You missed the tactical problem I raised, which is that if the USA entered the battlefield it would be either as an ally of China or it would need to fight both China and the revolutionary movement

What's the tactical issue here, though? That NATO would have to act not according to the image it tries to project, i.e. that NATO would do as NATO always does?
I'm not buying that anybody would seriously base their policy of military and clandestine activities abroad on betting that NATO would care about theatrics when NATO states were formally and very publicly allied with the USSR during the late WW2.

In essence, China moving in militarily creates a forward deployment that is still a material threat to the USA. If China did so on the side of the revolutionariew against the establishment, they would fighting the establishment military, which the USA could augment

In Afghanistan, the PRC aided the Mujahideen revolutionaries against the establishment, which only helped NATO.

I'm sorry, but this reads like your conjecture, and not something that you can provide a source on (I welcome you to prove me wrong on this matter), and I don't see how anybody can defend this sort of foreign policy on the grounds of it somehow helping communist movements in the world.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So. Yes, it's conjecture. However, I am not defending this sort of foreign policy on the grounds of it helping communist movements in the world. It explicitly does not help. What it does is advance China's national strategic goals on the grand chessboard. It is little comfort that China either did nothing or supported a smaller nation's communist movement if that movement (a long with Chinese material) is destroyed by USA intervention and results in a permanent USA base aimed at China.

It's an explicitly anti-imperialist instead of pro-communist approach. If the analysis is such that the USA would intervene and establish bases if a communist revolution occured in a small nation around China, the biggest threat to China is not the end of that revolution but the subsequent military occupation of their neighbor by the USA. So, if China instead occupied their neighbor, it takes up the space on the board. Sure, the USA could choose to fight China directly in that theater, but they didn't. They only ever did so indirectly, likely because fighting them directly was untenable - either tactically or politically or both.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

It is little comfort that China either did nothing or supported a smaller nation's communist movement if that movement (a long with Chinese material) is destroyed by USA intervention and results in a permanent USA base aimed at China

It is even less comfort in case the PRC actively helps NATO crush a communist movement and establish a permanent NATO base aimed at itself.
If you calculate that the ally will surely be defeated, then it's better to not waste your resources on helping defeat them.

Furthermore, Vietnam was hardly in immediate danger of being crushed by NATO at the point when the PRC decided to act against it.

It's an explicitly anti-imperialist instead of pro-communist approach

If you actively help the worst empire in the world, the approach is not anti-imperialist.

If the analysis is such that the USA would intervene and establish bases if a communist revolution occured in a small nation around China, the biggest threat to China is not the end of that revolution but the subsequent military occupation of their neighbor by the USA

The revolution already occurred in both Afghanistan and Vietnam, and the PRC sided with giving the control of Afghanistan to NATO's Mujahideen, so both of these cases contradict your guess.

So, if China instead occupied their neighbor, it takes up the space on the board

Did the PRC move to occupy Afghanistan or any other such neighbour where they helped defeat a local communist movement? Did they occupy Cambodia, at least after the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge by Vietnam?

I'm sorry, but this foreign policy was bad, and I can't say that you are doing a good job providing a solid explanation for why it wouldn't be so. This is one of the few issues I have with the PRC.