China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.

[swerve]

Interesting oped on Russia and China: Does China have designs on Siberia? | The Hill

I was not aware that China lost so much territory to Russia as late as 1860. When Russia has been sufficiently weakened, I am guessing China will make a move. A country that is already in conflict with India, is trying to establish the "nine-dash line" in the Sea and also claims Taiwan (that has been independent of China for quite a long time the last few centuries), will most likely reconsider the borders with Russia in the future?
..

400 years ago that was land nominally subject to the Manchus, but not ruled by them. The locals were left to themselves as long as they occasionally acknowledged Manchu suzerainty, but were expected to cooperate with the Manchus to keep out anyone else. Russians (mostly Cossacks moved in in the 17th century, when the Manchu state was busy conquering China. The locals objected to the Cossacks because they demanded a lot of "tribute" on pain of having your home burned down, death, etc. - i.e. they behaved like bandits. The Manchus sent men to drive them out, but too few - until China was firmly under Manchu control in the 1680s. The Manchus then turned up in force & the Russians wisely moved out, signing the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689.

It's odd that the Chinese claim that territory which was never part of any Chinese-ruled state, but a subject territory of their foreign overlords, is Chinese. It's a bit like, e.g. Mexico claiming Sicily because it was once ruled by Spain, or Algeria claiming Romania because it was once ruled by the Ottomans. On that basis, China could claim everything Genghis Khan conquered, or India could claim the eastern USA.

 

[swerve]

... West/NATO should disband themselves if they really want to embrace Russia. Now why West not doing that, not try to treat Russia as equal partner without holding one hand in the back (by keeping NATO), can be debated until end of time.....

Russia refuses to behave like an equal partner. It demands to be treated as as special country, with special rights, including over other countries. Russia does not treat Ukraine as an equal. Russia demands a privileged status, & the right to limit the sovereignty of neighbouring countries. It has carved pieces out of Georgia, Ukraine & Moldova, just as the USSR carved pieces out of Finland, took control of Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania & split Poland with Germany.

Why do you not see this? The Russian empire failed militarily & economically. The USSR fell apart because of internal economic & political failure, not because anyone attacked it. The parts of Finland it took over were sad, rundown, poor places compared to the rest of Finland. I went there & saw it. Now Putin's trying to rebuild a Russian empire. He's informally subjected Belarus, & grabbed pieces of other neighbours. And what sort of places are they? Have a look at Abkhazia, Transnistria, & the Donbas. The first two are basically bandit countries, run by organised crime. The Donbas isn't much better. The current Russian state blights whatever it touches - but it wants to have a veto on the alliances & defences of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. Do you think we should allow that?

Western countries slashed their armed forces & tried to engage with Russia in friendly ways. They invested huge amounts of money in Russia, were hospitable to Russians who wanted to visit, study, or live in them, were eager to buy Russian goods, & even willing to sign deals which made them dependent on Russia. What was the Russian response? To spit in their faces. To murder people on their streets - so casually & carelessly that they killed uninvolved bystanders. Behaving like a country seeking to be an equal partner? Like hell!

Russia had every chance to be treated as an equal partner, & it rejected them.

Tell me, does China treat Indonesia as an equal partner? Why are you complaining about western countries not bowing down to Russia & handing over Ukraine et al to Putin? Are they looting your fisheries & attacking your fishermen in Indonesian waters? What will you do when the Chinese ambassador gives orders to your president? Tell western countries not to offer any support because that would be not treating China as an equal partner?

 

[Stuart M]

Snip.

It's odd that the Chinese claim that territory which was never part of any Chinese-ruled state, but a subject territory of their foreign overlords, is Chinese. It's a bit like, e.g. Mexico claiming Sicily because it was once rule by Spain, or Algeria claiming Romania becuae it was once ruled by the Ottomans.

I think that Chinese government mindset is that something is still Chinese if the governance was nominal, or even theoretical, at some point, and any alterations are a temporary aberration to be corrected.

In this case, if suzerainty was acknowledged its not in the western sense of the word, for the CCP it's an acknowledgement that a territory was/is Chinese even of the technology of an era did not allow for more direct modes of government.

In this regard western notions that you allude to are really quite foreign to them, so one must never discount the ever present 'Middle Kingdom' syndrome that assumes the centrality of China in the world and civilisation to which all must pay homage.

