这个世界绝大部分节日是给活人的，有一些节日是给半死不活的人的，只有非常稀有的节日，是给已经离开这个世界的人的。我们向神祈祷，供奉祖先，对鬼恐惧，避之不及。逝去的人在我们的脑中变成了不同的形态，我们很少与之对话，总是要么祈求要么远离。在这个死气沉沉的时代，在这个尸斑传染的线上空间，我们想创造一个节日让大家和真正的死人说说话。

这是一个赛博亡灵节，我们一起举办一场赛博法事，不仅超度亡魂，也超度一下死感很重的自身。和已经逝去的人说说话，朋友，家人，先贤哲人，某个遥远的历史人物，某个喜欢的创作者，甚至可能会突然离开人世间的自己，我们把想说的话用手机录制下来，集结成音频，用创作的火光把它烧给提早离开的人。

（本期播客封面：莫不谷用canva创作）

【Timeline】

05:48 发起这期播客的缘起：为什么我想要办一场“赛博亡灵节”？

15:29 如何理解“如何呢 又能怎”这句时代之音？一次线上尸斑检测

18:41 霸王花作为还活着的人身上的死感：在人生最年富力强的阶段却常常乏力，疲惫和倦怠

22:43 金钟罩的问题：为什么霸王花看这么多年心理医生都没有用？莫不谷找到的答案和办法

27:13 为什么我不承认自己有解离？为什么别人看起来荒谬离奇的事情，我自己却并不知道

31:24 为什么评论区总说“在线确诊为霸王花”？这个世界并不真的存在巨人国

36:23 莫不谷：做这期播客很核心的原因，姥姥在我游荡路上去世了，我想读一读我写给她的信

01:09:55 霸王花：9月我去了伦敦大S的纪念长椅，看望大S后我想和她说的话

01:14:10 莫不谷写给大S徐熙媛的信：《这个世界可爱的人不多，你是其中重要的一个》

01:21:00 发人深省的精彩网文：当女性帮助献祭男性时，她的运势就会被吸取

01:24:00 朱媛媛溘然离世：这个世界没有一个女性克夫，但每一个丈夫都克妻

01:30:00 莫不谷：我决意在此时此代，就充分探索我的才华，让我的生命活力带着才华往上奔涌

01:37:57 金钟罩：假如我突然离开了，想给自己和这个世界说的话

01:42:50 一个脱口秀演员的故事：只要你发现造物主给你送的礼物，人生好多问题就迎刃而解

01:49:46 霸王花：为了改善抑郁，焦虑和精神痛苦，我去英国寺庙咖啡馆打工换宿一个月

01:59:50 为什么我们要给自己选择一个健康可持续的环境？当中式“卷王”遇上欧式随意

02:03:20 莫不谷：为什么我对Ta人命运过度热情，因为我对自己的生命非常非常有热情

02:07:00 赛博烧纸和莫不谷基金：倘若万一我不小心离开了世界，我想留下来的话

02:16:28 离奇震撼的听友来信，霸王花不敢相信，但莫不谷非常相信的真实故事

02:20:08 如何提前安排自己的遗产？关于女性遗产捐赠基金的设想和发起

02:30:04 大声说出你的发起，你会收到世界的回声，生命活力就会由此增强

02:34:08 霸王花：假如我突然离开了，想要留给这个世界的两句话

02:36:00 金钟罩和霸王花给这个世界该死却没死的人说的话

02:40:47 莫不谷：我创建一个网站，目的就是促进那些该死的人早点去死 www.boomlaodeng.nl

02:49:34 欢迎投稿放学以后Newsletter新的专辑：赛博哭墙，让我们一起虚拟抱头痛哭一次

【放学以后游荡者保温杯预售意向统计】大家可以考虑自己的实际需求，需要的可以填写链接选择预购意向，小红书或飞书链接均可，无需重复填写，如需了解保温杯拆箱视频，可到小红书主页“游荡者的日常”查看，统计截至10月30日结束！

【播客&文章&影视&书籍】

播客：

放学以后播客《莫路狂花2：如何对自己充满爱意和敬意，免于混乱逃避低活力？》

放学以后播客《莫路狂花今夜不设防：人如何不糊弄和痛恨自己，并找到自己的渴望呢？》

放学以后播客《终身学习1：学会面对真问题，不逃避，下决心和谈分离》

放学以后播客《我们一起Gap一个冬天，再用这些火焰召唤一下2025年！》

岩中花述播客《要走多少路，才能成为一个女人，答案在风中飘荡》

文章：

解锁放学以后《创作者手册：从播客开始说起》：https://afdian.com/item/ffcd59481b9411ee882652540025c377

解锁莫不谷《做一个“蓄意”的游荡者》口袋书：https://afdian.com/item/62244492ae8611ee91185254001e7c00

莫不谷Newsletter文章《当铺天盖地的不确定性一起袭来时，人会惊见自己的弹性》《复仇是治愈伤害的特效药：boomlaodeng》《价值投资：在中国或欧洲投资美股美债的原因及方法》《从《财富自由主义》到比特币，自由的上限是我们持续学习的能力》《这个世界可爱的人不多，你是其中重要的一个》《赛博烧纸和莫不谷基金》（游荡者网站和爱发电也可查看）

莫不谷游荡者“每周一游”专栏文章《独居省钱终生自豪的邪修技能：给自己剪头发!》

霸王花Newsletter文章《活出美妙人生的可能：出门看看自己究竟喜欢什么？》《在秋天尝试新的可能：来英国寺庙咖啡馆打工换宿》《我的夏日奇遇：那些让你感觉碎掉的时刻，不是真的》（游荡者网站和爱发电也可查看）

霸王花游荡者文章《低成本游荡世界的方法：我如何找到包吃包住的打工换宿机会?》

韩国作家河马文章《参政是治愈空虚的特效药》

影视：《破地狱》；《精神病房也会迎来春天》；《延禧攻略》；《哈利波特》；《【一更到底】全文时长70分钟已完结 权谋/脑洞/大女主/爽文/古代》

书籍：《佩德罗·巴拉莫》；《三国演义》；《看不见的城市》

【为全球华人游荡者提供解决方案的平台】

游荡者（www.youdangzhe.com），注册后可免费阅读由莫不谷和霸王花撰写的三篇文章（Run的800种可能、语言攻略和全球签证攻略），目前游荡者已更新上线文章分区功能（游荡区、学习区、欢愉区和闲聊搭子区），还上线了付费咨询功能，欢迎大家注册后开启内容创作并在游荡者游荡愉快！找到同类！交易自由！手机端用户可把新网址添加桌面，便于日常使用。使用新网址期间如果有任何注册、支付、退款等需求，欢迎给我们客服邮箱wanderservice2024@outlook.com发送邮件。

我们还发起了游荡者平台线上游轮活动，我们作为“导游区”成员（莫不谷、霸王花木兰，粽子、金钟罩，有时还会邀请朋友客座）将每周轮值担任船长，在国内时间每周四更新一篇【每周一游】，分享内容包括但不限于各种花花万物和生命体验的推荐和避雷！在临近周末打工人即将解放的周四，和大家一起驶向一些海域打发时间，度过无聊，对抗虚无！欢迎各位游荡者每周四定期登船！

【为全球华人女性复仇发起的凤凰社】

www.boomlaodeng.nl 这是我发起的微小的凤凰社，构建的微小的广场，投掷的有可能有风险或者尴尬的石子。就是这样的一个东西，我也有勇气邀请你的加入：邀请你这个格兰芬多的成员，这个开启baby step的参政公民，这个下决心爱自己救自己的个体，邀请你的加入，写下你的曝光。

相关文章：《复仇是治愈伤害的特效药：boomlaodeng》

【延伸信息】

永不失联Newsletter订阅链接：https://afterschool2021.substack.com/（需科 学/上 网）

为全球华人游荡者提供解决方案的平台：游荡者（www.youdangzhe.com）

联系邮箱：afterschool2021@126.com （投稿来信及合作洽谈）

同名YouTube：https://www.youtube.com/@afterschool2021

同名微信公众号：放学以后after school

小红书：游荡者的日常

B站：游荡者的日常

欢迎并感谢大家在爱发电平台为我们的创作发电：https://afdian.com/a/afterschool

片头曲：《寄生兽》Bliss

片尾曲：《No Cares Era》Valentina Ploy

插曲：《About Love》Dmitry Krasnoukhov、《Faylinn》David Hicken

播客封面：莫不谷用Canva制作

放学以后表情包：微信表情包搜索“放学以后”，感谢萝卜特创作。

播客收听平台：

【国内】爱发电、网易云、苹果播客（请科学/上网）、喜马拉雅、汽水儿、荔枝、小宇宙、QQ音乐；

【海外】Spotify、Apple podcast、Google podcast、Snipd、Overcast、Castbox、Amazon Music、Pocket Casts、Stitcher、Radio Public、Wordpress

I spent two weeks around the Bay Area in September. What follows are my reflections.

Dreamers encouraged. Writes Didion, California is “out in the golden land, where every day the world is born anew. The future always looks good in the golden land, because no-one remembers the past. Here is the last stop for those who came from somewhere else, for all those who drifted away from the cold, and the past, and the old ways.”

On the East Coast, if you start a conversation about the new thing you’re building, the first five questions you’ll get will be about how it won’t work. After experiencing the Bay Area energy, my wife decided that she could found a company and has spent the past month furiously vibecoding.

I’ve been bugging a prominent SF-based podcaster to do more political coverage with little success. I get it now. The weather is too nice, nature too inviting. I heard some light H-1B chatter, but we’re in the AI boom times, there’s too much tech to be excited about to get too worried about something as normie as the state of the Republic. And thanks to Lurie, homelessness is now tamed enough to make the poors someone else’s problem again.

DOGE energy is defensive to a level I haven’t come across in people politically involved before. The mantra that “DOGE is net positive and anyone who doesn’t agree can go fuck themselves” seems pervasive for anyone who’s stuck it out. Honestly, it’s understandable cope for the young SWEs who signed up to improve government services but ended up getting blamed for (/actually) taking vaccines away from babies. It’s striking that many people in the tech right I met say that good things are happening but that early DOGE really set back the one thing they have the most context on.

I was last in SF in 2023 and on that trip spent an afternoon at OpenAI’s office. Even six months after ChatGPT dropped, it still felt like a plucky research lab, albeit one with money for Tartine pastries and a lobby cueing off the Amazon Mr. and Mrs. Smith reboot aesthetic.

It’s now Meta, complete with the novel addition of door guards with American flag eyeglass straps and general SOF energy who will under no circumstances let you tailgate into the building.

The best neighborhood is the Presidio, a federal land run by a trust that keeps the park nice, new buildings out, and serves as a great landlord for hedge funds. One guy who worked there said a main draw was that “it’s federal land so none of that homeless shit flies here, baby!” It’s gorgeous but should probably be YIMBY’d out of existence. If Trump ever truly splits from the Elon/Thiel nexus, it would be a great troll move to throw some Trump Towers on top of their family offices.

Banyas, Berkeley, and South Bay

I went to a Slate Star Codex meetup at Lighthaven. There was an EUV lithography textbook lying around, so I read that, spotted Aella crocheting, and chatted with Pradyu about the Singaporean economy. A twenty year old told me he was founding DoorDash for Swaziland (“It’s pretty developed so it makes for a great beachhead”). Sam Kriss said something ahistorical about political violence and it started to rain so I went home.

The next day, I did not have the energy to make it to the banya, so deputized voice-of-a-generation JASMINE SUN to report:

The sauna visit is planned in an 87-person Signal chat with strict attendance enforcement. It’s inspired by the Jewish “schvitz”—a Yiddish word that can also mean “to sweat” or “to be nervous” or “to persevere”—but here describes the ritual of men gathering in steam rooms to gab about politics and business. Our host isn’t actually Jewish, but rather a garrulous New Yorker who self-identifies as spiritually so. He often invites acquaintances to schvitz within 15 minutes of talking. I find him very persuasive.

At 8:30pm on a Monday, I take a $24 Uber to Archimedes Banya in the far southeast of the city, then pay $67 to enter for up to three hours. If your last experience in a sauna was at a Korean-style luxury jjimjilbang, with unending plates of tiled dragonfruit and crab-in-the-shell, featuring nap pods and pool tables and rooms of pink Himalayan salt, the rawness of the SF Archimedes Russian banya experience will come as something of a shock.

It’s crowded on a weekday night. It has a clothing-optional policy, heavy on the optional; you’re guaranteed to see skin of all ages and genders and kinds. The staff are gruff and only speak in a yell. The hot room is extraordinarily hot. If you happen to be wearing jewelry, you’ll soon feel it burn. A steady stream of sweat pours down from my chin to my collar. Next to us, a hairy man lies face-down getting whipped by a prickly bundle of branches and leaves. He’s paying extra for this service. I try not to look.

I’m here with a troupe of nine 20-somethings. Seven are men and half work at a16z. The host is eager to share various snippets of banya lore: Did you know the Warriors come sometimes? Ilya used to play chess here. Have you read the n+1 piece about our New York schvitz? Apparently the New York chapter is more bond talk and less AI; another person says he’s “raising funds” for a DC venue. The host reminds me that he’s turned down several reporters’ requests to attend, but I’m just a lowly Substacker, which grants me a slot.

We discuss the NVIDIA lobby, the state of media, and the Chinese century. “You’ll never hear me say a bad word about China,” one says, waist deep in the pool. “[David] Shorism is Maoism,” another adds without elaboration. We then implore a visiting East Coast friend to move to SF. “This is the only place where anything happens,” we say with the confidence of people who really believe it. He says he’ll do it if he gets a job with the Lurie administration. “But he hasn’t texted me back.”

A friend apologized for the “off-road experience” after I pulled onto his Berkeley side street. “It’s scheduled for a 2027 repave!”

With Airbnb practically illegal, I used Kindred to book a place in Northern Oakland for what came out to $50 a day. I had a great experience on the platform and highly recommend it. Referral link here.

Berkeley Bowl is overhyped. I see the novelty of fresh pistachios and fourteen apple varietals, but if the cost is rotting fruit and $18 black lives matter bread loaves, I’m fine buying at Whole Foods, where grocery spend helps to underwrite AI chip demand! Also, Union Square Cafe blows Chez Panisse out of the water.

Berkeley is integrated into a city, while Stanford is a country club that keeps the plastic on its furniture. It’s set back from its town, which is oriented not at college kids but 50-something VCs. A state school with 10k undergrads per grade compared to Stanford’s 1,700 gives the Berkeley campus so much more life. The kids seemed to be having more fun, not stressed about software jobs disappearing before they graduate. And Stanford campus having a Rodin’s Gates of Hell sculpture creaking every few minutes is terrible energy.

Palo Alto’s library had a book sale of primarily Asian language titles. My favorite sighting was a textbook for national-level competitive high school chemistry in Chinese. At the playground, I heard mostly Beijing accents having anxious-brag conversations about their kids’ education.

The South Bay’s suburbs, bland food, and perfect weather felt as alienated from the rest of the country as the perfect suburb dug underground in Hulu’s Paradise. Marin, though, offers an endgame lifestyle.

Mill Valley houses nested in hills gave off Oahu suburb energy, accented by backyard redwoods. The town, one friend quipped, “boasts the highest ratio of black lives matter flags to black lives in the nation!”

We drove out to an elk reserve at the tip of Inverness. It felt like Altus Plateau from Elden Ring.

