Firstly, I did agree with you that none of these countries want war with China. That's not how the world works anymore, unless it is a country which can be simply rolled over.
It will boil down to whether the US-led allies can find an effective solution to the puzzle - how to contain China without hurting their own economy too much. The globalized nature of the world economy today ensures that pain in one part is transferred to the others. And that is a limiting factor for everyone.
Sure, how can I keep my six pack and eat burgers and not exercise everyday. That's got about as much chance to happen as the thing you mentioned.
If I understand you correctly, your view is that since China will not force the issue on any dispute unilaterally, there will be no coalition against it. That is quite obvious. I also agreed with that point in my previous post. But there are two likely scenarios that you may consider - that China itself claims that its territorial disputes are non-negotiable, and that even if China itself does not make a move, the US may orchestrate one for it.
Look at North Korea for instance. While it is true that members in PDF do not necessarily represent the views of the Chinese government, yet there is chaos and confusion as far as the response to the current situation is concerned. Everything from war with US to cooperation in getting rid of Kim seems to be on the table. The point is, things can get out of hand pretty fast, and who can China rely on then?
Yes, obviously if any side plays all their cards right then a favourable outcome is possible. But in order for China to be able to surmount all challenges - trade wars, South China Sea, Taiwan, North Korea, border disputes with India, competition for influence in Africa and South Asia, at a place and time of its own choosing. I think that is an optimistic view, although not impossible.
Again look at the result, not the process. We are too far away from the action to have even a hint of clue as to what's going on. The fact of the matter is China has had serious South China Sea problems since 2007, Taiwan since 1950, North Korea since at least early 2000s, and competing for influence in Africa and South Asia since our formation.
Where is that coalition. The fact of the matter if there was going to be a coalition it would have happened long ago. People say Kim Jung En is crazy and stupid, name one crazy person that manage to take out major political figures in its country from a power base of essentially nothing. African leaders lose power as often as I get haircuts yet the Kim Dynasty lives on.
Things appear out of control, because we have no idea what's happening, like when you see a family yelling at each other, you think something's wrong, but maybe that's just how they communicate. I unfortunately know something about this last thing.
As for India and influence in South Asia is concerned, I have no doubts that India's geo-political activities should be extremely restricted. India is a poor country with hungry bellies to feed, children to be educated and sick to be taken care of. Any foreign engagement should be only for the purpose of securing favourable trade deals and investment, and no point over-extending oneself unnecessarily chasing illusory concepts of prestige.
In that regard, China is free to increase its influence in South Asia if it so wishes. India should not enter any race to counter Chinese influence at all. Up until the turn of this century, the British and Portuguese were present on the Chinese Mainland and even today, The US maintains a military presence right next door. If China can live with that, so can India.
Of course, that means India ends up having a special interest in developments in South China Sea, etc. Even though they have little to do with it directly. Because no matter how it is portrayed, simultaneously trying to counter Japan, US, Vietnam, Philippines, is a severe over-extension. And an over-extended China suits India fine.
China is only over extended if there is war, otherwise, China is just living life. Answer me this, how is China overextended, what did China do in South Asia, South China Sea, and where ever else that is limiting resources for other places. To South Asia and South China Sea, sending one ship or a fleet means the exact same, it represents China, that's all.
All China's goals sums up to just one thing, that is to surpass the US. In that sense, China has just one goal and thus not over extended.
In order for ASEAN countries to really open up to India, you have to be stronger than China, China has found that out in South America, a non existent US is still more influential than a present China. See Venezuela.
Again, you are right that it probably won't lead to war. Countries would rather do business. But just as China tries to balance its foreign trade and investment with long term strategic considerations, so do they.
About Germany, I have a different view. They were undoubtedly good, but eventually their weakness in numbers was bound to beat them. They went up against a country that could out-produce them (US), a country that had greater geographic presence (Britain), and a country that was willing to sacrifice many more lives (Soviet Union). Taken together, I don't see any scenario in which they could have prevailed.
Yes, each must act for themselves, so let's wait and see. No point in debating something that hasn't happened yet.
If he think China is containing itself then probably we should be sweating now.