 

[Ananda]

Why are you complaining about western countries not bowing down to Russia & handing over Ukraine et al to Putin? Are they looting your fisheries & attacking your fishermen in Indonesian waters? What will you do when the Chinese ambassador gives orders to your president? Tell western countries not to offer any support because that would be not treating China as an equal partner?

Why are you comparing China and Indonesia toward Russia and West ? That's comparing Apples and Oranges, don't you see that ?

As for your comments on Russia, I will answer that in other thread. Not want to diverge this China thread on Russia and West issue. Simply (in related to China), when Russia find themselves in divergence path with West, then they will make another path and finding potential partner that more meet their need. That's China and Russia now, as partners on convenience situation.

 

[ngatimozart]

Why are you comparing China and Indonesia toward Russia and West ? That's comparing Apples and Oranges, don't you see that ?

@swerve is quite within bounds to compare China and Indonesia with Russia and West. It isn't comparing apples and oranges because there are similarities. The PRC / CCP wants to dominate its neighbours and others in the region in order to have things its way. Look at how it treats complaints about its EEZ conflicts. It goes cranky when anyone does something that it doesn't like or interferes with its attempted regional hegemony. It bullies nations using grey warfare techniques; the South China Sea is a classic example, with its theft of resources from others EEZ and the commons within the SCS. It avidly interferes with other nations domestic politics, and has weaponised trade. It's all part of its "unrestricted warfare" strategy and there's a book published by two Senior Colonels of the PLA, Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui discussing it and setting out its parameters. There's a translated English language copy available and it makes for interesting reading.

Table 1.	Unrestricted Warfare - Combination Methods of Operation
Military	Trans-military	Non-military
Atomic warfare	Diplomatic warfare	Financial warfare
Conventional warfare	Network warfare	Trade warfare
Bio-chemical warfare	Intelligence warfare	Resources warfare
Ecological warfare	Psychological warfare	Economic aid warfare
Space warfare	Tactical warfare	Regulatory warfare
Electronic warfare	Smuggling warfare	Sanction warfare
Guerrilla warfare	Drug warfare	Media warfare
Terrorist warfare	Virtual warfare (deterrence)	Ideological warfare

Source: Qiao L & Wang W: 1999, Unrestricted Warfare, PLA, Beijing. English Translation, Echo Point Books & Media, Brattleboro, VM, USA. p-123.

Table 1, illustrates the various methods that the PRC utilise in prosecution of their aims in the South China Sea. It's the combinations of the methods of operation that are working well (from PRC POV) in the SCS. So far they have been using combinations from the Trans-military and Non-military columns, and have used EW from the Military column against the Philippines. One point to note is that both authors are political officers within the PLA. Qiao Liang has quite a reputation as a strategist and is "worshipped" by many in the PLA because of his strategic nous and ability to communicate his teachings easily; however he was arrested and it is believed forced into retirement last year for political reasons. The CCP / PRC have been actively using the above methods since 2013 in its push against the region and the wider world. This is illustrated in it's "wolf warrior" diplomacy and its intolerance of criticism. It's touchier than a toddler in the middle of a temper tantrum and reacts accordingly.

 

[Boatteacher]

@swerve is quite within bounds to compare China and Indonesia with Russia and West. It isn't comparing apples and oranges because there are similarities. The PRC / CCP wants to dominate its neighbours and others in the region in order to have things its way. Look at how it treats complaints about its EEZ conflicts. It goes cranky when anyone does something that it doesn't like or interferes with its attempted regional hegemony. It bullies nations using grey warfare techniques; the South China Sea is a classic example, with its theft of resources from others EEZ and the commons within the SCS. It avidly interferes with other nations domestic politics, and has weaponised trade. It's all part of its "unrestricted warfare" strategy and there's a book published by two Senior Colonels of the PLA, Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui discussing it and setting out its parameters. There's a translated English language copy available and it makes for interesting reading.