On the road back, we stopped at Point Reyes and had perfect pastries in the lavender garden of a bakery. Next to it was a small park that doubled as a NIMBY temple celebrating all the farmers that the Marin Agricultural Land Trust had subsidized to stay operating. One property they were particularly proud of saving from houses has “breathtaking reservoir views, easy access to major highways, and residential zoning.” Thanks to MALT, cows instead of humans will get to enjoy that view!

This trip was partially a test to see if we wanted to move to the Bay. Even with two weeks of perfect weather, I’m not sold. Hiking and utopian energy does not outweigh a real metropolis, community, and family.

My first day back, I had a meal at Cafe Mono (with a very friendly ML researcher who dropped in from SF), checked in on the Met’s China collection, and saw a superlative production of The Brothers Size. Better luck next time, California.

Bay Area food and ‘hiking with stroller’ recs behind the paywall. One includes a croissant that my wife said “tasted as good as the one I had immediately after giving birth.”

Read more

周末了，说点有意思的，说说朋友圈。一个人到底能维持多大的朋友圈？一百两百，一千两千，还是上万？这在有互联网以前不是个问题。一个人交往的范围有限，面对面交朋友，连酒肉朋友都算上，也不至于多的数不过来。有了互联网以后。尤其是有了社交媒体以后，情况就不一样了。Facebook、微信，朋友圈可以成百上千，成千上万。这里还不是说粉丝，只是说朋友圈。

但是，一个人真能维持那么大的朋友圈吗？人的所有行为都受到大脑限制。即使一个人想有成千上万个朋友，他的大脑能容纳得了吗？

上周看报纸，《华尔街日报》有篇文章，专门讲这个问题。人的大脑进化到今天，能维持的真正朋友圈，仍然有个人数上限。即使在社交媒体时代，人们也无法突破这个上限。那么，这个上限到底是多少呢？是十几个、几十个，还是几百个？我们下面慢慢讲。

社交媒体不是个真实世界，而是个虚拟世界，a virtual world。它制造了很多假象。朋友圈就是它制造的一大假象——一个人，朋友圈有几百人、上千人、上万人，好象他就有几百、几千、几万个朋友。这是社交媒体制造的假象。

社交媒体朋友圈的朋友，大部分只是一个数码。现代心理学表明，即便一个人想交几千几万个朋友，他的大脑也没有那种能力。不仅如此，社交媒体上的朋友圈越大，反倒让人在现实生活中，越没有朋友，越觉得孤独。

这种现象在社交媒体流行之前。其实已经存在。只不过，那时候大部分人的交往圈子没有多大，感觉不到这种反差。有些社交圈子很大的人，像一些电影明星，在社交媒体流行之前，他们就有这种感觉：周围人来人往，好像有很多朋友，但其实却没有一个真正的朋友。有明星还因为这种事儿自杀。

好莱坞有位喜剧演员，Robin Williams。他演艺生涯相当成功，有无数粉丝，无数朋友。大约十年前，他突然自杀了，生前留下一句话：“我曾经以为人生最惨的是孤单。现在知道，那不是最惨的；人生最惨的是，身边人来人往，却让你觉得孤单。”身边人来人往，好象朋友无数，但其实又都不是朋友，夜深人静的时候，发现自己其实是孤单一人。

社交媒体兴起来之前。普通人没有机会过这种身边人来人往的生活。只有电影明星、政客身边人来人往。社交媒体兴起来之后，每个人都可以在虚拟世界建个朋友圈。普通人有了这种机会，好象朋友突然多起来了。但是，在社交媒体这种虚拟世界，连人来人往都说不上，顶多算有些互动。甚至，大部分连互动都没有，只是一个数码对另一个数码，连朋友圈的大头像，很多都是经过数码处理的。

数码不是朋友。朋友需要有温度、有感觉。而我们的大脑能容纳的，这种有温度、有感觉的朋友，数量有个上限。

《华尔街日报》这篇文章就是根据近年的研究，揭示了那个看不见的朋友圈上限。这也可以说，是普通人社交能力的上限。不管一个人的社交能力有多强，很难突破这个天花板。这就像是我们大脑进化出来的一个出厂设置。

Read more

On Sunday we dropped one of our best shows of the year featuring former top China analyst for the CIA talking through what’s really going on inside the PLA purges. Have a look at the transcript, listen in on your favorite podcast app or watch the video on YouTube.

Chinese tourism has returned to Kinmen and Matsu, but cross-strait tension is limiting its impact. Jordyn Haime flew from Taipei to Kinmen to investigate China’s aspirations for the ROC-governed island and to explore the role of tourism in geopolitics.

Finding the Chinese tourists in Taiwan-controlled Kinmen is easy: just follow the electric scooters. They accelerate no faster than 25 kilometers per hour, tutting leisurely along Kinmen’s cross-island roads. You can see them gathered in dense clusters outside Poya and Cosmed — favorite shopping destinations for cosmetics and skincare among Chinese tourists — or parked nearby popular spots for social media photoshoots (known on Chinese social media as “check-in points” or 打卡点). That’s where I met Mike, Jenny, and Juan-juan, three twenty-something Fujianese among a crowd of many lined up at the side of the road to snap a picture in front of an aesthetically pleasing bus stop.

They came here during China’s “golden week” — the 8-day national holiday in China encompassing National Day (国庆节) and Mid-Autumn Festival (中秋节) — to escape the masses of crowds traveling elsewhere in China.

“Since everyone is traveling throughout the mainland, hotels are more expensive. Coming here [to Kinmen], it’s still pretty close, but there’s still a feeling that you’ve left the region (出境),” Mike said. “Left the region, not the country — that part’s very important!”

What is there to do in Kinmen when, for the most part, Chinese tourists (referred to colloquially as 陆客) have little interest in visiting the leftover military infrastructure scattered throughout the island, now transformed into museums and memorials?

“Just take pictures, watch some movies, eat. You can have more of a relaxing trip here, a simple one,” Mike said. Later, they plan to see the new Conjuring movie, which never got a release in China. Other Chinese, too, took advantage of Kinmen’s proximity to catch cult films like Demon Slayer, released in Taiwan two months earlier than in China, and An Unfinished Film, which is banned.

Chinese tourists posing at a bus stop in Kinmen. Jordyn Haime for ChinaTalk.

It’s been about a year since Taiwan’s Kinmen and Matsu islands reopened to mainland Chinese tourists. Kinmen is located about 6 kilometers from the Chinese port city of Xiamen, a distance that takes just 30 minutes to cross by ferry. As such, mainland tourism has been one of Kinmen’s primary industries since 2008, when the cross-strait engagement mechanism known as the “mini three links” (小三通, meaning postal, transportation, and trade links), aimed at improving development in Taiwan’s offshore islands, was expanded. But all that was put on hold in 2020, when the mini three links were suspended due to COVID-19.

Tourism between Kinmen, Matsu (another group of outlying islands governed by Taiwan), and China’s Fujian Province gradually reopened in 2024. But travel remains extremely limited, and local tourism industries have yet to fully recover. Restrictions on the Chinese side stipulate that only residents of Fujian Province are allowed to travel to Kinmen and Matsu, and the number of flights and ferries made available remains limited, with ferry service about half as frequent compared to pre-pandemic frequency. In the year since reopening, only about 190,000 mainland tourists have entered Kinmen, compared to 800,000 in 2019. Chinese tourism also has yet to resume in the rest of Taiwan, with negotiations apparently stuck in a holding pattern. This has created a significant tourism deficit across the strait: Taiwanese people made more than 4 million total trips to China in 2024, according to the People’s Daily, while Taiwan’s tourism industry has failed to fill the gap left by Chinese tourists five years ago.

“Both sides won’t talk to each other, and it’s us working people who get left behind,” one Kinmenese shop owner said.

…

For China, the restoration of the “mini three links” has also meant resuming plans to integrate Kinmen into Xiamen via economic and political coercion, where people-to-people exchange and tourism play an important role. The new Xiamen-Zhangzhou-Quanzhou tourism corridor, established in 2024, aims to promote “comprehensive integrated development with Kinmen” as part of its “cross-strait integrated development” plan announced in 2023. The framework aims to more deeply integrate the two sides by improving communications, trade, and infrastructure development, and creating more opportunities for Taiwanese people in Fujian, including in employment, education, and cultural exchanges. The goal, in Beijing’s words, is to create a “Kinmen-Xiamen living circle” (金厦同城生活圈). In 2019, Xi Jinping proposed the “new four links” (新四通), connecting Kinmen, Matsu, and Fujian by linking their water, gas, and electricity systems, as well as new bridges to the mainland.

Left: “Cross-strait harmony, happy Kinmen” sign at the Kinmen Shuitou ferry port. Right: “The two sides of the strait are one family, working together toward a common dream,” seen at the Xiamen Wutong ferry port. Photos courtesy of Ari Fahimi.

Plans for the Xiamen-Kinmen bridge, to be connected via the new airport at Dadeng island, as seen at a war tourism park in Xiamen. Plans for connection with Kinmen, or Kinmen’s use of the airport, have not been finalized. Photo courtesy of Ari Fahimi.

One of those new links includes the proposed construction of a “peace bridge” that would physically connect Xiamen and Kinmen via Xiamen’s Dadeng Island, where a new international airport is being built in visible proximity to Kinmen’s northernmost points. The proposal remains stuck in the legislature in Taiwan. The DPP sees it as a threat to national security, but it has received considerable support among the KMT and in Kinmen. A 2021 survey found that Kinmenese are generally positive about the prospect of “integrated development in a broad sense,” with the hope that it could improve economic development and employment opportunities. Many I spoke with believe they’d be able to retain their democratic political system, even under deeper economic integration with China.

“If it will bring economic benefits to Kinmen, why wouldn’t I accept this? Politics doesn’t need to involve itself in the economy,” said Huang Yu-ru, who opened a Kaoliang shop at the Kinmen ferry port last year. She says she travels to Xiamen once or twice a month to pick up products she ordered from Douyin. “China is making rapid progress, and Taiwan has been stagnant for a long time. The economy should be the priority. If everyone is hungry, who will care about politics?”

Travelers arriving at Kinmen’s Shuitou ferry port. Jordyn Haime for ChinaTalk.

The identity of Kinmen and its residents is distinct from both sides of the Strait. Kinmen’s Hokkien dialect is closer to the one spoken in Quanzhou than it is to the ones spoken on Taiwan’s main island. Between the 17th and 20th centuries, huge numbers of Kinmenese emigrated to Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. Money, culture, and architectural tastes from across colonial Southeast Asia gave Kinmen’s identity a uniquely cosmopolitan side. It remained part of China while Taiwan proper was colonized by Japan (1895-1945) and was a holdout for Republic of China (ROC) forces after the CCP declared victory in the Civil War in 1949, experiencing intermittent shelling and bombing from China until the U.S. established relations with the PRC in 1979. As Taiwan democratized, Kinmen residents began visiting their families across the water in Fujian, a process made much easier by the opening of the “mini three links” in 2001. Once an economy that relied almost entirely on its soldiers, a demilitarizing Kinmen now increasingly leaned on Chinese tourism — and a sorghum-based clear liquor called Kaoliang 高粱 — for income.

A KMT stronghold, Kinmen’s residents say they get the best of both worlds: the economic benefits from China and the democratic political system from Taiwan. They want to keep it that way, and most of all, they don’t want a war, its memory far more recent than for most Taiwanese.

“Kinmen and Xiamen were originally connected by commerce and trade, and by our way of life. It was only because of the civil war and cross-strait political relations that they became separate,” said Li Chih-hung 李志鴻, who owns a local specialty shop in Jinhu and sits on the township’s representative council. “Look at us now. We go to Xiamen for shopping. We go to Xiamen for food. The atmosphere between the two sides of the strait is already quite okay. The economies are already integrated.”

Li Chih-hung at his shop in Jinhu. Jordyn Haime for ChinaTalk.

Today, Kinmen and Matsu both technically remain part of the administrative subdivision of Fuchien, Republic of China, a designation that no longer has functional power; after democratization, administrative power was transferred to the county governments of Kinmen and Lienchiang (Matsu).

“I am Fujianese, not Taiwanese,” Chen Yu-jen 陳玉珍, Kinmen’s representative to the Legislative Yuan, told me in her office in Taipei, shortly after she had returned from a 10-day visit to China.

She visits China more frequently than probably any other legislator, she told me, a fact that has sparked controversy in Taiwan proper. She’s supportive of deeper economic integration between Kinmen and Xiamen, and proposed the establishment of an “offshore free-trade demonstration zone” for Kinmen and Lienchiang in Taiwan’s legislature earlier this year.

“I try to study what they’re doing there,” she said. “China, in many aspects, is very advanced, more advanced than Taiwan.”

She says that China wants to use Kinmen “as a model to let Taiwanese know: if you are friends with us, we will help you integrate with Xiamen into a prosperous city. But the Chinese want to take all of the Republic of China. They will not take Kinmen only.”

…

The situation today remains far different from the pre-COVID era, with factors besides just politics complicating the idea of “integration.” The backslide in China’s economy has contributed to the decline in tourism numbers, local lawmakers and business owners said. Those who come are spending less money and less time here than before the pandemic. “They just come to take some pictures, buy bubble tea and fried chicken, and then go back home,” said Li. One retailer who sells tribute candy (貢唐), a Kinmenese specialty made from crushed peanuts, said she doesn’t service mainland tourists at all because she doesn’t have WeChat or Alipay, which requires a Chinese bank account. That’s been a big problem for the police in Kinmen, too, who are unable to collect ticket fees from Chinese tourists who only use those digital pay apps. (Taiwan bans the use of Chinese apps on government devices due to national security concerns.)

Wind Lion Plaza, a luxury shopping mall built for Chinese tourists in 2014, now sits nearly abandoned (apart from a coffee shop and a movie theater) in Kinmen. Jordyn Haime for ChinaTalk.

With the current state of China-Taiwan relations, it’s difficult to imagine things getting much friendlier anytime soon. The Chinese government refuses to cooperate with the DPP despite the Taiwan government’s expressed openness to Chinese tourists. It was the Chinese government that first suspended individual travel to Taiwan in 2019 and banned Chinese students from enrolling in Taiwanese universities in 2020. And it continues to escalate its military and gray zone coercion of Taiwan, putting the Lai administration on high alert for national security breaches. Actions by Lai’s government in the name of security — including deportations of pro-China influencers, new restrictions on Chinese immigrants, and a ban on Taiwanese group travel to China — have been controversial and have further aggravated the relationship.

Tung Sen-pao 董森堡, a local legislator representing Kinmen’s first voting district, says both sides are at fault. Flying to Kinmen and then taking the ferry to Xiamen through the mini three links has become cheaper than flying to any other Chinese city, he says, making Kinmen the most affordable entry point and leading to extreme congestion at airports, especially when flying from Kinmen back to Taiwan’s main island. “People often write to me saying that their parents need medical treatment [in Taiwan] and can’t book flights,” he said, adding that it’s a problem that could be solved through more communication.

“Both sides have an ‘ostrich mentality’ — pretending not to see the situation. There are normal channels for communication, and travel and exchanges can be normalized. Otherwise, I think it would severely harm the rights of the people of Kinmen.”

