It's as if Russia is using vitriolic rhetoric in an attempt to compensate for their decline. As you mentioned, Russia is experiencing domestic political tumult and a demographic crisis, but it still has nuclear weapons and an abundance of other resources. While I think part of the realpolitik argument may hold true (China's future IS brighter than Russia's), the second half about Russia's overall dissatisfaction with US policy can be reworked. Russia's recent attitudes towards US policy are simply a facade and an attempt to bring itself back to the top tier of international politics.

China, on the other hand, is more aplomb towards the United States for a couple of important reasons. First, the US has (as you mentioned) been quite aggressive in the Asian Pacific. Tensions are building between the two nations, and it wouldn't be in China's best interest to get into a conflict with the United States at this point. It still has a long ways to go before it comes close to having the military and economic power that the US possesses. Therefore, China needs to avoid conflict with the US in order to continue its growth.

The second reason is that China is more reliant on the US than Russia is in the global economic system. Two of the engines of China's economic growth has been the US domestic market as well as its purchase of US dollars and dollar-denominated assets. Vicious rhetoric would not serve in China's best interest for future economic growth

To conclude, Russia is declining, attempting to regain some of the Soviet luster. China is rising, looking to develop further and not publicly deteriorate relations with the United States.

China is rising and Russia is in decline. You only ever need to continuously stir up nationalistic vitriol and imagine enemies everywhere if you want to feel less bad about the direction you are heading.

Doesn't matter if it's China or Russia and their different reactions. They both know that the USA is playing mind-games. The USA surrounding them with missile bases, moving US battleship groups into waters traditionally sailed by China and Russia, arming their neighbours and rivals, while at the same time, going for the low hanging fruit by knocking off the two countries' trading partners such as Iraq and Libya (and with Syria and Iran also in the US and Israel's sights). This is causing China and Russia to get closer together for finance, trade and foreign policy matters.

Because Putin is a dick!

Even though Chinese market is open, officially China is a "socialist" country. However, Russia is "capitalist" or "democratic" country which all Russian government officials claim it. In China there is no public election, special committee which always define who will be next president or whatever the name. Even though there is no any fair election in Russia for ages still government afraid of revolt. I think that makes Russia politics vulnerable or acting more bellicose toward U.S policy. They know that U.,S try to expand democratic values in the region and people already fed up Putin's policy. Especially, presidential election is approaching-March- and they are so jittery for U.S policy toward the region.

1. The economic ties between US and China are far more deeper.

2. Russia's main economic zone is Europe where she sells most of her gas. So, she can afford some sort of diplomatic coldness with Uncle Sam.

Furthermore, Chinese are street-smart while Russians are more reckless in their pursuit of goals... ;D

First of all, I was born in Taiwan and educated in the US and have done a great deal of business with China. I will focus on China.

Obama’s Pacific Rim framework trade agreement aims to undermine China position. The chance of reaching such an agreement without Chinese participation is rather slim because the majority of Pacific Rim countries has China as the No. 1 trading partner and enjoys growing bilateral trades with China. Without China, the agreement would be inherently unstable. You can’t ignore your No. 1 customer with growth potential to accommodate your No. 2 customer with declining business. Also, managing trades with a number of small economies is much harder than with one big economy.

If you are a Chilean trade strategist, you are more likely to succeeding by devoting your resources to increasing trade with one big customer, China, than on 10, such as Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea, Indonesia, Republic of Fiji, Panama and etc. Remember each of these Pacific Rim countries is different in its own way. If you have done a great deal of business with Wal-Mart or Costco, you’d know what I mean. You think what Wal-Mart or Costco may want to buy when you mull over how to design and make your next new product. A region chain operating in Oregon and Idaho is the last thing on your mind.

If I were a Chinese long-term planner, I’d let Americans spend her resources, time, efforts and prestige to build something that I could undermine or undo with relatively easy effort.

South China Sea may have huge valuable natural resources underneath and be of strategic importance, but China has no navy to compete with the US. If China were to make a deal on South China Sea with neighboring countries now, it could not extract the best terms. Nor does it have the capabilities to develop and protect South China Sea at this moment. China should never put a deal on the table that everyone can agree and should never break away from negotiation so as to allow other parties to act unilaterally on South China Sea. It should wait until it has strategic advantage and capabilities to force neighboring countries to accept the terms it dictates. Americans are far away from the region. If they want to patrol the region, it’d be just fine to let them to spend money and energy for the time being.