Table 1.	Unrestricted Warfare - Combination Methods of Operation
Military	Trans-military	Non-military
Atomic warfare	Diplomatic warfare	Financial warfare
Conventional warfare	Network warfare	Trade warfare
Bio-chemical warfare	Intelligence warfare	Resources warfare
Ecological warfare	Psychological warfare	Economic aid warfare
Space warfare	Tactical warfare	Regulatory warfare
Electronic warfare	Smuggling warfare	Sanction warfare
Guerrilla warfare	Drug warfare	Media warfare
Terrorist warfare	Virtual warfare (deterrence)	Ideological warfare

Source: Qiao L & Wang W: 1999, Unrestricted Warfare, PLA, Beijing. English Translation, Echo Point Books & Media, Brattleboro, VM, USA. p-123.
Table 1, illustrates the various methods that the PRC utilise in prosecution of their aims in the South China Sea. It's the combinations of the methods of operation that are working well (from PRC POV) in the SCS. So far they have been using combinations from the Trans-military and Non-military columns, and have used EW from the Military column against the Philippines. One point to note is that both authors are political officers within the PLA. Qiao Liang has quite a reputation as a strategist and

On that basis it has been at war with Australia for a few years now.
I just hipe our recently changed givernment can read the winds and not comprimise themselves into an effective defeat.

 

[ngatimozart]

On that basis it has been at war with Australia for a few years now.
I just hipe our recently changed givernment can read the winds and not comprimise themselves into an effective defeat.

You could argue that and not just with Australia.

 

[Vivendi]

An interesting Twitter thread on Russia and China: Alexander Gabuev 陳寒士 on Twitter: " https://t.co/60AXd5ujMy" / Twitter

China is trying a "balancing act", and is trying to convince Europe that China is sincere in their efforts to "rein in" Russia, since this is in China's interest right now. China needs the trade with Europe, and also tries to drive a wedge between Europe and the US.

A weakened Russia is also in China's interest.

Things are looking very grim for Russia -- they are losing the war in Ukraine, and becoming weaker and weaker vs. China. Whereas China is benefiting. The weaker Russia becomes, the more concessions China can obtain from them.

 

[Ananda]

quite within bounds to compare China and Indonesia with Russia and West. It isn't comparing apples and oranges because there are similarities.

Is PRC facing common Grouping like NATO in their neighbors ? Is PRC ever in same conditions to create common security arrangement with one Group like West and Russia in the 90's ?

No they are not, that's why it is apple and oranges. PRC has been agreesive on their goal, and Russia goes to this path when common securities arrangement actuality can be in table. Like it or not there are times when Russia actually more "mature" in negotiations then PRC.

PRC is China, and China always be China. This is what most Chinese Asian neighbors knows. Especially those in SEA. Something that Russian involvement with their neighbors not always the same.

Chinese neighbors knows well China will always try to push their weight around. Questions how to navigate between playing hard and compromise with China. So relationships between China and Neighbors are different in interactions against Russia and Neighbors.

Relationships between commerce and securities always there and always being navigate how to balance. The moment Indonesia and Vietnam reach agreement on their Economic Zone in SCS, they know China will react. Not waiting long, just days after that China Coast Guard send their biggest ships, parade around Indonesia and Vietnam EEZ.

In sense can be more direct, but on other hand more predictable. You can say Asian old ways on diplomacy. China and its Asian neighbors always playing this balancing act. This is why I said Apple and Oranges.

 

[koxinga]

Russia refuses to behave like an equal partner. It demands to be treated as as special country, with special rights, including over other countries. Russia does not treat Ukraine as an equal. Russia demands a privileged status, & the right to limit the sovereignty of neighbouring countries. It has carved pieces out of Georgia, Ukraine & Moldova, just as the USSR carved pieces out of Finland, took control of Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania & split Poland with Germany.

@swerve, Russia perceives itself as deserving this special treatment because it is a superpower with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Would it want to be in an organisation with the same rights as say.. Spain or Greece? China, in my opinion, likewise believes they deserve to be treated different and both countries would point to the US as not being an equal partner as well but having an outsized say on things.

In that sense, NATO/West's attempt to offer an olive branch/equal partnership is seen as insulting by people like Putin. This is probably the biggest misread by Western countries, especially Germany about Russia.

Of course, for small states where I am from, such might is right, big means I get more say thinking is very dangerous, hence the constant refrain for a rules-based international order.

 

[Vivendi]

@swerve, Russia perceives itself as deserving this special treatment because it is a superpower with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Would it want to be in an organisation with the same rights as say.. Spain or Greece? China, in my opinion, likewise believes they deserve to be treated different and both countries would point to the US as not being an equal partner as well but having an outsized say on things.

In that sense, NATO/West's attempt to offer an olive branch/equal partnership is seen as insulting by people like Putin. This is probably the biggest misread by Western countries, especially Germany about Russia.