野火烧不尽，春风吹又生

亲爱的媎妹：

见字如面！

这次写信主要有两件事想告诉大家。

第一是前几天我们的微信公众号突然被永久封禁了，所有文章都不能再看，我们也没法再登陆这个账号。辛苦经营了几年的账号顷刻之间化为乌有，个中滋味自然难以言表。

万幸的是几个月之前被删文的时候我们就有预感要被永封，所以推广了一次newsletter，现在才能通过邮件和大家联络。

不过newsletter的影响力还远不如微信公号，我们现在的订阅数也只有之前公众号的十分之一左右。所以我们想请求大家和身边的朋友分享“两个陌生女人的来信”的newsletter，希望能有更多人读到我们分享的内容。

以下是三种订阅的方式：

1）点击下方问卷填写邮箱地址，我们会把它添加到订阅名单里，之后每期内容将会直接发送到您的邮箱：https://wj.qq.com/s2/11453769/911b/

2）在浏览器中打开链接，填写邮箱地址（应该需要vpn）

两个陌生女人的来信

一个、两个，陌生女人1号和2号的信箱。 一百年前，一个陌生女人在信里写下炽热爱意； 一百年后，Z世代的女权主义者又会在信里写些什么？ 我们的思考、我们的困惑，甚至我们的快乐也可以是一种反抗！

By 陌生女人1号和2号

3）下载手机软件substack，搜索“两个陌生女人的来信”，订阅和查看往期所有内容✉️

经过这次封号，我们已经厌倦了这种“平台定生死”的感觉，只希望今后newsletter能成为我们和姐妹们之间新的桥梁。

第二是新一期播客更新。

第四期播客《出走川西——一场安抚灵魂的自然奇旅》刚刚上线了！这期播客是我们前段时间去川西玩之后录的。虽然只有短短四天，但这趟旅程绝对是一次触及灵魂的治愈之旅，而那时的记忆也成了当下我们所有情绪的出口。

行至4500米海拔，伫立在雪山跟前，我们突然对自然和自我的关系生发出一种新的感悟。女人与自然，我们曾在工业社会的浓雾之中渐行渐远，却终会因共同的命运听见彼此的心跳——越走近、就越清晰。

出逃川西，我们能寻回失落已久的爱与连接吗，还是，这只是消费社会中一场彻头彻尾的自我感动？

本期播客已上传至小宇宙、Spotify、苹果播客、喜马拉雅以及荔枝fm。大家在各个平台搜索「陌生女人帮」就能找到我们啦。欢迎姐妹们订阅和收听，依然期待在评论区看到大家的留言！

就此搁笔，期待下一次和大家见面！

永不失联的，

陌生女人1号和2号

Jon Czin spent years as a top China analyst at the CIA, served as China Director on Biden’s National Security Council, and now works at the Brookings Institution. We discuss what Xi’s fourth-term means for China’s top leadership and military, Taiwan, and the US. We cover:

• How Xi’s mafioso-style “decapitation strategy” has kept the PLA in line and why he’s purged more generals than Mao.

• Cognitive decline and how end-of-life thinking might be shaping Xi’s succession plans and Taiwan strategy.

• Tariffs, rare earths, and China’s appetite for pain vs. America’s.

• Beijing’s parochialism and its limits in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

• What intelligence work on China actually looks like and whether or not Xi’s era is duller than previous generations.

Plus: who might succeed Xi, comparing the Politburo Standing Committee to a frat house, and why chips and TSMC matter much less in Xi’s Taiwan calculus than most think.

Listen now on your favorite podcast app or on YouTube.

Killing the Monkeys to Scare the Chickens (杀猴儆鸡)

Jordan Schneider: Let’s start with the PLA. You have this remarkable line in one of your pieces that Xi has now purged more members of the Central Military Commission than Mao ever did. What are we to make of this?

Jon Czin: Yeah, it’s a little bit of – to use George W. Bush’s term – fuzzy math. It depends on how you count, and we spent a lot of time looking at this. But he’s on pace right now to have numbers that are comparable. Half of the uniformed members of the PLA have been removed or are missing.

Every summer we get this germination of rumors about Xi’s health or the possibility of a coup, but it felt even more intense this summer, in part because there were so many purges in the PLA. Some people saw that as a potential sign of weakness. Some argued that Xi was somehow losing his grip on the military.

But as we make clear in the piece, I’m skeptical of that argument. From practically day one of Xi’s tenure in office, he has been laser-focused on ensuring that the PLA is under his thumb. The anti-corruption campaign has been an important tool – there are genuine reasons he wants to pursue anti-corruption, but there’s an important instrumental purpose. It’s the key lever of power, and it’s been very clear from the outset that he wants to subordinate them to himself.

The second aspect that I added in a separate piece is that it’s also a question of who’s been purged from the PLA so far. My very rough heuristic for understanding the people in Xi’s network is that it’s a two-tiered structure. If Xi is the center of his own political solar system, there are two echelons to it. There are the people who are inside the asteroid belt – most of the Politburo Standing Committee. On the military side, I’d include people like Zhang Youxia (张又侠), where it’s not just that they’ve crossed paths in their careers. There’s an affinity that goes all the way back to their fathers, who both served in the Fourth Field Army in China’s Civil War together. You see that in Joseph Torigian’s excellent biography of Xi Zhongxun.

For others who’ve been removed, like Li Shangfu (李尚福), the former Defense Minister, or He Weidong (何卫东)), there might be some personal nexus – maybe they crossed paths. There’s this school of thought that if you were in the 31st Group Army in what used to be the Nanjing Military Region and you crossed paths with Xi, that could accelerate your career. But from my perspective, these guys are disposable. Xi can make them and he can break them. His ability to do that only enhances his authority rather than diminishes it.

Jordan Schneider: Generals being disposable was not really a thing for most of Chinese history. Generals had a ton of staying power in Mao’s China. But fascinatingly, instead of doing the pussyfooting around with purges in the PLA that you saw post-Mao, as you very colorfully point out, he went after the monkeys instead of the chickens in his first few years. How does that reform push relate to his broader priorities? And why are we still seeing this 15 years later?

Jon Czin: There are several reasons. When Xi got back to Beijing– keep in mind, it was the first time he was back in Beijing since serving as mìshū (秘书) (secretary) for Minister of National Defense Geng Biao (耿飚) back in the early ’80s – he was frankly appalled by the extent of corruption inside the PLA. The Arab Spring only accentuated that anxiety that corruption was rife. The Xu Caihou (徐才厚) case was all about pay-for-promotion. You can’t build a competent organization if people are getting promoted because they’re greasing palms. That’s a very real concern for him.

Part of Xi’s heritage as a princeling is that he understands how important and central the PLA is to political power. It’s the opposite of the approach previous Chinese leaders took, especially in the post-Deng era, where the military, because of its insularity, was the last place they were able to shore up their political position. Xi said, “This is going to be the place that I start, because if I can figure this out – it’s high risk, but high reward – I will dominate the system because I will have subordinated the PLA to my will.”

Another reason that’s less instrumental and more about policy is that the PLA reforms we saw in that 2015-2016 period were really a centerpiece of Xi’s reform agenda. Especially in the post-Mao era, we tend to see economic reforms as the locus where senior leaders want to focus their political firepower. But for Xi, it was really those military reforms. The system was overdue for a correction. They had a very antiquated command structure and it only became more cumbersome over time. It’s about getting it under his thumb, but there’s also a real substantive policy reason why he wanted to do it. There’s also a compounding effect, because the fact he was able to shake up the high command and streamline it only further enhanced his authority and power over it.

Jordan Schneider: Once you’re the king, you can mess with these poor little nobles all you want, because at the end of the day, it’s your kingdom. Being able to establish that as early as he did seems more reflective of confidence than worry about an internal coup.

Jon Czin: Exactly. By going after Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong (郭伯雄), the guys who would have signed off on every general officer promotion – it’s very risky. To use the mafia analogy, it’s like going after made men and living to tell about it. It’s a decapitation move. You’re going to cut off the head of the network instead of the usual approach of nibbling around the edges and going after people’s pawns or protégés on this political chessboard. By doing that, you send a powerful signal to everybody else in the PLA to be on notice, because they all would have owed their promotions at some level to Xu Caihou, even if they didn’t have a direct nexus with him. Just by doing that and doing it with impunity, instantly people are terrified and Xi gets a lot of wasta inside the system.

Jordan Schneider: I want to come back to 2011-2013. Are you more scared of the Arab Spring – remembering that the PLA did not jump to attention in 1989? Or are you more scared of generals not liking the way you’re treating them and their subordinates and their bureaucracies, and being worried about an internal uprising or coup? It’s clear that Xi chose Route A instead of Route B. To what extent do you think that was a choice that was baked in or something from his personal background or just a sign of the times in that moment? Maybe it comes back to a broader question: to what extent was a centralizing leader in 2012 something that the Party was inevitably going to produce versus one who was going to continue to play by the Deng-era rules?

Jon Czin: Yeah, this is the theory – if Xi didn’t exist, he would have to be invented. I tend to think that Xi had an opportunity. There was a sense of malaise in the Party at the end of the Hu Jintao era. The leadership was adrift, and people, even inside the system, were calling this a lost decade and saying that Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao were basically living off borrowed time and the vigor and reform efforts of Zhu Rongji (朱镕基) and Jiang Zemin from the previous administration.

From my perspective, though, to pursue that line of thought is to deny Xi his unique agency. There was an opening. There was an appetite for greater central control. There was a sense of drift in the Party, but Xi took a crowbar to that opening. The people who backed him in the system didn’t necessarily think that they were going to be the ones who ended up getting hit in the head with the crowbar in some instances. That was always going to be his impulse.

Part of the impulse inside the system is that power in that system tends to be monistic anyway. There’s a tendency for it to centralize. Alice Miller, citing Aristotle, has a great line about this in a very old issue of China Leadership Monitor from 20 years ago, where she talks about how oligarchies are subject to both centripetal forces and centrifugal forces. The natural correction when you start to see this drift, like we saw in the Hu Jintao era, is for the centripetal forces to kick back in and try to say, “No, we need to get our act together. We need a leader who can pull us together.”

Xi was very adept in how he did this. This has always been my mental model of how he operates and the way he was able to centralize control. Because he’s a princeling and he has these networks throughout the system that he was born with, the way Xi approaches the political networks inside the CCP is like – if an electrician comes to my house and I took back the wall and started messing around with the wires, or if Hu Jintao started to do that, even though he’s an engineer, we’d probably get electrocuted. But Xi knows which wires he can touch and which ones he can cut safely and which ones are going to zap him.

Jordan Schneider: Were there ever any wires that could have zapped him at any point?

Jon Czin: Going after people like Zhou Yongkang (周永康), Xu Caihou, Guo Boxiong – that was dangerous. It looks obvious in retrospect, but at the time, if you’re Xi Jinping and you’re a brand new leader just getting up to speed, this is really dangerous. There could have been some meaningful backlash. Part of the art of what he did – maybe it made it a little bit easier by going after elders and people who had already retired from the system, and their links were somewhat attenuated at that point. It also made it more gratuitous. I remember some people saying at the time, “Well, why would he go after these people? They’re already retired. Why not just neutralize them and let them die a quiet death or live a quiet retirement?” But you’re going after the guys in the system with the guns. It’s as simple as that. That’s going to be challenging in that system.

Jordan Schneider: The other thing that he did so smartly was to do it right away. It’s like the idea of the President’s first hundred days. You can undermine or wait out a guy who’s got a year left, two years left, but eight or nine years? For everyone else in the system who’s seeing this battle – who are you going to side with? What’s the better bet? If you don’t have time on your side and you see this actor who’s moving with real agency, who’s young and vigorous, who just beat out other competitors. We already saw Bo get put aside. His ability to push rivals into jails is something that has been demonstrated once in a very spectacular way. For him not to allow anyone to start complaining or build up a rap sheet against him, for the first moves to be these anti-corruption moves – that probably really helped.

Jon Czin: That’s right. It was a blitzkrieg – speed was definitely one of his big advantages. By going after the retired guys, if you’re a mid-ranking officer or even a relatively senior officer, which horse are you going to back? The guy who just retired or the guy who’s going to be making all the decisions for the next 10 – now we’re going into 20 – years? That changes everybody else’s calculus throughout the system.

Red and Expert in the PLA

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk about the dynamics of red versus expert in the PLA, what Xi saw, and how he’s tried to shape it over the past 10 years.

Jon Czin: He’s definitely put more emphasis explicitly on the red part of this. What’s really interesting is that there’s this casual notion that the PLA over the last 20 years has been professionalizing. I talk about this in the piece, but that’s not quite right. There was maybe an incipient tendency in that direction during the Hu Jintao era, that because they were becoming more proficient, they were modernizing. But from the Party’s perspective, they don’t want a professional PLA in the sense that Samuel Huntington would have called it – apolitical and politically neutral.

You can see that on the pages of Jiefangjun Bao (解放军报 PLA Daily) on a regular basis where Xi excoriates this idea and reminds them: “You are the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party. That is mission number one, two, and three.” You could even see that earlier in his tenure. You would see signs of a backlash against the idea of having a state military. We wouldn’t see the debate or the advocates saying we need a state military, a national military rather than a Party one, but we would see the backlash – which suggests to me there was some debate percolating at that point that Xi very much wants to squash.

He wants them to be red. That is paramount to him. But he hasn’t gone light on the expertise necessarily. It’s not like the guys that he’s elevated to these positions lack the competence or the wherewithal, even if they’ve gotten helicopter promotions. One of the things that’s very much on Xi’s mind is the fact that the PLA hasn’t been to war since its war with Vietnam in the late ’70s and then maybe some skirmishes throughout the ’80s. It hasn’t seen blood, it hasn’t been shot at in anger. Given how small the pool is of people with that experience, there are people in the high command who were involved in that fighting, and Xi’s put a premium on that.

Jordan Schneider: Aren’t there two guys who were majors in 1979 and who’ve stuck around past age 67?

Jon Czin: Yeah, that’s right. Xi likes that. He wants somebody who’s been shot at, who has seen blood in the field. Now that I think about it, it comports with Joseph Torigian’s biography of Xi’s father and what it means for Xi’s own mindset. Xi likes people who suffered a little bit, who’ve been hardened, who’ve been tempered. He doesn’t want somebody who’s only known ease and glory and prosperity.

Jordan Schneider: Talk about the idea of a political versus apolitical military.

Jon Czin: There is a real difference, and it can feel a little abstract sometimes. In our own system, for instance, we have a long tradition of having an apolitical military – one that doesn’t insert itself into politics. In addition to that long-standing culture, you also have various layers of mechanisms to ensure civilian control of the military. You have civilians who populate the Office of the Secretary of Defense who have to sign off on things. We obviously have a civilian Secretary of Defense. China has none of that. That’s a really stark difference. They don’t have the same kind of checks and acculturation to ensure political neutrality and to ensure that the Party doesn’t get involved in politics.

But it’s also not part of their self-conception. Part of the PLA’s conception in its own mind is that they are the ones that conquered China for the Chinese Communist Party. Especially for the ground forces, that is their history and that is their legacy. One pithier way to bring this home for listeners: imagine this would almost be like if there were an armed wing of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, and they come to power and that’s who becomes the armed forces. They are loyal to them and their job is to keep them in power. That is the PLA’s original raison d’être. That is an important facet that is core to its being.

Jordan Schneider: The argument you’re making, which is interesting, is that in the early years when Xi showed up to Beijing, he didn’t necessarily see that red energy, but saw an organization which was entirely a self-contained institution that was professionalizing. It was more like 1870s Germany than this bleeding red mechanism.

