ungggh aaaaghhung aaarrrgghgnnnng

[Helm]

When I said I didn't understand I was just stressing that It's confusing how radically different analyses of geopolitics can be, yet all be valid to degrees. My views on the subject are of the layman. I'm just following on the little I read in the papers so I'm hesitant to have a firm opinion unless I do extensive studying.

Generally though, I believe that from a level and above, geopolitical superiority is much less to do with general "our-currency-is-strong!" economic prosperity and more to do with veiled but always there threat of military might. Since geopolitical power is considered an end in itself, I think that is the most direct way to underline superiority is war and the threat of war. This also gives a realistic explaination on why the US, although the sole remaining superpower, still feels the need to underline it's military muscle regularly, instead of being content on largely controlling the world market, which I believe your country is capable of. My opinion is largely anti-marxist ( as in not materialistic, since I don't actually focus on money and the aquiring of as the crux of the situation) and more focusing on the exertion of power as the prime need of communities that are constantly at odds. The US is our current alpha male in a despondent pack of treacherous wolves that is the collection of nations on the earth. It has to bear it's teeth, regardless of wealth, regardless of prosperity. These things are not enough unless you can take DOWN whoever even thinks or you think they think of challenging your power. A pretty atavistic deal, in this light.

To answer your question and to open that discussion

I agree, but in whose favor do things complicate?

I guess China's superiority or inferiority in terms of market has very little to do with if it's threatening or not. Just by existing, and by growing, it's a threat to the US. This is what I read behind Italian's posts in this thread, that constant fear of opposition, an urge to preemptively destroy a potential threat. Power for Security, to quench the primordial need of safety.