Of course, for small states where I am from, such might is right, big means I get more say thinking is very dangerous, hence the constant refrain for a rules-based international order.

In principle the US and Germany has the same single vote in NATO as Iceland and Greece. However due to their larger size etc. of course both the US and Germany has slightly more influence that said smaller countries.

Russia may perceive itself as a superpower but we all know the realities are very different. Russia needs to wake up and face the realities. It's a rusty gas station with nukes, run by a bunch of mafiosi.

 

[swerve]

@swerve is quite within bounds to compare China and Indonesia with Russia and West. It isn't comparing apples and oranges because there are similarities. The PRC / CCP wants to dominate its neighbours and others in the region in order to have things its way. Look at how it treats complaints about its EEZ conflicts. It goes cranky when anyone does something that it doesn't like or interferes with its attempted regional hegemony. It bullies nations using grey warfare techniques; the South China Sea is a classic example, with its theft of resources from others EEZ and the commons within the SCS. It avidly interferes with other nations domestic politics, and has weaponised trade. It's all part of its "unrestricted warfare" strategy and there's a book published by two Senior Colonels of the PLA, Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui discussing it and setting out its parameters. There's a translated English language copy available and it makes for interesting reading.

Table 1.	Unrestricted Warfare - Combination Methods of Operation
Military	Trans-military	Non-military
Atomic warfare	Diplomatic warfare	Financial warfare
Conventional warfare	Network warfare	Trade warfare
Bio-chemical warfare	Intelligence warfare	Resources warfare
Ecological warfare	Psychological warfare	Economic aid warfare
Space warfare	Tactical warfare	Regulatory warfare
Electronic warfare	Smuggling warfare	Sanction warfare
Guerrilla warfare	Drug warfare	Media warfare
Terrorist warfare	Virtual warfare (deterrence)	Ideological warfare

Source: Qiao L & Wang W: 1999, Unrestricted Warfare, PLA, Beijing. English Translation, Echo Point Books & Media, Brattleboro, VM, USA. p-123.

Table 1, illustrates the various methods that the PRC utilise in prosecution of their aims in the South China Sea. It's the combinations of the methods of operation that are working well (from PRC POV) in the SCS. So far they have been using combinations from the Trans-military and Non-military columns, and have used EW from the Military column against the Philippines. One point to note is that both authors are political officers within the PLA. Qiao Liang has quite a reputation as a strategist and is "worshipped" by many in the PLA because of his strategic nous and ability to communicate his teachings easily; however he was arrested and it is believed forced into retirement last year for political reasons. The CCP / PRC have been actively using the above methods since 2013 in its push against the region and the wider world. This is illustrated in it's "wolf warrior" diplomacy and its intolerance of criticism. It's touchier than a toddler in the middle of a temper tantrum and reacts accordingly.

Yes, like the Manchester consulate incident last October. Some Chinese/Hong Kong exiles were demonstrating peacefully & legally outside the consulate, & consulate staff attacked them & dragged one inside the consulate grounds, where they beat him up. The consul personally participated in the beating. It was all on video.

The message was clear. There are no rules for China, & everyone else must accept that. China will only back off if forced to. The Chinese embassy complained about the British official reaction, & called the forcible dragging of a protestor through the consulate's gate (there are clear still photos & video) an illegal intrusion by protestors. The UK asked for waiving of the diplomatic immunity of six Chinese consular staff, including the consul. China refused.

All six were recalled to China, BTW. A normal rotation of staff, according to China. Low-grade thuggery, blatant lies which they expect to be accepted because they're China . . . .

 

[swerve]

I think that Chinese government mindset is that something is still Chinese if the governance was nominal, or even theoretical, at some point, and any alterations are a temporary aberration to be corrected.

In this case, if suzerainty was acknowledged its not in the western sense of the word, for the CCP it's an acknowledgement that a territory was/is Chinese even of the technology of an era did not allow for more direct modes of government.

But it wasn't Chinese! The suzerainty wasn't Chinese, but Manchu. It was never part of China. When the Manchu Empire consisted mainly of China, it governed Manchuria, including the non-Manchu northern lands, separately until the late 19th century. At the time those lands were ceded to Russia they were still separately governed. They were regarded as Manchu land, not part of China.