Jon Czin: That’s right. They were more preoccupied with operational proficiency, building out their navy, maybe even acquiring overseas military access – the big flashy stuff – rather than with long sessions of indoctrination in Marxist ideological tenets. It’s important to keep in mind that in any system, even in a highly professional one, by design the military is a relatively insular institution. There’s a reason people in Washington call the Pentagon the puzzle palace. It’s very technologically advanced, it’s got its own culture, its own intricate layers of bureaucracy and personal networks. That’s true of any military.

But if you’re talking about the PLA, the only real meaningful bridge from the civilian side of the Party to the military is Xi Jinping himself. You might have some contact or exposure as a provincial official – maybe there are mobilization exercises and you might have some contact – but really that nexus with the PLA, because it’s so politically salient, is so closely guarded. That’s why there are no other civilians on the Central Military Commission. Even when Xi is hanging out with the Central Military Commission or the PLA, he’s in a uniform, he’s not in civilian garb.

Jordan Schneider: I love this line where you say that Xi hauled the entire high command to historic revolutionary sites where Mao institutionalized the Party’s control of the military. You wrote this before the Quantico shenanigans over the past few weeks…

Jon Czin: I originally said “schlep,” but the editors took it out and made me say “hauled.”

Jordan Schneider: This is why you don’t write for Foreign Affairs and you write for ChinaTalk instead.

Xi’s Taiwan Playbook

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk Taiwan. You make this argument that Xi’s had a lot of success in power consolidation, corruption fighting, and PLA modernization. The economy? TBD. But also, does he really care all that much? It seems like second or third priority for him. But with Taiwan, which is clearly something he cares about deeply, we haven’t seen much momentum towards a solution that he would be proud to have written in the history books next to his time as party chairman. Let’s reflect on the past decade-plus of Xi Taiwan policy and how it could potentially evolve into a fourth term and a post-2028 election.

Jon Czin: That’s a great point. In my mind, what really stands out is that if you rewind to a decade ago, Xi’s Taiwan policy, following from the Hu Jintao policy, was actually bearing some fruit. The big culminating event would have been 10 years ago when Xi Jinping shook hands with then-Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou in Singapore. That would have been the first time you had a meeting like that between the head of the CCP and the head of the ROC since the Marshall Mission in 1946 when Mao met with Chiang Kai-shek. For Xi, he loves that kind of historical precedent. But it also ended up being a high-water mark for his Taiwan policy. Of course, he’s had to deal with Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP ever since then, pretty much.

Going into the last election on Taiwan in early 2024, I was worried that Xi and those around him were going to realize, frankly, the intellectual bankruptcy that’s been at the core of their Taiwan policy. What you’ve had over a longer trajectory – initially going back to Hu Jintao – was a softer approach, a very Marxian approach. The line of thinking was that if we change the economic structure, the political superstructure will change. As China’s economic clout grows and economic ties with Taiwan become closer, Taiwan’s just eventually going to come into China’s orbit. It’s going to fall like an apple off a tree into their growing gravity.

After the election of Tsai, you see a clear pivot from Xi towards a more coercive approach. But that hasn’t really been working. What they’ve done in Hong Kong, as everyone knows, has only further alienated Taiwan. It seems like politically the island has actually only gotten further away from the mainland. Where does that leave Xi and his strategy?

During the election in 2024, there was probably a real alignment between China’s outside voice and inside voice in the sense that they were relieved that the KMT won in the LY (Legislative Yuan). They were saying publicly afterwards, “The fact that the KMT has won in the LY election shows that most people don’t support the DPP and its pro-independence policies, yada yada.” But that’s also how they soothed themselves that night, saying, “It’s okay, our policy is still viable, we don’t need to do a fundamental rethink yet at this point.” It keeps hope alive.

Frankly, the failure of the DPP’s recall campaign this summer probably gives Beijing a bit more consolation – maybe they don’t have to really think about this. But what if the DPP did have a full sweep in 2024? Where does that leave Xi? Does he start to get antsy? That’s part of what I worry about, and I argue this in the China Leadership Monitor piece: what happens when Xi gets to his fourth term and he’s staring down the barrel of 80? If the DPP is still in power, does he have to have a deeper rethink?

He’s shown a proclivity throughout his career that when he gets frustrated, he does something to try to shake up the dynamic. As we saw in Hong Kong, he’s not just content to let things stay on cruise control if he doesn’t think it’s going in the right direction. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to all of a sudden have an appetite for the million man swim after 2028. But you could see him giving a long and hard look at some of those more coercive options that people talk about in Washington.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. The idea of him all of a sudden, overnight turning into Putin seems a little far-fetched with the track record that we have of over a decade of him not just straight up invading countries.

Jon Czin: That’s right. In some ways, Putin is obviously an important partner for him, but he’s also a useful foil for him. Xi has a much greater appetite for risk than others in the Chinese system, e.g., a Hu Jintao or Jiang Zemin. But that’s, in the big scheme of things, that’s a low bar to clear. He doesn’t have that same penchant for outright violence and risk-taking that Putin has. He’s much cagier and much more methodical in how he goes about taking risks. It’s not that he doesn’t take them, but they’re much more calculated risks than gambling on the roulette table.

Jordan Schneider: Jon, often in conversations I have, people don’t start with domestic Taiwanese politics or Xi end-of-life thinking, but they start with this idea of the Silicon Shield. Where do you put the availability of access to Taiwanese chips or the broader economic fallout that an escalation could impose in the calculus?

Jon Czin: No pun intended, I would decouple the two. The chips and TSMC actually rank very low on Xi’s priorities when it comes to this. Even though he’s got this techno-industrial fetish, he has enough confidence that China will figure it out over time. If he made the decision to go for Taiwan, he’d scuttle it. He’d do what he needed to take the island, and it wouldn’t factor very high in his considerations.

That’s separate from the broader economic fallout. The kind of cataclysm that could produce is very much on his mind and really gives him real pause. The way I think about it is that if he were to go for some full-scale invasion, he’s basically gambling not just with his legacy, but with everything that the Party has achieved since the death of Mao – all the progress it’s made, all that it’s built up. It could really damage or undo the Party’s legitimacy. He feels like if he’s going to go in, he wants that level of surety because it’s really putting all the chips on the table. He’d rather not do that.

What he’d rather do in the meantime, with a coercive approach, is to demoralize Taiwan over time, keep up the drumbeat of pressure, and hope that it starts to cause the foundations of Taiwan’s polity to crumble over time. He doesn’t necessarily want to go for the blunt force trauma first. That’s the optional last resort, given the costs.

Jordan Schneider: The irony of all of this is that if China evolves in a different direction, this all of a sudden becomes a lot more appetizing. The carrots that have been placed in front of Taiwan since the death of Mao have not been that compelling. The early ’80s was the height of this discussion when we had the most liberal version of domestic China. For it to ever really happen in a happy way, that’s really the development we’re going to have to see. But coercion into this just does not seem like a viable strategy.

Jon Czin: It’s interesting because you make that point about in the early ’80s when this was really a real possibility. Again, Joseph’s biography has been on my mind all year after reading it this summer, because it’s so good. Who would have been the person in the central leadership secretariat with the most experience dealing with Taiwan and the KMT and doing united front work? It was Xi’s old man, Xi Zhongxun.

That gets to another important facet of this. If you poke around in the open source material, it’s not clear who has Xi Jinping’s ear on Taiwan policy. There’s not somebody like a Liu He (刘鹤) you can point to and say, “This guy’s very influential with him.” A lot of that is because, again, he’s a princeling and Xi Zhongxun’s son in particular. He thinks that he’s got his own best handle on this issue because he understands this idea almost genealogically. Who knows how much they ended up discussing it? But if you pair that with his own career trajectory as well...

Jordan Schneider: And Xiamen, right? He dealt with this stuff.

Jon Czin: He dealt with this stuff in Xiamen and Fujian and Zhejiang. He would have been vice governor during the Taiwan crisis in the ’90s. He would have had a front-row seat to this whole dynamic for the previous 30 years. My suspicion about this is that rightly or wrongly, he has a lot of self-assurance on this particular set of issues. That’s why we haven’t seen somebody as his obvious consigliere on this in particular.

Succession Without a Script

Jordan Schneider: Let’s talk cognitive decline. The actuarial tables give us a 3% chance a year of a dramatic stroke or him dying, and that steadily creeps up to 3.2%, 3.5%.

But there’s also: “the guy gets old” and even if he’s still around and can be on for five, six hours a day – we’re already seeing him dialing it back with this Li Qiang dynamic where Xi’s doing less international travel, meeting with less of the Prime Minister of Swaziland, etc. Setting aside a stroke or some very dramatic thing where he’s out of commission, what are the different pathways to think of Chinese politics over the next five or ten years if he’s just slowly losing his edge over time?

Jon Czin: There are the actuarial tables, but as I note in the CLM piece, there’s also just common sense observation. This is a guy who’s now in his 70s. He’s obviously overweight and a smoker – maybe former smoker. He’s been doing this impossible job of governing the world’s largest country for the last dozen or so years. He’s got to be tired. That just takes a toll on him. He’s living in this highly fractious political environment where he’s doing things like purging people on a regular basis. He senses threats even when there might not be any. That is just emotionally exhausting. If you’re living in that environment your whole life, and then you’re the king and you’ve got to deal with this on a daily basis to make sure you’re on your A game, in and of itself…

Jordan Schneider: Maybe it works the other way too. Is this just what gets him out of bed every day? Mao always wanted to be a poet at some level, right? And that’s what he got to do during his repose as emperor starting in the ’60s and ’70s. I mean, Xi lives for this. This is what gets him out of bed every day, I’m sure.

Jon Czin: You’re probably right. It’s like a shark – he’s got to stay in motion. Without the game, he would wither. That’s probably a real possibility for a guy like him. You’re right about Mao too. Mao became a poet, but to everybody’s detriment, because now we’re left with this Delphic model of leadership where people go to him and they’re like, “Okay, I talked to the boss, but what does he really want us to do?”

That becomes one of the dangers as Xi ages. People talk about the succession question, but this is going to be one of the real conundrums. Number one, does he name a successor? I don’t think he will until he gets into his fourth term. But then the perennial challenge is always, you’ve got to build your successor up enough that he can stand on his own two feet once you’re gone, but not so much that you feel like they become a threat to you. Even if he does start that process of building up an heir, does that mean he in some ways moves to the second line and you end up with this more fractious political environment, like we saw in the Mao era, where he’s just giving oblique or unclear guidance, and then people are running with that until they run afoul of the line? That becomes a much more precarious political dynamic.

What does Xi think about it? But then what do people around him start to think? They can observe the boss even at a distance. They can do the math and realize that this guy is just getting older. At some point he’s going to have to deal with this question, especially since by the end of his fourth term in office, he’d be 79 pushing 80. It’ll shape the political jockeying that happens around him as people try to ingratiate themselves. “Maybe I could be the heir apparent, or maybe my protégé could become the heir apparent, and I could be some kind of party grandee.”

Big picture, there are two ways for this movie to play out. It’s either going to look like Death of Stalin where the military is going to be involved, where it’s potentially punctuated by violence or a nominal heir apparent being displaced. Or it’s going to be like the movie Conclave – where there is a lot of subterfuge and backstabbing, but it all happens quietly and much more subtly offstage. All anybody sees at the end is the black smoke emanating from the chimney.

Jordan Schneider: Speaking of Xi leaning into the late Deng model or the Mao model, unless health really puts him on his back foot – being Deng and having to fire Zhao Ziyang and having to fire Hu Yaobang – that’s not something that must excite him. The fact that he has two historical examples of this going really badly, plus the fact that we have this whole cult of personality. He likes a lot of this job. He surely thinks he is absolutely indispensable to the future of the Party. There’s so much of him which is going to just try to push off dealing with this whole succession thing. Him moving to the second line strikes me as a very low probability event absent real health issues.

Jon Czin: Yeah, that’s a very fair point. He would be disinclined to do that unless he really feels himself slowing down. Deng and Mao each had to run through three successors before they ultimately landed on somebody who stuck, but not really, even in the case of Hua Guofeng. As a princeling. Xi’s got to be cognizant of that at some level. He undid the old model that Deng put in place where China had figured out some peaceful way to transfer power, even if it was rocky or imperfect. He’s blown up that old system. But he’s got to figure this out at some point. As I say in the paper, he’s created a Henry VIII problem for himself. Whereas Henry VIII spent his whole life obsessed with who was going to succeed him, Xi has done the opposite. He’s tried to procrastinate as much as possible about this question and at the same time, destroy the old way of doing it.

Jordan Schneider: As you point out, the potential successors who don’t have real PLA connections, like Hua and Zhao and Hu – they don’t stick around because some other Party person is going to have that connection. The fact that he is just not letting that develop at all is going to make it really hard for whoever else shows up to stick.

Jon Czin: Yeah, that’s exactly right. Xi had a leg up even though he had relatively thin military credentials. What did he have? He had three years as a mishu to Geng Biao in the late ’70s, early ’80s, he had Peng Liyuan, his wife, and maybe some peripheral exposure during his time in the provinces. In the post-Deng leadership, his princeling connections put him head and shoulders above Li Keqiang or anybody else from his generation. It’s the old line: “ in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” That’s Xi Jinping. He may not have been Deng when he started, but his colleagues weren’t Chen Yun and Yang Shangkun and other guys who were powerful in their own right.

One other aspect of this that’s really interesting in terms of how the succession plays out: there’s a big difference between Xi getting one or two chances to orchestrate his own succession and dub his own heir versus him just dropping dead tomorrow. They’re both going to be fraught and pretty rocky. But in terms of who gets top billing, how this all plays out – that will be very consequential going forward.

Jordan Schneider: Please elaborate.

Jon Czin: Okay, let’s go with the “he drops dead tomorrow” playbook. What happens then? It’s unclear. Some people don’t appreciate the fact that there is no line of succession in Chinese politics like we have in the United States. It’s not like you go from the president to the vice president to the speaker of the House. There’s nothing like that that’s codified. In fact, for most of Xi’s tenure, the vice president is a sinecure for an otherwise retired official. They’re not even on the Politburo Standing Committee. It really throws open the door to who gets the ring.

If I had to take a guess, the person who would seem potentially most well-positioned to do that would be Cai Qi (蔡奇). He holds so many of the key portfolios in the Party. He’s running the General Office from the Politburo Standing Committee, which, by the way, is the job that Stalin had under Lenin and became the General Secretary position eventually. Cai is also on the National Security Commission, giving him another leg up because of the link to the PLA. Unlike other members of the Politburo Standing Committee, it gives him an excuse to engage with those other power ministries – with the security services and the PLA. The downside for a guy like Cai Qi, if I think about this, is that could also make him the guy who has a target on his back right away.

If I can deduce this all the way from Washington, surely his colleagues in Zhongnanhai can figure this out too. I think of the Death of Stalin scenario. Does he become like Beria, the guy that everybody else decides to gang up on? He obviously doesn’t have the same kind of stigma that Beria had, but...

Jordan Schneider: He hasn’t killed everyone’s aunts and uncles.

