Wolf Warriorism proved a disaster last time. So for Trump 2.0, China's leadership is trying the reverse tactic. Early signs show it seems to be working.
What a difference a few years can make. Two years ago, it seemed that all you ever heard were accusations about USAID, etc., engaging in regime change and foreign interference. But when it was dismantled, crickets. Apart from the odd outlier trying to hold on to the wolf-warrior era and their relevance in it. It is almost as though Beijing knows that, even though there probably were elements of USAID that may have engaged in activities outside its remit, the vast majority of funding went toward providing for the poor — or, in terms that Beijing would be more likely to use, maintaining stability. If the U.S. makes a massive retreat from global affairs and institutions, and it causes instability across the globe, what does that mean for BRI projects and Beijing’s preference for shiny, flashy infrastructure projects that people can see over funding for things that are less visible, such as critical medicines and food? I think in some regards, China took the U.S. for granted. If Trump has his way, the U.S. is going to leave quite a few gaping holes around the world, and I doubt the claims from some commentators that China is looking to swoop in. I think China knows that Trump isn’t forever, but it also knows that while Trump may be focused on Ukraine and Israel at the moment, if he suddenly needs a domestic win due to failures elsewhere, he could start to point the finger at China again & restart a full-blown trade war. So China may have just taken a calculated step back to re-enter the ‘biding time’ phase. Who knows, though. The world is losing its marbles, and everything I’ve just said is most likely pure speculation.
I wonder how much of a role Western self-haters play in concerted strategy. There's no shortage of useful idiots willing to pick up and amplify these positive narratives, not because they're paid, but because they are either communists or morons.
Additionally, what do you make of the increasing prevalence of "break everything" narratives similar to Russia (see: Zhao Dashuai, Glenn Luk, Lei Gong, Doggy Dog, Arnaud Bertrand, etc). Private citizens in a more self confident system freelancing, or directed from the top?
Social media pundits (especially on X in 2025) are now so far removed from reality that they provide very little insight of actual use or relevance. There are “break everything” advocates everywhere, and an audience that seeks out such content. But they really are in a minority. A highly politicised and sometimes even radicalised niche group of people within a very loud echo chamber. As for the remnants of the wolf-warrior era, if they are sponsored by the state, they’ll most likely linger for a while longer, or until contracts/project timeframes have concluded, and those programmes/social media accounts will be phased out or rebranded, and if there are people that aren’t happy with being restricted to “positive” content, they’ll most likely just be pushed out of the system. I think we do give a little too much weight to the opinions of social media pundits, though. They are good at amassing likes and views, but does the world really need that kind of “expertise”or “skill”? I would prefer to spend my time exposing myself to the thoughts and opinions of people who have actual sway and influence in this world — not just a somewhat sizeable fan base of ideologically like-minded netizens. And to people that share knowledge and facts without tailoring their messages to suit the aim of amassing internet fame.
What a difference a few years can make. Two years ago, it seemed that all you ever heard were accusations about USAID, etc., engaging in regime change and foreign interference. But when it was dismantled, crickets. Apart from the odd outlier trying to hold on to the wolf-warrior era and their relevance in it. It is almost as though Beijing knows that, even though there probably were elements of USAID that may have engaged in activities outside its remit, the vast majority of funding went toward providing for the poor — or, in terms that Beijing would be more likely to use, maintaining stability. If the U.S. makes a massive retreat from global affairs and institutions, and it causes instability across the globe, what does that mean for BRI projects and Beijing’s preference for shiny, flashy infrastructure projects that people can see over funding for things that are less visible, such as critical medicines and food? I think in some regards, China took the U.S. for granted. If Trump has his way, the U.S. is going to leave quite a few gaping holes around the world, and I doubt the claims from some commentators that China is looking to swoop in. I think China knows that Trump isn’t forever, but it also knows that while Trump may be focused on Ukraine and Israel at the moment, if he suddenly needs a domestic win due to failures elsewhere, he could start to point the finger at China again & restart a full-blown trade war. So China may have just taken a calculated step back to re-enter the ‘biding time’ phase. Who knows, though. The world is losing its marbles, and everything I’ve just said is most likely pure speculation.
I wonder how much of a role Western self-haters play in concerted strategy. There's no shortage of useful idiots willing to pick up and amplify these positive narratives, not because they're paid, but because they are either communists or morons.
Additionally, what do you make of the increasing prevalence of "break everything" narratives similar to Russia (see: Zhao Dashuai, Glenn Luk, Lei Gong, Doggy Dog, Arnaud Bertrand, etc). Private citizens in a more self confident system freelancing, or directed from the top?
Social media pundits (especially on X in 2025) are now so far removed from reality that they provide very little insight of actual use or relevance. There are “break everything” advocates everywhere, and an audience that seeks out such content. But they really are in a minority. A highly politicised and sometimes even radicalised niche group of people within a very loud echo chamber. As for the remnants of the wolf-warrior era, if they are sponsored by the state, they’ll most likely linger for a while longer, or until contracts/project timeframes have concluded, and those programmes/social media accounts will be phased out or rebranded, and if there are people that aren’t happy with being restricted to “positive” content, they’ll most likely just be pushed out of the system. I think we do give a little too much weight to the opinions of social media pundits, though. They are good at amassing likes and views, but does the world really need that kind of “expertise”or “skill”? I would prefer to spend my time exposing myself to the thoughts and opinions of people who have actual sway and influence in this world — not just a somewhat sizeable fan base of ideologically like-minded netizens. And to people that share knowledge and facts without tailoring their messages to suit the aim of amassing internet fame.