For most of Manchuria that had become something of a fiction by then. Han immigration had gone from banned to encouraged, & Manchu had become a minority in their own lands, with the economy dominated by Han merchants & artisans. But the ceded lands had hardly any Han - or Manchu. They were no more Chinese than Ireland was Indian. Most of the inhabitants of the British Empire were Indian 200 years ago, but although Indians didn't govern Ireland, & there were hardly any Indians there, by your reasoning, India should be acknowledged as having had suzerainty over Ireland.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Chinese people have an Imperial considerato of themselves.
They are just an appendix of a bigger entity, some kind of " Chinese historical physical presence" that Is Always with them in History.
Taiwan, for example, was never ruled or occupied by Communist China.
Why are they always saying that Taiwan Is China then? Are they lying?
Not really.
They have an olystic view of " the great China " and the fact that a Chinese population doesnt want to be annexed by them just irritates the CCP.
From that point of view, they are really similar to the russians or the Turkish.
It doesnt matter which political party rules, Who's the leader.
They are just another generation of Chinese, Russians or Turkish.
And they must perform to be as powerful as they used to be, or even more.

Thats not easily understandable for western people, we are much more disenchanted and rational, pragmatic...

 

[Stuart M]

But it wasn't Chinese! The suzerainty wasn't Chinese, but Manchu. It was never part of China. When the Manchu Empire consisted mainly of China, it governed Manchuria, including the non-Manchu northern lands, separately until the late 19th century. At the time those lands were ceded to Russia they were still separately governed. They were regarded as Manchu land, not part of China.

For most of Manchuria that had become something of a fiction by then. Han immigration had gone from banned to encouraged, & Manchu had become a minority in their own lands, with the economy dominated by Han merchants & artisans. But the ceded lands had hardly any Han - or Manchu. They were no more Chinese than Ireland was Indian. Most of the inhabitants of the British Empire were Indian 200 years ago, but although Indians didn't govern Ireland, & there were hardly any Indians there, by your reasoning, India should be acknowledged as having had suzerainty over Ireland.

No, not my reasoning; you see, I dont think the CCP draws that distinction, and that's the problem.

 

[swerve]

True: the CCP reasons like that - & not only the CCP. The idea that anywhere which has ever been in the same state as China, or within the Chinese tributary system is forever Chinese is widespread, & often exceeds any official Chinese claims, despite them encompassing territories on the basis of having been used by Chinese fishermen*. I've heard of Chinese people saying that Ryukyu used to be "ours", on the basis that it sent "tribute" to Beijing, balanced by "gifts" of similar value from the Qing emperors - or rather, the Beijing bureaucrats dealing with minor neighbouring states.

So, not your reasoning, but the Chinese reasoning you set out.

*Which if adopted elsewhere could lead to interesting arguments between Portugal, Spain & France about who Newfoundland belongs to, based on a few hundred years of Breton, Basque, Galician & Portuguese fishermen voyaging to the Grand Banks & salting & drying cod on shore.

 

[John Fedup]

True: the CCP reasons like that - & not only the CCP. The idea that anywhere which has ever been in the same state as China, or within the Chinese tributary system is forever Chinese is widespread, & often exceeds any official Chinese claims, despite them encompassing territories on the basis of having been used by Chinese fishermen*. I've heard of Chinese people saying that Ryukyu used to be "ours", on the basis that it sent "tribute" to Beijing, balanced by "gifts" of similar value from the Qing emperors - or rather, the Beijing bureaucrats dealing with minor neighbouring states.

So, not your reasoning, but the Chinese reasoning you set out.

*Which if adopted elsewhere could lead to interesting arguments between Portugal, Spain & France about who Newfoundland belongs to, based on a few hundred years of Breton, Basque, Galician & Portuguese fishermen voyaging to the Grand Banks & salting & drying cod on shore.

As the Grand Banks has been pretty much fished out, all three countries likely are content to leave it to Canada. If the UK hadn’t dumped Newfoundland perhaps France would contest because those two small islands to the west are so tiny compared to the “Rock”.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Why China’s Shrinking Population Is a Problem for Everyone (Published 2023)

China struggled for years to curtail its rapid population growth. Now that its population is declining, economists and others fear serious implications for China and countries around the world.

www.nytimes.com

But it's probably worse than the New York Times reports. The geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan released a video that points out the CCP overestimated their (post one child policy) population by 100 million people and the fertility rate is barely above 1.1, in larger cities below 1.0 (and that the excess population has largely been harvested from the countryside). As such, he predicts there will have to be massive changes in China's political and economic models by 2030, which he doubts will be positive.