Jon Czin: Yeah, exactly. He doesn’t have that kind of hideous reputation, and he’s not the source of resentment in the same way. But it’s possible everybody else gangs up on him and then they decide among themselves who should get the ring. My suspicion is that they will probably be able to figure this out, though. This has been a limiting factor even in a crisis like Tiananmen. As fraught as that was for the leadership, they still have a sense that this needs to be bounded. Because if this gets out of control and leaves the corridors of power, and you had people doing what Zhao Ziyang did and reaching out to constituencies and the public, then things could really unravel.

Especially for these guys that are like what Jiang Zemin was in 1989, where they don’t have a power base of their own necessarily – they are mindful of that as well. They need to preserve the system and figure this out. So there’ll be conflict, but it’ll probably be bounded in some ways, would be my guess.

Jordan Schneider: Like the hang together versus hang separately.

Jon Czin: Yeah, exactly. But it’s totally different if he has an opportunity to start to groom somebody.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s tease out that scenario.

Jon Czin: If he has the chance to groom somebody, maybe that person sticks, but it’s just then the main question is going to be a function of time.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s stay on this for a second. Where is he even getting data points about 50-somethings? Is he having dinner with these people? He’s getting reports on their mayoral performance? It’s a hard information problem because he doesn’t have personal relationships with the people who aren’t in his age cohort.

Jon Czin: Yeah, bingo. This is the downside of Xi having populated the whole Politburo Standing Committee with his old buddies. I’ve jokingly called this Xi’s frat house. Can you imagine walking into a meeting of the Politburo Standing Committee where you’re the boss and you look around the table and with the exception of Huang Kunming (黄坤明), you’ve known all these guys for 30, 40 years?

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. Weird.

Jon Czin: Yeah. That’s got to be very comfortable for him.

Jordan Schneider: It’s interesting because usually presidents have one of those guys or two of those guys. But then everyone else is from the professional class. We’re going to have Bobby Kennedy, but then we’re going to have 10 other pros.

Jon Czin: It’s got to be very comfortable for him in some ways. If he does abide by the informal term limits – the “seven up, eight down” rule, which he actually has for the most part (he’s made some exceptions, like with Zhang Youxia and others, and he could make more exceptions, but in ones and twos) – that means that a lot of those guys on the Politburo Standing Committee who he has those deep relationships with are going to have to go at the next Party Congress. Then what is he going to have to rely on? It’s going to be his protégés’ protégés, or what I like to call his friends’ friends. Not necessarily the people who are truly in his own inner circle.

It’s a great question – how does he get information about them? The people who are in Xi’s orbit, even the ones who are inside the asteroid belt, my suspicion is that they don’t all necessarily like each other. If you look at their backgrounds and where Xi connected with them, he collected these guys at different points in his career. They don’t all necessarily like each other. This is why it’s so important that people around him will start thinking about the succession process even if Xi doesn’t. All those people who are in that inner circle, would start thinking about how to position their own protégés to ingratiate themselves with Xi so that somebody from their network is the person who ultimately gets the nod rather than somebody else. That creates a much more frothy and fraught political environment in Beijing, even more so than what we’ve seen already in this third term.

Jordan Schneider: You’d almost rather have six people in their 50s show up as opposed to just one person in their 50s show up. Because then there’s just this whole weird dynamic, succession drama. “Okay, I got to purge this guy.” If we’re thinking on a 10-year horizon and we’re going to do this two more times. Then yeah, let’s have these people hang around for a little while and...

Jon Czin: You’re planning to live to 150 so you’re squarely middle-aged at 75.

Jordan Schneider: The thing is, does only he get to live to 150 or does the frat house also get the quantum livers and what have you?

Jon Czin: It probably depends. If you stay in his good graces, you still get the magic serum.

There’s another conundrum. Maybe he would want to pick somebody who’s from that inner orbit to be an heir apparent, somebody that he could trust, somebody that could carry on his legacy. But the problem is, you can’t trust anyone.

Trust falls are not part of the CCP indoctrination system, I don’t think. Also, to the extent that these are people you trust and would think about handing the mantle to, they’re also old. What’s the benefit of handing the mantle over to somebody who’s just five years younger than you and could also have similar health problems and people could also be eyeing him as well? You’re going to want somebody that’s a lot younger, and for Xi, they’re going to look like whippersnappers to him.

Jordan Schneider: For those people in their 50s, there’s this very interesting dance where they have to look good but not too good because you can’t overshadow the guy or you can’t have too many new ideas. Just the fact that we have this ideological Xi Jinping Thought cage around all these folks means that their ability both to distinguish themselves as the most capable of their age cohort is limited. But then, you have to make sure this guy doesn’t think you’re too handsome and vigorous and popular. There’s some golden mean there.

Jon Czin: Yeah. It’s the old line, “the nail that sticks up ends up getting hammered down.” That’s the name of the game for their system. It’s exactly the needle that Xi threaded. People forget this because it feels almost like ancient history at this point, but Xi went into Shanghai as Party Secretary after becoming the heir apparent at a time where they had just gone through a major corruption scandal. Under Hu Jintao, the then-Party Secretary Chen Liangyu (陈良宇) had thumbed his nose at the leadership. Hu Jintao, for the first time or the only time I can think of in his tenure, mustered himself to go after this guy and topple him from the Politburo.

Xi trod very lightly in Shanghai. It was Scylla and Charybdis for him. He had to do enough to show that he was serious about anti-corruption, but not so much that he started to piss off the wrong people and jeopardize his own chances. It was a hot potato to take that job and pull that off. It’s such a striking contrast with what we were talking about earlier about once he came into power and how hard he went after everyone once he had the ring.

The other point I wanted to make too, Jordan, is going back to the summer with the coup rumors, but the tacit assumption of that is that it’s going to be Xi Jinping versus some other constituency in the Party. From my perspective, that moment passed a long time ago. If there was going to be a backlash against him, it would have had to materialize much earlier – when he was going after the monkeys instead of the chickens during that first term and he was taking down a lot of these made men. Once he did that, it became much harder for other people in the system to conspire against him and marshal their forces. It’s almost like a bad game theory problem. If I reach out to you to depose the boss, you have every incentive to sell me out to the boss and ingratiate yourself and further climb up.

This is part of what I’m trying to argue in the piece. The real dynamic now is not about Xi versus some other constituency. I hesitate to reach for the Mao era analogy, but it’s almost like the Mao era in the sense that they’re all Xi Jinping acolytes, but the fractiousness is going to be among each other as they try to muscle out their rivals for positions and promotions and for the sake of their own network. That is going to be the really crucial dynamic in the next 5 to 7 years. Not Xi versus some antipode in the system because he’s eviscerated all those possibilities. It’s going to be among his own people.

The American Dimension

Jordan Schneider: I’m proud of us for doing an actual, quote-unquote, traditional ChinaTalk episode. We haven’t really mentioned America in our first whole hour, but I do want to talk about what agency, if any, America and Western allies have on these internal succession dynamics.

Jon Czin: For the most part, very, very little. Never mind having an impact on them. It’s very hard for a lot of people even to see into and to get a sense of what’s going on inside the system. We are not a big factor. To the extent that we are, it’s not necessarily in the foreground, but we’re seen almost in these very Leninist terms as a structural force of history – as the avatar of late finance capitalism. We’re declining, we’re dangerous, and we’re very powerful, and you’re going to need a leader who’s got the stomach and the wherewithal to deal effectively with the United States and who is strong enough to shepherd China for the next phase of what Xi likes to call the “new era.” But outside of that, on a more tactical basis, day to day, it doesn’t play a large role for these internecine politics.

In the past, as an American policymaker, there’s this notion that you want to try to cultivate some kind of relationship with key people inside the political system. But what’s counterintuitive is that having that nexus actually makes it much harder for that person to ascend the ranks. It’s baggage. That makes them vulnerable to criticism that they’re too sympathetic or too cozy with the United States.

Jordan Schneider: And you only got promoted because of your CIA bribe. There’s a kiss of death. It’s the mirror-image of America funding the NGOs in Russia.

Jon Czin: Yeah, exactly. It’s like, “Hey, you were really smiling in that photo op in the Great Hall of the People. That was like two degrees too much smiling.”

Jordan Schneider: Speaking of standing up to American imperialism, Liberation Day was followed by retaliatory tariffs and a rare earths ban. This is potentially the most dramatic Chinese coercive move against the US that we’ve seen since their support for Ho Chi Minh. It’s a very dramatic disjuncture from what you saw in Trump 1 or in Biden, where Trump’s trade war seemed to be just, “All right, we’re going to keep this with the trade war things and some stuff will get more expensive, whatever.” But if I was Xi, I think I’d be taking the lesson of the impact that the rare earths controls had on getting the Trump administration to really rethink their Chinese economic and broader policy to heart. What’s your read on them deciding to push back at the beginning of Trump 2?

Jon Czin: The way you contextualize it is right. In the first Trump administration, during the first trade war, it was almost palpable that Xi and his lieutenants were groping around for some adequate countermeasure to the initial tranche of tariffs. My operating model for how they were behaving at the time was they wanted countermeasures, and the paradigm was “no escalation, no concessions.” They wanted to do enough to show that they were pushing back, but at the same time, try to make as few meaningful concessions as possible.

From my view on the inside during the Biden administration, I was really struck by how little pushback we got for a lot of our competitive actions. I was involved in planning for President Biden’s first in-person meeting with Xi Jinping in November 2022. Just a month before that was when we dropped the first big export controls. The reaction was very muted – they kvetched, but not that much. They didn’t really do anything for a long time. Even with the subsequent efforts to tighten those export controls and plug some of the gaps, you didn’t really see much movement from the Chinese side or much in the way of a response, which was really striking. Maybe not until summer of 2023, but even then they were relatively restrained.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s stay on that diagnosis here. Do you think they were surprised? They didn’t listen to ChinaTalk, didn’t realize how big a deal it was? Did they just think they could build the chips on their own? What’s your analysis of what the Biden administration did right in boiling the frog?

Jon Czin: It was clearly the lack of access to ChinaTalk first and foremost. But the other factors – one is that we were very focused on our competitive actions, but we did have this parallel track of diplomacy. We were managing the competition, to use the phrase that was getting thrown around at the time. Those diplomatic engagements helped offset the pressure that would accrue from pursuing these competitive actions against China.

They were also surprised, especially with the initial tranche that came out. It took them a while to figure out how exactly they wanted to respond. But having that regular cadence of high-level diplomatic engagements made it hard for them to say, “Well, now is the time for us to retaliate.” It constrains them in some ways because when you have those meetings, they’re by definition positive meetings. They backstop whatever it is that you’re pursuing or put a limit on how harsh the response might be. When you got to Trade War 2.0 and Liberation Day, we didn’t have that. We didn’t have that diplomacy to backstop it.

Jordan Schneider: I want to stay on 2022 for a second. What was your experience with the Pelosi visit, Taiwan missiles – how was that experience for you, Jon? Everything you wanted and more from government service?

Jon Czin: Yeah, I got three years of government service in a single year. That was a remarkable year in so many ways. If you rewind, you go back to February 2022 – Russia invades Ukraine. Shortly after we had the engagement between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Yang Jiechi in Rome. That was a very intense period and I disappeared into a giant vortex for a period of time. I went back to work in the new year and I basically disappeared. When I came out on the other side of that, after Jake had met with Yang Jiechi and President Biden did his phone call at the end of that week with Xi Jinping, it was springtime and flowers were blooming in my backyard, and I hadn’t seen any of that happening in the preceding several months.

The other moment that year that was really crucial, that was really punctuated by a high point of tensions, was the Pelosi visit to Taiwan. That was incredibly intense. I basically disappeared that summer and did not see my family – sent them on vacation on their own and just moved into the office.

Jordan Schneider: What were the dynamics that summer in particular that you were trying to manage?

Jon Czin: It was definitely an anxious period. The key thing was how do you bound this problem set and keep things from getting out of control, especially given the way that Beijing responded. From my perspective, this was a manufactured crisis on Beijing’s part. They chose to react this way. The Trump administration had sent the HHS Secretary but they chose not to lob missiles over Taiwan. We cited the precedent at the time that Newt Gingrich had gone to Taiwan back in the 1990s. There was precedent for this. It’s a separate branch of government. Pelosi was going to go.

Jordan Schneider: But she’s part of the Democratic Party, Jon. Of course, you have agency to tell her what to do.

Jon Czin: And of course, both of our political parties have central discipline inspection commissions that enforce the party’s code? No. That’s the big difference. That’s what you wonder about – where is the breakdown in their system? Because you do have people in the system like the embassy, of course, but even people like Yang Jiechi (杨洁篪), who had been an interpreter on the Chinese side and who was the top foreign policy official during that time. There are pictures of him interpreting for Deng in his meetings with Reagan going back to the ’80s. He clearly has a very finely grained sense of our system and how it operates. But I don’t know if that expertise necessarily percolates all the way up in the system. I don’t know if it was people just not getting it and mirror-imaging and saying, “Yeah, but they’re part of the same party and therefore there’s command and control and this is intentional,” or if it was convenient – this is a way to put pressure on the US and hold them accountable for the choices of Congress. That was a key facet of all of this.

Then, how do you signal that this is not okay? That our objective is to preserve peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and deter additional Chinese countermeasures that could be even more escalatory. What’s striking is that it was a choice on their part. But if you consider a larger historical arc, after all of the military modernization, as dramatic as it’s been, the response, you could argue, was qualitatively similar to what happened in the 1990s, where they got angry and lobbed missiles over Taiwan.

There were things that they did differently in this go-around. Obviously, they had the capacity to operate on the eastern side of Taiwan and have more of a chokehold than they did in that previous crisis. But it was a similar response, after all is said and done. It’s not clear to me from their perspective what they actually accomplished. I suppose you could argue that it created a new normal in the Taiwan Strait and we’ve seen an uptick in military activity that’s been sustained in the Strait since then.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. But do you trade that for convincing Biden to put export controls on chips? It’s a tricky calculus.

Jon Czin: It was clear that the technology piece was going to be part of the administration’s policy throughout. The big question was when and how big the scope should be. Even the creation of a separate directorate on the NSC for technology and security policy signaled its importance.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s pick up on the other piece of this. American officials over and over telling China not to give Russia weapons. By the end of the Biden administration, Blinken was saying, “You guys are doing this. We see you.” Then over the past few months, you had even more explicit reporting. Wang Yi (王毅) went to Europe a month or two ago and basically said, “Look, without us, they’d have lost this war already.” Reflections on American agency over that dynamic over the past five years.

Jon Czin: You’ve seen Wang Yi’s talking point from a couple of other Chinese diplomats as well: “No, no, no, we’re not supporting Russia because if we were, they’d be winning this war.”

Jordan Schneider: He said it both ways. He said they would have lost already and they would have won already.

Jon Czin: It’s another great example of saying the quiet part out loud. It was especially surprising coming from Wang Yi, who’s usually otherwise very deft in these engagements, saying, “Yeah, they have to win because if the US is no longer focused on this, then they’re just going to turn towards us, toward China.” Truly saying the quiet part out loud.

But I would say this – we are an important factor in this entente between Russia and China. But what people don’t appreciate is how important this was to Xi, even going back to the start of his tenure. The data point I always point to is that Xi’s first state visit after becoming General Secretary and President was to Moscow to meet with Putin. That was a very clear signal early on that he wanted to put a premium on this relationship. Of course there’s the stat that in the years since then, they’ve met 40-plus times, they’ve called each other best friends. There’s a little bit of a bromance there that may or may not be real, but that’s certainly the image that they want to project.