India may want the US as an ally. If the US chooses to come too close to India, the US would upset Pakistan, and Pakistan would suddenly find the neighboring Iran a more worthy friend. In addition, India is a huge country and has her own design and ideas. It is unlikely that India would help the US maintain the American hegemony. Unless India wants to threaten China, Americans’ plan to use India to threaten China is unlikely to happen.

China would be really upset and angry if the US orchestrates the collapse of North Korea and has South Korea annex NK, or if US develops close military tie with Taiwan and supports Taiwan’s independence, or if US builds up a military base in Vietnam and supports Vietnam to grab South China Sea. So far, nothing Americas have done seems to suggest that kind of hostility. There is nothing for China to be upset about her largest customer at this moment.

As for Gary Locke, American ambassador to China, he should develop further relationship with Chinese officials and try to figure out China’s intentions, future plans and next moves. Instead he is playing US domestic politics in Beijing. Complaining about China’s human right practices belongs to State Department and Congress. What does Gary Locke want to accomplish by annoying his host? What does Obama think Gary Locke should accomplish in China? I would want Gary Locke to be my ear and eye in Beijing and would hate to find out Gary Locke to be the guy nobody wants to invite to a party or lunch in Beijing.

I'd ask another question - "Why is China reacting calmly toward a more aggressive United States?

Brilliant to ask this question. You may be almost the first one to raise this issue. Shame on all other foreign policy experts to miss this nuance. And of course likes of WSJ, WaPo and NYT; we never expect them to be so subtle and attuned to ground realities.

First response is Russia is the only country which is stepped in 'true' Super Power league going toe to toe with USA. America might have won the cold war, but deep down Russians know that it is their sacrifice which in the end made to defeat the menace of Fascism in the first place.

Secondly, sorry to say it, but it is the Caucasian comfort to talk with White American Foreign Policy Mandarins. For Russians, America is still a White Caucasian country. Don't mistake, I love Hillary, and I truly believe that she has served America's interest best. But it is what Russian mind thinks. No doubt, with Obama in White House, feathers must have been ruffled in Kremlin, but the collective mind set takes long time to change.

China for sure has the aplomb of being secure about future. Chinese have reasons for that and they are right in most sense. They are not some shrinking power like UK or Europe. They are the future of Humanity - at least in they eyes and minds of Communist Party of China. Hence, the coolness.

But then Russians know that with Oil still turning the world; they have the mojo even if there are less bodies to man their incredibly vast country. Arctic can possibly open another of golden era for Russia. Hence their belligerence.

To read Russian aggressiveness as just enlargement of the flame before dying it - that will be a mistake for anyone. So I believe Hillary and Obama got it right, no matter what, to continue to engage with Russia seriously.

I would think it's probably because Marx and Lenin condemned Capitalism , and after their deaths the Populace saw that Communism and Marxism is just a scam to stifle Initiative and competition . The life-blood of a thriving Nation. And people like Kruschev who banged his shoe upon the table in the UN and Putin who rattles his sword can't hide the Gulags nor the starvation in their own land, so they cloud the issue by screaming the flaws of another. It would do him and all Russians who hate us so much to remember the old Biblical admonition. " Before you holler about the Speck in your neighbor's eye, take care of the Plank in your own "

Under Putin, the anti-American rhetoric in Russia was fierce. It was tuned down slightly under Medvedev, the "reset," and Obama. Now that Putin is coming back to power, it is being ramped up again. I don't think it is in response to US policies or statements -- it's Putin's pro-active attitude.

I can't speak to the "domestic hiccups" in China, but in Russia the protests were the largest mass movement of protest against the government in 20 years. Judging by Putin's platform, he is presenting himself as the savior of Russia, the "firm hand" needed to save Russia from --This is the problem -- from what? The protesting Russians believe that the problem is internal -- the corrupt Putin regime. (The nationalists don't like Putin either -- they think the problem is the migrant workers Putin allowed into the country., the "Jewish" billionaires he supports, etc.) Putin and his team are coming up with "strashilki" (horror stories) -- what Putin must save Russia from. The have been plenty of foreign enemies since 2000: Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, NATO, the UK and the US. In the last few months the Russian govt has accused the US of organizing protests, threatening with missiles, destroying their Mars probe, paying off journalists, trying to set off an "color revolution." It is part of their election campaign and to some extent part of Putin's foreign policy. It has little to do with US actions.

