few measures). Were it indeed regression to a mean stable condition, it would not exactly disprove the notion of their being very resilient.
It's true that some of the scale of its achievement could simply be a reflection of a similar achievement magnified by its population. It's also likely true that part of its achievement is to accomplish a unification of such a large population in the first place.
It may have been highly developed for much of world history, but its mean condition was not highly stable. Last century's convulsion was but one of many the Chinese people have put themselves through. You could conclude they are among the most warlike of any people, at least where domestic conflict is concerned. One can argue that is simply a reflection of a strong desire to unify a collective identity. However, their capability to both create and survive war and suffering is itself remarkable.
I think that weighs in favor of them having a high resilience. As Rocky Balboa says, "It's not about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward." China has certainly taken plenty of hits, and kept moving forward. Many other places have "never recovered" from the hits they've taken.
I would not say that this means China's ascent is assured by any means. But they do seem to have remarkable resilience and capability.
But I don't know. Maybe they do not have that. I won't say here what's in their future, all I'm saying here what one could conclude seems likely, given a sober look at their present and past.
I honestly feel that all the discussion of China is off track for this question. I must bear some responsibility for that, tho, as I think I've talked a lot about it here. I'd prefer not to, one reason is because I think this question is about far more than just China.
Most developed countries have a shrinking population, excluding immigration from, well, less developed countries. Due to the one-child policy and preferences for a male child, there are now too many men, particularly in the military-eligible age groups. Sending them off to be war heroes will balance out the gender ratio and prevent an incel uprising in the future.
China also has a shrinking population, much like Russia, and throwing your young and middle aged men into war isn't going to help population numbers.