What the war in Ukraine really did was intensify that dynamic that was already underway. There was already an entente between the two sides. It accelerated and intensified that dynamic. They have gone further and have deepened that relationship. The US is a factor in this. They very much see things through that Kissingerian triangular dynamic, and they want to hug each other close because they see themselves in this longer, tougher competition with the United States. That’s an important factor.

The tactics we use to entice one side away from the other don’t really matter that much because it’s so baked into their worldview. The strategic choice has been made. At this point in the war, from Xi’s perspective, even if there’s grumbling among experts or people in the system about it, he feels like he made the right bet. This was a smart play – back the Russians and keep them in the game and keep them involved in this fight to make sure that Putin doesn’t lose this war.

I don’t think it’s really possible to drive a wedge between the two of them, given how they see a deep alignment of their strategic interests. The best you can do is limit it to the extent possible. Even that is very challenging and quite difficult because you are dealing with two very formidable powers in their own right.

Jordan Schneider: For the record, this was July of 2025. The reporting said that Wang Yi told the European Union’s top diplomat that Beijing didn’t want to see a Russian loss because it feared the US would shift its whole focus to Beijing. Then he said the negative version: Wang rejected the accusation that China was supporting Russia’s war effort, insisting that if it was doing so, the conflict would have ended long ago. I don’t know if he’s right about that.

It’s not necessarily just a materiel thing. There’s also some stochastic element. If Russia’s doing better, then the amount of aid that the West would have given Ukraine would have increased. He’s arrogant here. We’ve seen surges of new Western wonder weapons not do what they’re supposed to do. It also doesn’t seem to be Russia’s problem that they have enough materiel to do their stuff. That’s not really the limiting factor here. What’s your take on that as an analytical assertion?

Jon Czin: It’s wonderful because it’s so impolitic because it puts down the Russians at the same time that it allows China to deny that they’re playing a role. Look, their support has been consequential. There have been other US officials who have said this on the record. It’s real and it’s not trivial. But if you’re playing with the counterfactual – okay, if China supported Russia, but what kind of support would that be?

People forget about this too – because we’ve become accustomed to thinking about China as a global power, yes, China cares about its entente with Russia. Does China care what happens in Ukraine? Not especially. Which is in and of itself a limiting factor. They don’t want to see Putin lose. They have some negative end states they want to avoid. They want to maintain Russia as a strategic partner. But what actually happens in terms of the specifics on the ground? There’s a certain parochialism to how they conduct their foreign policy. It’s like, “How is this going to affect me? Is this going to affect me? You guys figure it out and we will posture as the proponents of peace in the meantime.”

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. The Elbridge Colby-Xi Jinping parallel – there are some nice little lines to draw there. But no, it’s an interesting counterfactual. Are they going to do the North Korean thing of literally sending troops? In no universe would that happen. Then we get to the stocks of old stuff. Would you send old artillery shells? Is that going to win the war for the Russians? I don’t think so. For the more exquisite stuff, China has limited capacity for all their fancy missiles, just like the West does. How much? Even if they wanted to lean in, were they really going to hand over all of their long-range strike capabilities? Are we going to give fighter jets? Are we going to put our economy on a war footing to manufacture 10 or 100x more drones for the Russians to use? Also no. The reasonable ceiling of what even a different leader besides Xi wanted to lean in more was probably just giving them old stuff, which I don’t think would have been decisive over the past three years.

Jon Czin: Yeah, maybe. There are probably a few different ways it could play out. But this idea of putting all the chips on the board was probably not in the cards because it wouldn’t necessarily serve their interest to get directly involved. I had this really funny moment. Joining a think tank, I now participate in all these track-two dialogues with Chinese counterparts. We were talking at one point about this very issue, and it was right after North Korea had sent in its own troops to support Russia’s war. I had a Chinese counterpart, someone who had towed the party line for hours on this issue, lean into me and say, “It’s so stupid. Why would they do that?” This is why you do these things. Because you sit there for hours listening to stuff that you could use ChatGPT to generate, and then you get that one little illuminating nugget that’s really telling about their strategic thinking on this issue.

Jordan Schneider: It’s also illustrative of how seriously we should take the Taiwan war invasion. Because if you really wanted to do something, you would want to test your gear against what NATO is bringing to the table and you would want to have your command and control ecosystem actually do the thing.

Jon Czin: I could see some constituency making a case for that in their system. But yeah, it’s a big step.

Jordan Schneider: It’s a big step. Fair. All right. I took us on a 30-minute detour. We should get back to rare earths.

Jon Czin: You can fix it in the editing and make it linear.

Jordan Schneider: Absolutely not. Okay, we have China not physically punching back around Mariupol, but economically using rare earths to reportedly surprise the Trump administration and cause a substantial rethink in how aggressively America is going to economically take on Beijing. What’s your interpretation of all that?

Jon Czin: My interpretation is that a lot of this got lost. What was striking to me were the not-so-subtle signals that China started sending after election day, after Trump won the election in 2024 and before Inauguration Day. At the end of the Biden administration, there were obviously all these export controls and competitive technology policies that were getting buttoned up during that period or pushed out during that period. We saw China respond, unlike that 2022 period or earlier, with great alacrity. They were responding and they were responding fairly forcefully and pretty quickly.

The take at that time, especially in the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, was, “Oh, they’re sending a signal to the new administration.” But what they were also doing was building up leverage in anticipation of Trade War 2.0. They had very clearly spent the intervening years thinking about how they would respond to this and how they would retaliate. That was the first wave of them test-driving some of these new toys and tools that they had come up with in the intervening years.

There was a real misdiagnosis about how China was going to respond to this. In fairness to the administration, a lot of people who would have served in Trump 1.0 would have said, “Look, we can push the Chinese and they’re not going to do much in response. Look what happened in Trump 1 – we hit them with these tariffs, the sky didn’t fall. They wanted to negotiate with us, so it’ll be okay.” In fairness to them, if they looked at what happened in the Biden administration, there really wasn’t much of a meaningful response to a lot of these measures. You could see why they would feel, if not complacent, pretty assured that China’s response might be muted.

The other thing that happened is that a year ago in 2024, all the discussion in Washington was about Peak China because of their economic doldrums. I haven’t heard this firsthand, but my suspicion is that whoever briefed Trump on China’s economy as they were gearing up for Liberation Day and Trade War 2.0 – if they were smart, they would have led with the fact that China’s real estate sector was a mess and was the locus of all their economic problems right now. That would just leap out at his imagination and make him think, “I’ve got a lot of leverage. If I hit these guys, they’re not going to hit me back.” That’s the story of what happened in the first trade war. There was an exaggerated sense of the fragility of China’s economy that fed into this. They underappreciated the ways in which Xi and his team had been thinking about this methodically and preparing for it over the intervening four years.

When this happened, it was clear just from the speed with which they responded – they weren’t formulating new options. They clearly were locked and loaded for Trade War 2.0 when it happened, which is why it escalated so quickly. They were ready for this. It’s remarkable to me that they’ve gone just within the space of six months or so from getting hammered by the Trump administration to now seeming like the administration is trying to mollify them in the run-up to a leader-level summit.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah, I just read an article in Semafor that said America doesn’t have economic escalation dominance over China, which is wrong. But it’s interesting that you saw Bessent recently saying, “Oh, we could do stuff around engines, we could do stuff around chemical inputs.” There clearly is a menu of things that if Trump wanted to continue to raise the stakes, he could have. But the psychological game that Xi was able to do, getting the CEOs of Ford and GM to say, “Look, we’re not going to be able to make cars anymore” wormed into his head. Say you’re still sitting in the White House and the President asks you, “All right, what’s my tat if they gave me the rare earths tit, aside from buying 10% of every minerals company in America?” What coercive stuff would be on your menu?

Jon Czin: There are things we could do, but the bigger question is then to what end? Are you trying to escalate so you get them to back off eventually? It’s not just a question of what tools you have, but what appetite do you have for pain? That’s the really hard part. Xi demonstrated during this – he’s got more appetite for pain than we do. He’s not going to have voters who are going to start complaining about an expensive Christmas, and he’s not going to have to deal with that.

We do have points of leverage. There are select things we could do. The aviation sector is the obvious one that people like to point to. But again, to what end is that really going to accomplish what you’re trying to do if your goal is to try to demonstrate that you have escalation dominance and get them to back off? I’m not an economist, but if you look at Trade War 1.0 and 2.0, it hurt China, but the effect was on particular firms or particular sectors. It didn’t necessarily have a big macroeconomic impact on China.

Jordan Schneider: One of the many initial theses around Liberation Day was that this is a way to force America and the world to decouple from China. We’re recording this October 7th and we’re sitting in the middle of a government shutdown. There’s this Republican line: “we don’t even care about the government being shut down because then we can fire all these people and this actually plays into our hands.” The world where China concedes is the one where China believes that Trump doesn’t care about the pain. But what we’ve seen over the past six months is that he, in fact, does care about the pain. The closer we start getting to midterms, the more salient it is. This sequencing that some Republican influencers talk about – “All right, we’re going to settle the Ukraine war and then turn our energy to China” – the window is closing for there to be any kind of domestic energy behind eating the economic costs that would come from taking a more escalatory route from an economic perspective.

Jon Czin: I’ve heard this before. “After we’re done dealing with these global hotspots, we’re going to pivot to Asia. It’s really going to happen this time.”

But the other salient point is that time is actually on Beijing’s side in this negotiation. It’s one of the chief assets they have, aside from these countermeasures. Beijing’s banking on the fact that as the administration gets closer to the midterm elections, they’re going to want to have something to show for this prolonged negotiation with China. The Chinese side thinks this means Trump may start negotiating against himself or get antsy for a deal.

That’s only going to augment Beijing’s leverage in these discussions. If you look back at Trade War 1.0, that’s what happened. That’s how we ended up with Phase One. Trump got antsy for a deal and he said, “Just let’s just do the deal and we’ll call it Phase One, and then we can figure out the rest of it later.” From Beijing’s perspective, that’s what they’re trying to do.

Having the summit – President Trump saying we’re going to do two more engagements – only buys China more runway. The President of the United States has publicly committed to additional meetings, even though China hasn’t necessarily. That gives them, if their goal is to run out the shot clock, a lot of runway.

I hate to say it, but I give them credit for how well they have played this so far. Even if you rewind to earlier this year, when there was the initial meeting between Bessent and Greer and He Lifeng, after that agreement, rather than having this grand coalition that was going to focus on China’s unfair non-market practices – which probably has some merit to it – instead, the only two countries at that point that the United States had some kind of side deal with for tariff relief were our closest ally, the United Kingdom, and our nominal chief rival, China.

From Beijing’s perspective, that’s an amazing feat of diplomacy. And what did they pay for this? All they did was go back to status quo ante before Liberation Day. All they did was pull back the measures that they had imposed. They’re getting all of this on the cheap.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s come back to cognitive decline. Both leaders are trending in that direction over the next three years and banking on three years of everything being hunky-dory seems like a wrong bet. It’s hard to project out. Is it a balloon? Is it this? Is it the Tibet border or something? But I don’t think it’s going to be this chill the whole time.

Jon Czin: No, that’s right. The name of the game for Beijing, even if there are exogenous shocks like a balloon or whatever the case may be, is that they have an incentive to try to manage it for the next year for the reasons I laid out. Right now in the run-up to a summit where the US side, for example, is trying to mollify Beijing. There are issues like the soybeans that are cropping up. The Commerce Department just added a variety of Chinese subsidiaries to the Entity List. It’s fraught.

What I worry about is that coming out of the summit, if there are good vibes coming out of it and it doesn’t go off the rails, you’re going to have a resuscitation of this discussion about détente with China or some kind of meaningful rapprochement. But these first few months demonstrate that you can give pretty remarkable concessions on two of the chief sources of friction in the relationship – on Taiwan and on technology competition – and still not really have any meaningful attenuation of the structural drivers of the competition. It doesn’t feel warm and fuzzy right now, necessarily. It’s more of a ceasefire than some kind of more meaningful or deeper détente.

Jordan Schneider: Interesting. Let’s stay on the cognitive decline stuff.

Jon Czin: Yeah. It’s going to be a thing, because you’re dealing with two leaders who are in their 70s and aging in very stressful jobs. It’s emblematic of the state of the competition between the two countries, and this is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. Yes, the US and China are both superpowers, but they’re both really dysfunctional in really profound ways. China obviously has its own deep pathologies with corruption. The real estate sector encapsulates so many of those pathological dynamics where it’s embedded with corruption and the failings of local government financing.

As an objective observation, our own system is not functioning the way it should. We struggle to pay our bills on time and we don’t make the repairs we need to our infrastructure. If we were in a homeowner’s association, we’d be on some kind of probationary status.

Sometimes the competition gets framed in terms of which side is more dynamic, but it’s really about two older people who have a lot of maladies, and the question is, who can cope better with their maladies? It’s about sprinting across the finish line. It’s like the movie Grumpy Old Men – it’s like Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon shaking their fists at each other as they approach the finish line on their walkers. Not to be glib about it, but that’s my mental model for how this competition is going to play out in the next few years. It’s going to be cranky, and it’s going to be ugly, and it’s going to be cantankerous.

Jordan Schneider: That was a dark... That’s probably the most accurate summation of the next five years of US-China relations you’ve heard on this podcast, Jon.

The Life of a China-Watcher

I want to think about your intellectual development. On the one hand, being in the Agency the whole time, you get to read the secrets, but you don’t really get to go to China. I’m curious about the strengths and weaknesses of developing as a China watcher when that is the intellectual milieu that you grow up with over the decades.

Jon Czin: It is interesting. Unfortunately, this has become true for a lot of China watchers now, especially after COVID and everything else. It’s hard to peer in. The first resort for many China watchers is you’re relegated to doing textual analysis. That’s just part of the price of doing business if you’re doing this kind of work – going through the Party Congress work reports, going through the press conference from the NPC, and not just reading those, but then doing side-by-side juxtaposed readings to see what’s changed over time.

My job wasn’t to opine about US policy the way I did just now. On a day-to-day basis, my job was to think about how this looks from Xi Jinping’s desk. As someone who had majored in political science in college, what was striking was that this was not a social scientific enterprise. I wasn’t thinking about this in terms of some regression analysis or plotting points. To do this work, whether you’re in government or out, is much more humanistic in my mind and it requires a lot more moral imagination. It’s more like being a historian where you’re just going to read a mountain of paper and then try to make sense of it and try to tell a story that is coherent and faithful to the evidence that you do have.

I don’t want to say it’s literary, but you are trying to think – if I’m this guy and I put aside my priors as a Western, small-L liberal, how does this world look? How do I try to navigate it? There’s actually a lot of discipline that comes along with that in order to be able to do it well. But that art of trying to see how it looks from Xi’s desk is something that’s harder to find on the outside. There are obviously people, like I keep talking about Joseph Torigian, who are able to do that. But that perspective can sometimes get lost because it is such a big, crunchy dynamic. You can spend all day thinking about other aspects of the competition or thinking about what the US should be doing to respond to what we’re seeing from China.

Since I’ve left government, that’s always my starting point. When I’m thinking through these problems, the first thing I try to do is look at what the Chinese are saying, look at what they’re doing, because the context is so much more important than the text. Then thinking about, how does this look from Xi’s desk? And then you work from there.