China clocked in $7.4 trillion in GDP this year, more than 12% growth in dollar term. Its national budget exceeded $1.6 trillion. Its M2 money stock has already reached 130% of that of US, and still rising at about 14% annual clip, compared to about 2% at the most for the US. Militarily we may seem to have a numerically weaker competitor, the reality is that China would blow by the US in national overall wealth and power critically over the next 5 years, even though military planners may still count more US aircraft carriers or stealth fighters for the next decade or two.

In the meantime RMB trade settlement has been rising at a 500% per year steep curve over the last year, the the tune of more than 10% of China's overall trade. As the US pursues the hostile elements along the arc of instability, more and more states have been driven to establish bilateral currency swap agreements with China. The latest to fall in line was Japan. Even though the west have been able to deny the RMB from the IMF SDR, there is no stopping China's explosive proliferation of RMB throughout the chinese diaspora by trade, and more and more major states by compelling geo-economic dynamics. Like China's decade old accession to the WTO, RMB internationalization will have profound strategic implications in terms of driving China's hyper growth for another decade.

In other words, there isn't significant barriers to its development over the coming decade other than the structurally rising inflation and tapering growth. China's population restivity and political stability issue, as proferred by gordon Chang, seems grossly exagerated . China now is a fully employed state no matter how you look at it, even after more than a year of anti-inflation smack-down. Reform and let the people attain 'xiaokang' by end of the decade, or let the development regress or stagnate is how the chinese leaders see this issue.

Stand up to the US today, or wait for another half a decade until it has 'near parity' with the US? If there isn't anything from outside, US included, that could obviously alter this historic trajectory, why do anything to spoil it itself?

I like CNOL's analysis and while I agree, maybe we can draw a better conclusion.

China's economic development is matched only by its PR development. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility and I sense China is moving towards a more tempered, more deliberate response to world developments. I'm impressed with Xi Jinjping's statement, ""In dealing with major and sensitive issues...we must certainly abide by a spirit of mutual respect and handle them prudently, and by no means can we let relations again suffer major interference and ructions."

Some may call it posturing, but China is sounding more sincere; frankly they have a more vested interest in doing. It seems Russia is mistakenly using cold war rhetoric, which simply exposes them as the relic that they are.

I'm not sure I can support high level policy writing from an author who does not seem to know basic English grammar. Please Professor, learn the difference between "its" and "it's". It's actually distracting to a reader when it's used incorrectly.

If there is any country that could replace USA as the world leader, the closest today is China. Chinese know this and they understand Americans will be tough with a overtly bellicose China.

Russians, on the other side, deep down their heart know that they are some decades away from challenging Americans in a serious way. Russians know that Americans will not be oversensitive to Russians blustering.

More than both these countries, I think one man who has been threatening Americans day in and day out is Hamid Karzai. We all know about Karzai's joke of helping Pakistan in a war against USA. Everyone has some sort of idea how seriously Americans take them.

Russia's foreign policy is the voice of Putin and it reflects his beligerant personality.

Given how the ten years after hosting an Olympics are traditionally fatal to one-party states - e. g., Berlin, Moscow, Sarajevo - I believe we can expect changes in Beijing sometime at or near the turn of the decade. Assuming the new regime will be a multi-party democracy - and that it would be a relatively smooth change - would their worldview and expectations change to any degree? Would they continue to anticipate conflict with the United States or possibly India? Would they still see the western Pacific in terms of "first island chain" and "second island chain"? How much would a democracy in Beijing affect the fate of Korea? Would East and South East Asian nations feel a more relaxed attitude towards China?

The argument that Russia's attitude is related to secular decline doesn't jibe very well with the observation that this particular behavior is only a few months old. One simple explanation, or partial explanation, could be that this is an electoral strategy pursued by Putin to remind Russian voters that the world is a dangerous place and that they need a strong boss like him to keep them safe. Chechens served that purpose in the run-up to the elections of 2000 and 2004. Prior to the 2008 election, with the North Caucasus growing quieter, ballistic missile defense suddenly became an issue (although I don't believe the concern is entirely invented, it can still be usefully manipulated) and Putin was likening the Bush adminstration to the Third Reich. Now we have another presidential election and another sudden "crisis" in US-Russian relations that doesn't appear to have a lot of substance behind it.

