[refenestrator]

Invade where? Tajikistan? The thing about belt and road is.. we could do that, too. Instead we blow a fortune in the middle east and get salty at them for being smarter.

As far as china's ambitions go, anything can change but they have a long, long history of non-interventionism. It's hard to justify ideologically when they teach every schoolkid about the century of humiliation and the evils of colonialism.

[dang]

Your current account has an unmistakeable pattern of using HN primarily for ideological and nationalistic battle. I believe you're posting in good faith in the sense that you sincerely hold your views and are not misrepresenting yourself —as some people have complained, and as I'm happy to say in response to the complaints. That's not enough, though. You're clearly not using HN as intended, and you're clearly violating the site guidelines.

We ban accounts that use HN primarily for political/ideological/nationalistic battle because they destroy this community for the thing it is supposed to be for: respectful, curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. Therefore I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. As you know, they're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

[refenestrator]

Was I not respectful?

The shape of global politics is interesting to me. Your call.

[SkyMarshal]

China has a long history of non-interventionism, but the Communist Party does not. Now that the CCP controls China, I don’t expect China’s track record in that regard to continue. The only reason it hasn’t happened yet is b/c China wasn’t powerful enough, but that’s clearly changing.