Jordan Schneider: On what dimensions do the secrets help you build mental models and develop your sense of the place? And when is it irrelevant or beside the point? Can we answer that one?

Jon Czin: It’s challenging. It’s just having other sources of information. But the real core part as an analyst is building that mental model in the first place and doing it in a rigorous way. The way I was trained is that you’re not just chasing the latest reporting and then retrofitting some kind of interpretation on what’s going on in Chinese politics. You want to have some kind of a priori notion of what’s going on. Then to be intellectually honest, you do basic things like lay out signposts. “Okay, if there is going to be a coup against Xi or if Xi is losing power in the system, these are the things that I would expect to see.” Having that in place ahead of time helps you sort the evidence as it comes in, rather than saying, “I saw this wild video on YouTube from the Epoch Times, and there’s clearly going to be a coup.” That’s a big part of the rigor of it.

What’s valuable about being at the Agency to do that kind of work is that there’s a focus on it in a way that you don’t necessarily get in academia and on the outside. This is hard to study from the outside. It’s not necessarily in vogue to focus on leadership politics in other countries if you’re trying to get your PhD in political science. If you’re a comparativist, you’re trying to put things in comparative perspective and do a lot of math around it. That’s challenging. Whereas, when you think about the CIA and what it was designed to do, it was designed to follow a country with a big scary military and an opaque leadership. This is the place’s original raison d’être. That’s what I would say about how this has all shaped my perspective on how I do this kind of work.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah, it’s interesting because you have a cohort doing this. You have this bright line of “look, we’re not analyzing American politics,” which does not exist in think tanks. It’s so much easier and more natural to start with the end of the report instead of the beginning or middle – “Okay, what should America do about this?” – and then you back into your reading of the Chinese system. Because that’s how the funding works and the incentives are all about having impact on policymakers. But maybe the most useful thing is just to build a mental model of who the actors in the system are, what they’re working towards, and how successful or unsuccessful they are over time.

Jon Czin: It’s funny you say that. Coming from the Agency and having grown up there professionally, especially when I started doing policy jobs. I would go from analyzing things and then I would have my boss when I was at the Pentagon say, “Okay, so what do we do about it, Jon?” For me personally – I’m a lifelong runner – it’s like if you’re a runner and you think, “Yeah, I can do a triathlon,” and then you get on a bicycle and you’re like, “I’m feeling a lot of burn in places I didn’t expect to.” You thought you were in good shape, but this is an adjacent muscle set. It’s good to have both. But I obviously got a huge dose of that at the NSC.

Leaving government too, it’s really striking to me. When I engage with people in my current role at Brookings, I walk into the mindset of “Okay, have I read everything Xi has said in the last week? Do I have my ducks in a row?” I’m still in that groove from being an analyst. But then 80% of the questions are about doing Pekingology on the Trump administration. In the early days, it was like, “Where does Musk fit in his orbit? Who’s up? Who’s down?” I’m comfortable doing this, but for their system.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. Is there any aspect of – both of us were born at the wrong time in the sense that Xi’s kind of boring? We had this big bang – he comes in, he does all this stuff – but we’re in cruise control on a lot of different dimensions. The leadership stuff, even the PLA modernization stuff, the economic reform stuff, it’s all status quo. They just keep drawing out the line. But you know, ’40s, crazy; ’50s, crazy; ’60s, crazy; ’70s, crazy; ’80s, crazy; 2000s, some stuff. China is more important than it’s ever been as a percentage of global national power, but from an elite politics dynamism perspective, we are at a true nadir.

Jon Czin: That is so funny to hear you say that. I had a friend and mentor when I was in government who spent a good chunk of his career in the Hu Jintao era. When people were committing suicide and Bo Xilai is getting purged and Guo Boxiong is getting purged and Xu Caihou and all these guys who were seen as untouchable. It’s this incredibly volatile and dynamic moment in Chinese politics and I remember this colleague saying to me, “Jon, this is so cool. You get to cover all this stuff now. I spent most of my career in the Hu Jintao era. I feel like a middle-aged divorcée. I gave Hu Jintao the best years of my life.”

At one level, I see what you mean. It can look kind of boring, especially when you’re doing the medicinal work of plowing through all the speeches. You’re right, there is a lot of continuity. But if you try to see how the system looks from the inside, if you’re an official, what’s been going on in China over the past year is almost operatic. From the politics perspective, you have a vice chairman of the Central Military Commission who’s just gone missing with no explanation. You have people disappearing left and right. You have people getting rotated out of key positions like the Organization Department. This got lost in the shadow of Liberation Day – people just getting swapped out of their positions out of nowhere, which is usually not a great sign for one’s political health. It is one of those things where you kind of have to squint a little bit to see it.

But that’s part of one of the things that makes following Chinese politics so interesting. On the surface it looks really smooth, but if you peek under the hood a little bit and think about how it looks to people in the system, it’s Game of Thrones.

I’ve talked to colleagues and friends who are Russia specialists, and there’s always such an interesting juxtaposition if you look at the two political systems. Putin is obviously also a very personalistic autocrat. But there is, as a casual observer from the outside, a level of chaos in that system and violence that the CCP just doesn’t tolerate. Even watching that horrible tragedy with Navalny, all I could think as a China watcher was they would have squashed this guy 20 years ago. There’s no way they would have let him on social media posting all this stuff. This guy would have disappeared a long time ago. Or even this phenomenon of people falling out of windows. Yes, people in the CCP get purged and bad things happen, but it’s all kept quiet or kept in the family.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. We talked about the military adventurism dynamic, but there aren’t CCP assassination squads in Europe and America or Tokyo killing these dissidents on YouTube. The level of obnoxiousness of democratic subversion…

Look, it’s there. You have stuff happening in city councils. We had this big mess in the UK Parliament, but it’s just an order of magnitude more conservative than what Putin has done abroad.

Jon Czin: Yeah, right. Nobody’s getting polonium in their tea. But it’s an interesting compare and contrast exercise when you think about US engagement with Russia, because even though the relationship is more fraught and more violent, there’s also this kind of built-in familiarity from the Cold War. We’ve all seen this movie before and we watched it together. It was striking to me when I was at the NSC – the Strategic Security Dialogue that we had with the Russians about really sensitive issues about nuclear weapons and nuclear doctrine, those continued until pretty much the outbreak of the war.

Whereas – and my old boss Kurt Campbell just had an essay about this in Foreign Affairs – getting the PLA to talk about anything even remotely adjacent to that is almost fantastical. You’re kind of chasing a unicorn to have those conversations. It’s interesting because in a lot of ways we’ve actually had a much closer relationship with China over the previous four decades. We have closer people-to-people ties and we obviously have the commercial relationship. Despite all that, when it comes down to those really sensitive geopolitical issues, we can still talk to the Russians in a way that is very hard to fathom with China.

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. My two cents on that is – if you go through the late ’50s and early ’60s with another country, you kind of get it. About how this isn’t a joke. And China has never had a nuclear scare. There’s a level at which their system just doesn’t take this stuff all that seriously. Then on the Russia side, there is an aspect of, “Oh, we’re still talking to the Americans about nukes, that means we’re a great power.” Whereas China can get that “oh, we’re in the game” feeling from other dimensions than discussing ADIZ zones.

Jon Czin: Part of it from the Chinese perspective too is, “You want to talk to us about nuclear weapons, you talked to the Soviets about nuclear weapons, and how did that turn out for them? What’s the angle here? What’s the trap?” But you’re right, because there is an impulse in some quarters of Washington that I’m sympathetic to – people want to get to some kind of détente. If we’re in this kind of more 1950s-like moment with China, people say, “Well, how can we fast forward and get something more like the 1970s between the US and the Soviet Union, where it’s a more stabilized competition?” I can understand that impulse, but from the Chinese side, without having had that shock or that scare, it’s going to be very hard emotionally and intellectually for them to get there.

The things that have gotten the US side on this path – everybody always goes back to EP-3 as the touchstone moment. From our side, that was an “oh, shit” moment. “We need to have meaningful crisis communications or military-to-military engagement or those sorts of things.” I don’t have evidence of this, but I think that from the Chinese side, they saw that as an effective model of crisis management. They were able to hold onto the pilots for more than 10 days.

Jordan Schneider: They got their apology.

Jon Czin: They got their apology. What’s the problem here? Going dark is part of what we need to do because in that system you need to confer and get your act together. But also as a tactical matter, you could easily see somebody in that system making the case, “This was actually quite effective. Going dark and being opaque actually enhances our leverage with the Americans. The longer we go dark, the more cautious they’re going to be and the more they’re going to try to reach out to us.”

Jordan Schneider: The idea of an accidental World War III starting between the US and China over jets hitting each other or something just strikes me as pretty far-fetched. I’d be curious for your take on that, because that is the whole line of thinking of why this is important, although it just seems like an incredibly low probability event.

Jon Czin: I get that perspective. But I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. I worry about the risk of some kind of accident, some kind of collision. It’s probably inevitable at some point, just given the nature of how much steel is out in the water and how much is up in the sky. But does that necessarily lead to some kind of cataclysmic conflict? You’re right. Objectively it’s harder to see that.

Part of the challenge for the policy community is that if you’re in the seat, you want to foreclose that possibility. The issue is that there’s a trade-off for constantly trying to pursue this. You’re constantly going after the PLA and you’re constantly going after an institution that has little to no interest in talking to you. Even in a crisis, they still have to respond to the political bosses and that’s really the crucial channel. You’re not going to be able to figure it out on your own between the Joint Staff and the Minister of National Defense who, oh, by the way, is not even in the CMC anymore. Not even a state counselor. At this point, it’s like talking to a glorified errand boy.

Jordan Schneider: If we’re in a situation pre-boats crashing into each other where both sides do not want war to happen, then the argument that a war or a dramatic escalation is that something would have to change in either leader’s mind or a shift in the domestic political temperature, from not wanting a conflict to actively wanting one, or escalating to the point where the other side has to escalate. It just doesn’t strike me that an event we both agree is an inevitability, like Taiwanese troops getting run over, or a collision in the Philippines (which is kind of unbelievable that it hasn’t actually happened yet) would be a trigger. Yes, that we haven’t had deaths. But it’s just, everyone’s got to price it in at some point. If you want to start a war, you’re going to start it in a more clever way than running into a boat and then launching an invasion nine days later.

Jon Czin: Yeah. There’s this presumption sometimes that it’s going to be the Chinese side that’s going to feel the pressure to up the ante, that they’re going to have to placate the nationalists inside the system. But actually, with Xi Jinping so powerful and so dominant in the system and having been so tough with the United States, I don’t really think he has to cover his political flanks in the way a Hu Jintao would have or a weaker leader would’ve had to. That’s the paradox. Xi is tougher on the United States in some ways, but because he has so much control, he also has more flexibility than a weaker leader might have to fend off those voices and say to the PLA, “Settle down, guys.” Or whoever else in the system might perk up in that kind of moment and say, “Xi, you’re being too weak on the Americans or you’re being too weak on Taiwan.” I don’t think he has to worry about that.

You’ve seen that with how they’ve played the trade war – they got very inflammatory with the rhetoric after Liberation Day, and now we’re on the path to a summit just six months later. It’s not like necessarily they’ve got total control and their ability to control this is mechanistic. But I don’t think they have to worry about it as much as some people on our side think. The same goes true for how this plays out politically in the United States. If there is an accident, people will be upset about it. But will people really have the appetite or the willingness to go to war, especially in this kind of political moment right after what happened after 9/11 and the response that we had that was so over the top, especially when you’re dealing with an adversary that is so formidable?

That’s a big rationale for China’s military modernization, of wanting to be prepared for an actual conflict, but also an element of deterring the United States. “Yeah, you guys can come into theater, but this is not going to be 1996 redux, where we actually have real capabilities and we’re able to hold your assets in jeopardy.”

One last thing that I would leave you with too, Jordan, is that I’ve been very struck since I left government, especially since there’s been so much conversation about the National Defense Strategy. There’s a bipartisan commission that’s charged with evaluating the Pentagon’s progress against the National Defense Strategy. The National Defense Strategy gets promulgated and then there’s this independent commission done through RAND. It assesses, “If these were your objectives, how did we do? Or how are we doing against the criteria this administration has laid out for the National Defense Strategy?”

If you look at the last one that came out, the last commission report and what it had to say about China in particular, the language in it is very stark. The last two NDSs have said that China is the pacing challenge for the US military. China’s military continues to outpace the United States in a growing number of domains. There’s actually one line in there too where it says they’ve negated the US military’s advantages in the Western Pacific.

Jordan Schneider: I was just going to come back to India and Pakistan.

The fact that they’ve figured out how to keep a lid on it. I mean, they do have more practice, and there is a dance which you’ve seen a number of times. But that as another counter-example to a crisis leading to World War III is something that folks should price in at some level.

Jon Czin: Because you mean India and Pakistan have grown accustomed to dealing with this and have figured out how to…

Jordan Schneider: Yeah. A thing can happen over 72 hours between two nuclear-armed powers and then cooler heads can prevail repeatedly. These are two very big, scary militaries, but if the leaderships don’t want to do it, you can even start escalating but get off the ladder at some point before cities start getting wiped off the map.

Jon Czin: I always think about the history of this when you go back to the ’50s, the Quemoy-Matsu crisis. It was in the second one, if I recall correctly, where the Chinese were shelling Taiwan on alternating days. Mao’s telling everybody to settle down and scaring the hell out of Khrushchev because he’s like, “It’s fine, it’s fine.”

Jordan Schneider: Alright, we’ll call it there. Thanks Jon. It was a ton of fun. Thanks for being a part of ChinaTalk.

据说，中国有1亿多人翻墙出来看世界。最近，党国清网，很多翻墙软件失灵，墙暂时翻不成了。说翻不成墙是暂时的，因为技术问题，永远都是道高一尺，魔高一丈。翻墙软件更新之后，就又可以翻了。

建墙是中国的悠久传统，也是中国人最擅长的绝活。古代中国人建长城，从秦始皇一直建到明朝。互联网时代，中国又在网上建墙，被外界称为“The Great Firewall”—— 网上“防火长城”。这道网上防火长城，把中国跟世界隔开，把中国互联网变成一个大局域网。中国人要看世界，要用真正的互联网，不得不翻墙。

上期节目中，我们介绍周有光先生。他说文明不是静止不动的，而是像水一样流动。水都是从高处往低处流。文明也有高低之分，会像水一样从文明高地，流向文明洼地。在互联网时代，中国为什么动用巨量人力物力，建网上长城，把中国跟外界隔开，把中国人的世界分成墙内墙外？一个简单的答案：中国是个文明洼地。

文明洼地才需要建墙，把自己围起来，阻挡先进文明流入，延续国民的愚昧。只有国民保持愚昧，才能继续吸“5000年历史”、“民族复兴”之类精神鸦片，党国才能继续放开手脚，不拿他们当人，继续极限压榨他们。中国的统治阶层很清楚这一点。他们建墙把中国围起来，把中国人当家畜一样圈养，不把他们当成有头脑的，对是非善恶有分辨力的成年人，而是把他们当成没有头脑，没有分辨能力，没有判断能力的巨婴。

党国把中国建成了“墙国”，把国民变成了坐井观天的“墙民”。墙国墙民，这就是当今中国的现实。那些翻墙出来的中国人，之所以可赞，就在于他们身在墙国，但是不甘心做墙民，而且知行合一，主动翻墙出来，看更广阔的世界。

有句话，据说是中国作家巴金说的：“奴在身者，其人可怜；奴在心者，其人可鄙”。一个人无法决定自己生在什么地方，生在什么国家。做为中国人，一出生就在墙内，自己决定不了。这是一种天生的无辜。这是巴金说的“奴在身者”。但是，一个中国人，如果长大成人之后，习惯了墙内被圈养的生活，觉得那种生活是天经地义，而且主动去当党国的肉喇叭，做帮闲，做帮凶，像五毛、自干五之类，这种人就是巴金说的“奴在心者”。这种“奴在心者”不可怜，这种人只配被鄙视。

中国的问题，不是有亿万“奴在身者”，而是有亿万“奴在心者”，有亿万跟墙国相互匹配的墙民。正是这亿万墙民，让中国有别于其他专制独裁国家。墙国墙民，可以说构成了一种接近“完美“的独裁。牛津大学有位老先生，名叫Stein Ringen。他是挪威人，但在牛津大学教书。他有本书写中国，书名就叫《The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century》——《完美的独裁：21世纪的中国》。

Read more

Nick Corvino joins ChinaTalk this year as a Tarbell Fellow, fresh off completing his master’s in China Studies at the Yenching Academy of Peking University.