I suspect both authoritarian regimes feel the levers of social control slipping out of their hands. Perhaps I'm being too "optimistic" but it's hard to quantify these things. Take Egypt, for example....

There is a tertiary strategic advantage gained by Moscow if it tilts more anti-American than China: more trust accrues from the North Koreans and Russia becomes a more viable counterweight to Chinese influence there. Kim Jong Il was moving in this direction in late 2011 (talking to Russia about pipelines and rail ties while ignoring all the Chinese infrastructure that has been built, and is being built, to integrate the DPRK to the world via China).

Recent notes in the North Korean press (mainly Rodong Sinmun, not the English KCNA) have been playing up Russia's long-term contradictions with the US, apprehension at US air bases in Central Asia, etc.

Here's an example (in Korean): http://www.rodong.rep.kp/InterKo/index.php?strPageID=SF01_02_01&newsID=2012-01-20-0043

North Korea would be very glad and could benefit handsomely (at least in their terms) by seeing more US-China strife, more US-Russia strife, and in particular more sub rosa competition between China and Russia for influence, short of sending troops over the Tumen, in the old Far East.

Great post.

Russia is an insecure joke whereas China is perceived as an unstoppable juggernaut of economic success.

I do not remember when Drezner or any other FP opinioneer stood by this country in our resistance to USSR and then Imperial Russia. Everything was and still is always America's fault instigated by MIC (famous Military-Industrial Complex) Jews, Neocons, and Wall Street sharks (Super shark speculator George Soros is exempt from such National-Socialist opprobrium, for he is bankrolling Obama and bankrupting America. He is a Useful Jew for now).

You, Drezner, together with proponents of Aryan Purity in US foreign policy (like Walt) have helped Obama to spread the Wealth (i.e. American Poverty as Orwell observed in1984), which has inevitably projected the sense of US weakness to the Russian Imperial Sharks, like Putin. They faced stronger America before (Reagan, both Bushes), but then they opened their eyes and suddenly recognized... well... Obama. A pompous, shallow demagogue filled with infatuation of his supreme destiny, racism, and deep dislike of democracy. A sort of Duce, perhaps, still not rising to the rank of Fuhrer.

Besides, I do not remember when Russian rulers liked anybody or anything on this planet before the period of Historical Materialism, during, or after. They do not like even FP, in spite of its distilled Marxist political correctness.

lack of introspection.

At what point has Putin said anything as belligerent as John "we're all Georgians now" McCain, who might have been our president?

Dear Mr. Drezner.
As you pointed out, there is a crisis in Russia. The World doesn't see it as a crisis yet, but being an European scholar that lived in Russia for quite some time (and still there), I can tell that the atmosphere is heatin up.

Unfortunately, Mr. Putin has created a monolith-system state in which, he IS the state. Mr. Putin and his system can be compared to Tolkien's (the Lord of the Rings) Dark Lord and his Tower, where one couldn't destroy the Tower without first destroying Sauron, because the foundations of the Tower were bound to his power (along with the One Ring).
Unlike countries with developed democracy, where different state bodies have the power to control, veto or dispute each other's actions, Russian system closely resembles an atom - state parliament, ministry of foreign affairs, state department, defence departments and other bodies all spin around The Core. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs could well be run by Churchills and Thatchers of our time, but it would still be subject to Putin's strict review. It's hard to knock out an electron because it is forcefully attracted to The Core.

This means that to undo Russian system - is to first undo Putin himself.
(And 'does we wants htat love? No, we don't wants it, but filthy little hobbitses try to steal our Precious. Curse them, Gollum')

Putin knows this, and so does the Anti-putin brigade.
He is scared now, especially after seeing footage of Gadhafi's last minutes. By the way, list of Putin's friends is getting thinner - some died, some got killed, and some are yet scheduled to pass.

In this situation, Putin, who cannot and will not change his ruling style, resorts to one trick old as the foundations of the Earth itself: single out "national threat" to compensate for poor politics or to temporarily cover larger schemes. History tells us that people employing this method were either lunatics or lunatics mad with power, Nero blamed Rome fires on Christians, Hitler blamed everything on Jews. And Putin? Well, he blames US.