So, yeah, probably worth considering selling any shares in any companies that keep doubling-down on China.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

China's problem is way bigger, quite similar to the western one but probably worse in every way.
Chinese life expectancy grow massively in the last 30 years, reaching almost 78 y.o. in 2023. here
At the same time, China's birth rate fell from 1,8 in 2015 to aproximately less than 1,3 in 2022 ( and probably falling ever harder due to the zero-covid politics ).
Analysts presume China will have between 350 and 400 millions retirees and the workforce will loose 40/50 millions workers in the next 5 years.
Chinese government has a big problem to fix...if it can be fixed.

Note that almost the same thing is happening for western countries, but with the difference that birthrate decline isnt so clear and there was no zero-covid politics.
Also EU age problem is in part mitigated by immigration from Africa, middle east and eastern Europe.
America has a higher birthrate and thanks to immigration from Mexico and south America, no tragic population decline should happen soon...

For comparison, in 2022:
EU: 9.2 birth per 1000, Growth Rate 0.1, Net Migration 2.6
US: 11 birth per 1000, Growth Rate 0.4, Net Migration 2.7
CHINA: 6,7 birth per 1000, Growth Rate -0.04, Net Migration -0,25

Those are the numbers provided by Macrotrends | The Long Term Perspective on Markets ...

 

[Ananda]

Opinion | China’s Future Isn’t What It Used to Be (Published 2022)

Global dominance has been postponed, maybe indefinitely.

www.nytimes.com

https://www.oecd.org/economy/china-economic-snapshot/#:~:text=Economic%20Outlook%20Note%20%2D%20China,in%202022%2C%20disrupting%20economic%20activity

.

China GDP to top US, but not until around 2035, Goldman Sachs economists say

And demographic factors such as China’s rapidly ageing population could keep its potential economic growth rate below that of its Asian peers such as India and the Philippines.

www.scmp.com

China may soon become a high-income country

Has it truly escaped the middle-income trap?

www.economist.com

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

I put this links that are bit pesimistic tone to more moderate tone on Chinese Economy future. I only put from sources that 'mostly' acceptable. Thus I don't put sources from Chinese Markets (to avoid being call bias sources).

Even that, the verdict so far that their growth will be much moderate but still growing. They are going to avoid "middle income" trap that some Western anti China pundits predict and hope. Still they are growing in average of 4%-6%, and that's still about double then the average of OECD countries. This despite problem with demographics that China will face and can't be avoided.

China will face aging populations, but so does Euro zone, North America and rest of East Asia. Is Aging population problematic, off course it is. However is it also means aging population going to end respectable economic growth ? That's where many analysts and market experts still devided.

I'm not going to talk all the view on aging populations towards economic growth. It is in open sources and everyone can look and read it. However personally I do agree on the view on Aging populations will not stuck an economy toward stagnation. As long as technological developments still going strong.

Aging populations can create conditions where the youngs going to Urban area where more productivity created through Industrial and Services, and older populations move to Rural area where slower pace agricultural sectors resides. This trends begin to be seen in Japan. Where some middle income 40's-50's something move back to rural, sometimes bring their minor childrens or left their Uni age childrens in Urban area. Agricultural sector also shown more or less can be held productivity level with more tech/machines power and less man power.

In that sense if this is the trend of future on aging populations economies, it will not create a booming production boosts like before, but also not create stagnation. For China, despite aging populations and slowing down population growth, it is still large enough populations to provide still strong productivity centers.

China already surpass US on PPP GDP and still being predicted to overtake US on Nominal GDP, by middle of next decade. For an economy that relied more on domestic production for domestic market more than export-import (thus internationally trade), PPP will matter more to shown their real productivity. Thats why CCP now for last several years aim more on enlarging their own domestic market and consumption.

In short, despite all their predicted problem including aging populations and stagnation even decreasing populations, this does not mean China will also face stagnation in Economy. In fact still being predicted they will still growing double than average OECD. However will not be as much as high growth in last three decades. Still it is part of economic evolution cycles that many OECD countries face before, including US.

Thus China still going to be global economic growth engine for sometimes in futures.