Mr. Putin knows too well, that generations and generations of Soviet-born people, brought up under constant anti-american rhetoric, pretty much all still linger in the past. Hence the almost religion-like portrayal of WW2 and sanctification of war memories in everything one sees in Russia.
On the other hand, he knows that during the 90s, for many Russians, America had become a sort of desirable dream land or nexus. And he skilfully combines the two - love and hatred.
Every time tax payers' money is being spent on implementation of various technologies (which were abandoned by the West years ago) he plays 'love' card and points out how 'America does it too'. He uses it on different occasions.

But 'hatred' card is still an ace you cannot beat.
When people start to question his (governments) actions, he then accuses US of supporting and financing uprising and turmoils. To a common Russian, these words unfortunately trigger an inner 'motherland threat' sensor, so that one will gladly abandon any protests and continue one's miserable, censored, monitored, supervised low-income existence just as long as he is not 'helping US vile schemes'.

And that is why Russia is aggressive towards US - because Putin is scared.

Chinese position is on the other hand, more difficult to grasp. It is their diplomatic style and cunning. They will flow like water and bend in the wind until the time is right. And knowing Chinese history and psychology, the 'right time' may be in next 5 to 5000 years.
They would not risk an open conflict until they have calculated and thought of everything. They have softly tested and will test countries to see who is capable of what. It is one of the 26-character foreign policy principle, declared by Deng Xiaoping after Tiananmen square - "observe and assess your strength".
Moreover, the future of North Korea and its nuclear potential are at stake here. Rest assured that China is grand-scheming, which is why it needs US lulled.
China will show it's real power only if somebody missile-steps on it's Achilles heel - Taiwan, but that display will be to whole Asia-Pacific undoing.
But for now, they are balancing, measuring and assessing.

Sincerely,
Branko

China has a symbiotic relationships with the US. It can't just tell America to piss off and everything will be fine. China is very dependent on the US market. Russia, is more or less, self-sufficient in many respects, and unlike China, has been a Great Power for over 300 years.

The short answer is that China allows Russia to lead for now due to proximity.

You are asking the wrong question. Here is the real question:

Is Russia serious about launching a nuclear war against America?

Russia has been implying or threatening nuclear war since the Russia-Georgia war in 2008.

1. Moscow has issued an extraordinary warning to the West that military assistance to Georgia for use against South Ossetia or Abkhazia would be viewed as a “declaration of war” by Russia.

2. Russia’s foreign minister has warned of a repetition of its 2008 war with Georgia if the South Caucasus state joins NATO.

3. Here Russia threatens to use military force to stop Europe’s oil pipeline project with Turkmenistan. This would obviously go nuclear if Europe (NATO) fought back. Was Moscow bluffing?

4. Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces implies that anymore eastward expansion of NATO could lead to nuclear war.

5. The Russian ambassador to NATO threatening nuclear war if the west attacks Iran.

6. Nikolai Patrushev implies our fate might be nuclear war if Obama is not re-elected.

7.The Russian foreign minister adds the icing to the cake by now expanding Russian threats of nuclear war across the Middle East and North Africa.

How many times must Russia imply or threaten nuclear war before people believe it?

Notice how the threats have constantly expanded over the last several years.

A superpower has gone into decline. Russia and China aim to implement a new order world by containing the US. The US will be contained, or there will be World War III.

China appears to be focused on the South China Sea at the moment, but still issuing nuclear war threats.

1. On Dec. 4, according to a report in Press TV, a news network owned by the Iranian government, Chinese rear admiral and prominent military commentator Zhang Zhaozhong said, “China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third world war.”

2. In a translation of Hu’s comments, the official Xinhua news agency quoted the president as saying China’s navy should “make extended preparations for warfare.”

So China is threatening too, but less so than Russia as you point out.

Both Russia and China are issuing credible nuclear war threats, but the west insists that they don't mean it. How long can we live like this?

These threats are credible because both Russia and China put regime security above national security. They know that a revolution means they die or face life in prison. Better to put down the US, even if it means war, than face revolution. Notice how sensitive they are about western encouragement of revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa. They see this happening to them.

China knows that if it is overtly aggressive towards the US, it will go the way of the USSR. That's why China has been emphasizing it's "peaceful rise:" an attempt to draw attention away from itself from until it's too late.
As a Russian, I agree that the Russians are naturally more blunt and aggressive, but Russia also has a lot less to lose.

A substantial portion of the Russian economy is dependent upon oil. It is in Russia's interest to maintain a high price of oil. If Middle East supplies are cut off or disrupted this only helps Russia economically for the short term. The best case scenario has Western Europe, Japan, and China increasingly dependent on Russian energy and the leverage which would come with it. See Ukraine and natural gas for what Moscow could have in mind. What would be interesting to know is the Russian calculation on oil prices in the event of a full blown war between the West and Iran. They can't be too pleased about how Libya played out where they lost influence and the prospects of Libya returning to the market as a competitor.

Questions Russian strategists are probably looking to answer:

How could a possible regime change in Tehran play out over the longterm?

What would be the effect of pipeline routes through Turkey? Georgia? Azerbaijan?

What are the unintended consquences of unforeseen events? For example, Iraqi Kurds establishing Kurdistan?

Look for answers in how can oil prices be kept above $100 per barrel and one would likely be able to decipher Russian foreign policy moves.

China and the USA are economically interdepenant. China buys US debt crucial to American deficit spending, and American consumers provide a hugh market for Chinese exports the the engine of Chinese economic growth and foundation of social stability. The new Mutal Assured Destruction is the catastrophic damage to both nation's economies if relations get out of hand.

When did the Chinese release the American P-3 crew back in 2001? When rumblings of boycotts of Chinese products echoed off the walls in the Great Hall of the People.

It may be nothing more than that China benefits a lot more from pax Americana than does Russia.

China wants cheap and dependableaccess to resources and Russia wants to sell its oil and gas for as much as possible.

The important thing is to play the two against each other.

It might be a sense among Russians of decline. Or it might not.

If it is then I have to admit that to a Russian nationalist there would be reasons. The Soviet Union which was one of the two global powers is gone and in its place a much weaker Russia. The Eastern European states that used to be effectively just parts of the Soviet Union are independent and some of them seem to go out of their way to be anti-Russian. If that wasn't bad enough NATO has expanded to include several states that were once firmly part of the Soviet Union and a Russian might even see it as a de facto enlargement of the U.S. The Russian military has degraded considerably and modernization efforts seem to be stumbling. The Russian government doesn't seem able to provide services and security for its citizens.

However that isn't necessarily the only answer. It could come from serious worries at the height of the Russian government. There's no other way to see the protests by the Russian middle class than as an embarrassment for Putin and perhaps even betrayal. Under those circumstances and with probably more economic problems only held off by oil resources they might be trying to play a more nationalist approach than they would under other circumstances.

Or perhaps it's neither of those. For all we know it could be something that would be blatantly obvious to a Russian but completely incomprehensible to an American, a lot like assuming that just because American negotiators have agreed to a treaty it means that Congress will automatically ratify it.

Both nations have recent experience(historically) with regime collapse,social chaos, occupation and in the Russian case the threat of existential destruction. Similar to Israel and the jewish people the prime directive is never again. Their cultures and political styles differ in their approach to geopolitical competition and threats. Their adamatine resistance to perceived threats is the same. The stategy games of Go and Chess are reflections of this and we know where most of these games masters live. America has not had these same traumas in combination as recently but does live out of our bifurcated mindset of a unique young republic surrounded by predatory empires and an established continental power that wants to make a buck and not be bothered with geopolitics. Recall that President Roosevelt could not persuade americans of the threat posed by the axis forces and take us into that war until Pearl Harbour. Today america is everywhere in the world and is seen by other nations as the present day hegemon- this perception has both domestic and diplomatic uses for limiting without challenging the hegemon and waiting for the frictions of history to grind down our present position.How things are projected are a calculus of domestic needs tied to global economics wrapped in cultural style. Cautionary note: It may look like trash(talk) and be an I.E.D.

I would posit that the Russians know that there remains the underlying paranoia about the US that they can always activate to redirect any unwanted attention to their own policies, issues. Thus the US is an effective scapegoat for the population. Whereas in China, the US has not been the traditional enemy that the population has been actively taught to fear and despise. Rather, the US has been more of a respected competitor that they have been actively taking on with their own brand of "capitalism", thus the calls for conspiracy or paranoia wouldn't be as powerful in that society. Now, if we're talking Japan, well, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

China would be really upset and angry if the US orchestrates the collapse of North Korea and has South Korea annex NK, or if US develops close military tie with Taiwan and supports Taiwan’s independence, or if US builds up diyimprovementblog a military base in Vietnam and supports Vietnam to grab South China Sea. So far, nothing Americas have done seems to suggest that kind of hostility. There is nothing for China to be upset about her largest customer at this moment.