Last week, China placed export controls on a wide range of rare earths and industrial inputs. Today, we’re taking a deep dive into the controls on lab-grown diamonds and why they matter.

Beijing’s restrictions target only industrial-grade synthetics used in chip fabrication and precision manufacturing. They can be important for wafer-slicing saws, polishing tools, and lithography optics, where extreme hardness and heat resistance are critical. Without them, producing advanced semiconductors and other high-tech components becomes significantly more difficult.

China is the world leader in synthetic diamond production, though by how much depends on whom you ask. Industry analyses suggest it accounts for roughly half of global output, while China Daily has claimed as high as 95% (this is too high..). It also dominates the manufacturing of key machinery such as high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) presses. This mix of capacity and machinery could let China squeeze parts of the chip supply chain, though its edge is less dramatic than some RREs like Terbium and Dysprosium.

What do diamonds do?

A diamond is made entirely of carbon atoms, each one tightly bonded to four others in a neat, repeating lattice. That structure gives it an uncommon mix of traits: it’s both the hardest material on Earth and one of the best conductors of heat. In practice, that means diamond can withstand enormous pressure without deforming and transfer heat faster than copper while remaining an electrical insulator.

These qualities are what brought synthetic diamonds into the semiconductor world. As chips for AI training grow hotter and denser, synthetic diamonds are becoming increasingly valuable for managing the resulting thermal load.

Since the 1950s, scientists have been able to make diamonds from scratch. These synthetic diamonds are molecularly identical to natural ones, but are grown in labs instead of forming underground. By recreating the extreme heat and pressure found inside the Earth’s mantle, or by building them atom by atom in controlled chambers, manufacturers can now produce crystals tailored for industry. That breakthrough allows the diamond industry to scale, no longer solely dependent on what can be dug out of the ground. Synthetic diamonds are now a critical component in slicing semiconductor wafers, printing chip designs, and improving radar capabilities (see the ‘Applications’ section for details).

Why China Leads in Synthetic Diamonds

China’s work on lab-grown diamonds began in the early 1960s, when researchers set out to make the country self-reliant in what were then called “superhard materials.” At the time, China couldn’t easily import industrial abrasives or natural diamonds, so it built its own high-pressure, high-temperature presses to produce them domestically. In 1963, China created its first synthetic diamond, becoming the fifth country in the world to do so. The effort echoed a broader post-war ambition to dominate foundational materials, such as rare earths and magnets, that technology and industry increasingly depended on.

Over the following decades, provinces like Henan and Shandong industrialized around diamond production, helped by cheap energy, access to carbon feedstocks (the raw materials that provide carbon atoms), and state support for superhard materials. By the 2000s, China was already producing the most synthetic diamonds in the world and had built an entire supply chain ecosystem around them.

China’s ‘Diamond Capital’

There are various places in China that have become the global hub for something highly specific. In the rare earth industry, the city of Baotou (包头市) in Inner Mongolia processes more than half of China’s rare earth minerals. Similarly, Dan Wang’s Breakneck describes how Zheng’an (正安) in Guizhou became “guitar city,” a small inland county that now makes about one in every seven guitars worldwide.

If Baotou is the rare-earth powerhouse, Zhecheng County (柘城县) in Henan Province plays the same role for synthetic diamonds. Home to fewer than a million people — very small, by Chinese standards — it has transformed from an agricultural county into China’s “Diamond Capital.” Local factories produce everything from micron-sized diamond powders to gemstone-quality crystals. Zhecheng now accounts for around half of China’s synthetic diamond output — roughly 4 million carats annually — and exports to more than 50 countries, amounting to an estimated 25–40% of global production.

Zhecheng also has the advantage of local clustering. Raw carbon feedstock suppliers, HPHT press makers, polishing workshops, and logistics firms all sit within literally a few square kilometers. That concentration lowers transaction costs, spurs reinvestment, and locks in process knowledge.

Overcapacity?

Just because China produces the most synthetic diamonds doesn’t mean it has the most leverage. In fact, the opposite may be true.

Like other parts of China’s manufacturing sector, the synthetic diamond industry could suffer from overcapacity, with too many producers chasing too few profitable markets, driving desperation to export abroad. Even the industry’s largest Chinese firms, including North Industries Group Red Arrow, Henan Huanghe Whirlwind, and Henan Liliang Diamond, reported sharp declines in revenue and profit in 2023, with their share prices staying relatively flat ever since and only modestly rising following the MOFCOM announcement. And Zhecheng County’s GDP per capita was ¥36,079 in 2024 (about $5,000), well below both the provincial and national averages. If China tightens export controls, it will inflict pain on domestic workers and manufacturers as well as overseas buyers.

How much do other countries depend on China?

How quickly could other countries scale production if China restricted exports?

Outside China, a handful of nations maintain smaller yet capable synthetic diamond industries focused on high-end or specialized applications. Element Six, a De Beers subsidiary headquartered in London, is the most prominent non-Chinese producer, manufacturing advanced diamond materials for cutting tools, optics, and semiconductor cooling. In East Asia, Japan has a few synthetic diamond companies, such as Sumitomo Electric and Tomei Diamond, and South Korea has ILJIN Diamond. India is taking a slightly different approach, favoring the slower, more expensive chemical vapor deposition process, which yields higher-purity stones than China’s majority HPHT method. Russia still leads in natural industrial diamonds — about 40% of global output — but that segment is increasingly obsolete compared to synthetic materials.

The United States has its own producers, including Hyperion Materials & Technologies and Applied Diamond Inc., but they lack China’s industrial scale. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. remains heavily dependent on China for imports — roughly 77% of its industrial diamond supply — while another 8% comes from South Korea, 5% from the UK, and the rest from a long tail of countries.

Producing industrial diamonds at scale requires not only thousands of presses but also a dense network of coating, bonding, and classification facilities—and, crucially, the decades of process know-how now most concentrated in China. Western producers also face tougher environmental permitting for powder-handling and metal-bonding operations.

However, as diamond analyst Paul Zimnisky told ChinaTalk:

“In mainstream high-tech applications, the global industry is still in a nascent phase — so it is still to be determined who will ultimately be the biggest players in this space.”

China has not achieved a complete monopoly across the diamond supply chain, nor does there seem to be a segment or tool within the chain that only China can produce. Other countries can make key inputs, such as diamond presses, precision abrasives, and CVD materials, just not at the same scale. So, China’s leverage is real, but compared to entrenched sectors like rare earths, where it processes ~90% of global supply, the diamond industry has real global players who could likely step up to the plate and take advantage of the market opportunities export controls would open.

Applications

Diamond Saw!

The diamond wire saw (one of the diamond products China restricted) is a thin metal wire coated with fine diamond dust, used to slice huge blocks of silicon into the flat wafers on which chips are built. The process demands extreme precision. Each wafer must be perfectly smooth and even, because even microscopic irregularities can throw off the alignment of the billions of transistors that will later be etched onto its surface.

Not every wafer is cut this way. Older or lower-end manufacturing lines sometimes use slurry-based wire saws, where loose abrasives like silicon carbide are suspended in fluid to do the cutting. But over the past decade, diamond-coated wires have become the preferred choice, since they cut faster, waste less silicon, and leave cleaner, flatter surfaces. Synthetic diamonds, grown under controlled conditions, are uniform in size and hardness, allowing the wire to stay cool and cut with consistent precision.

That precision matters because every step of chipmaking builds on the wafer’s surface. Lithography machines must focus light with nanometer accuracy; deposition and etching layers have to align perfectly on top of one another. If the wafer is even slightly uneven or warped, this can mess up every subsequent step in the chip-making process.

(You can also buy a commercial-grade diamond saw at your local Home Depot!)

Optics and Lithography

Diamonds can also appear inside lithography systems, particularly in EUV machines that print the smallest and most advanced chips. The light inside these systems is so powerful that ordinary materials would warp or degrade, so manufacturers use diamond to handle the heat and maintain optical stability.

Diamonds can also be used to polish the mirrors and lenses inside lithography machines to near-atomic smoothness, a requirement for maintaining optical precision at nanometer scales, where even microscopic surface flaws can blur or misalign the projected chip pattern.

Wildcard: Diamonds as Future Chips?

Diamonds don’t just have to make semiconductors — they could one day become them. A semiconductor is a material whose ability to conduct electricity sits between a conductor and an insulator (hence the name ‘semi’ in ‘semiconductor’), allowing precise control over electrical current. Diamond’s wide band gap and exceptional thermal conductivity make it theoretically better than silicon for handling high voltages and extreme heat.

Researchers in Japan, the U.S., and China have already built prototype diamond transistors, but they’re still costly and hard to produce. Doping a diamond with boron atoms can turn it into a semiconductor, though the process remains difficult to control. More practically, companies like Diamond Foundry are experimenting with embedding small pieces of diamond into silicon chips to keep them cool and increase energy efficiency.

Military

Diamonds are also an important defense material beyond AI. Their hardness and thermal conductivity make them valuable for tooling munitions and cooling high-power radar and laser systems.

Unanswered Questions

After a week of research, here are the questions I couldn’t crack:

• How quickly could non-Chinese producers scale if restrictions bite? Other countries can do chemical vapor deposition and make diamond saws — but how long would it take to match China’s scale and cost advantage if they were suddenly asked to increase supply?

• Is there a single segment of the supply chain that only China (or another country) truly controls and can’t yet be replicated? My best guesses are:

  1. the human know-how and culture in Henan;

  2. HPHT press manufacturing and tooling (my current estimate is that China produces 80–90% of HPHT diamonds globally, though much of this output is low-cost and not high-enough quality for many industrial uses); and

  3. catalyst & ultra-pure graphite feedstocks, since China is really good at graphite refinement and metallurgy.

• Are governments planning for this? Who is implementing policies to reduce these vulnerabilities?

If you know the answer to any of these, or work in the diamond industry, I’d love to hear from you! Shoot me a message at: nick@chinatalk.media

Lily’s Notes on Diamond Jewelry

MOFCOM explicitly excluded jewelry-grade diamonds in the export controls. Why? It certainly would have hit Americans where it hurts — the USA is the world’s largest consumer of diamond jewelry, and in 2024, nearly half of all diamond engagement rings sold in the US contained lab-grown diamonds.

But Beijing is keen to argue that the new export controls are matters of national security, and not just an attempt to generate leverage in negotiations with the US. Restricting exports of gem-grade diamonds would undermine that argument, since they are very obviously not dual use.

Paul Zimnisky also noted that Indian producers are well-positioned to acquire market share in the wake of Chinese controls on industrial diamonds. If China also restricted exports of jewelry-grade diamonds, Indian suppliers would be incentivized to expand production to fill the gap. That would reduce the profitability of the nearly 1,000 Chinese firms that deal in lab diamonds — most of which are small businesses — even if the controls were temporary.

On diamond prices

In the wake of the new export controls, industrial diamond producers could pivot to producing gem-grade material (the playbook for this upgrade is not new). Such an abrupt increase in supply would decrease prices and eat into gem-grade diamond producers’ profit margins, as well as drive natural diamond prices even lower to compete.

But in fact, lab diamonds have already driven natural diamond prices down. In the words of diamond industry veteran Jon Phillips, “The diamond market has stabilized, but that doesn’t mean it’s not ripe for another downfall… [Natural diamonds] are inextricably tied to the lab-grown market.”

Chinese lab diamonds are available for 1/20th of the price of an equivalent natural diamond, with one-carat faceted stones available for as little as 1,000 RMB (~US$140). That price difference has helped lab diamonds grow from 1% market share in 2015 to about 20% today. That’s bad news for Botswana, which relies on diamond mining for 30% of its GDP, but certainly a win for enjoyers of sparkles the world over.

In addition to price and aesthetic considerations, there’s also an element of national pride that drives Chinese consumers in particular to choose lab diamonds. As Beijing-based jeweler Cheng Cheng 成诚 told ChinaTalk:

“From 2019 to 2023, many of my clients would ask about the difference between natural and lab-grown diamonds and tended to favor natural ones…. By 2024 and 2025, however, I’ve felt that many customers have become very comfortable with lab-grown diamonds. …

One reason for this shift is that lab-grown diamond manufacturing is centered in China. Confidence in “Made in China” products has grown rapidly, and Chinese consumers strongly recognize the country’s fast-developing lab-grown diamond technology.”

Some consumers will always prefer a gem that was formed over millions of years by geologic processes. But the beauty of lab-grown gemstones is that they expand the range of possibilities for artistic jewelry designs.

* = don’t sleep on it

China + AI

China’s New AI Plan

Released 34 days apart, the US and China’s AI action plans reveal starkly different governance philosophies despite surface similarities. In this piece, Irene Zhang breaks down what we can learn by contrasting these two strategies. For example, China’s State Council document is comprehensively techno-accelerationist, targeting 70% AI adoption by 2027 and 90% by 2030 across everything from manufacturing to “philosophical research,” with job displacement explicitly accepted and trial-and-error encouraged society-wide. The Trump administration’s plan, led by OSTP, David Sacks, and NSA, frames AI through US-China competition, mentioning “national security” 24 times versus China’s single mention, focuses on worker retraining and careful sectoral experimentation, dividing the world into American versus Chinese technological spheres.

Kimi

Moonshot AI’s Kimi K2 — an open-weights, 1-trillion-parameter MoE “non-reasoning” LLM — represents an alternative development path from DeepSeek’s hedge-fund cocoon. Built by a globally trained team, backed by Alibaba VC, and shaped by China’s compute limits, K2 openly borrows DeepSeek V3’s EP+DP/MLA architecture, exemplifying a fast-iterating, open-source research culture that Chinese labs are now embracing.

Alibaba Gets AGI-pilled

In this column, Afra makes the case that Alibaba CEO Eddie Wu is an AGI believer. At its 2025 Yunqi Conference, Wu delivered a sermon on Artificial Superintelligence — calling AGI inevitable and ASI humanity’s next leap. This newfound prophetic tone departs from China’s usual instrumentalist, utilitarian tech discourse. Since the 2020 Ant IPO crackdown, Chinese firms have avoided grand visions and focused on compliance — but Wu’s speech could represent a “vibe shift” toward ambition and imagination.

China’s AI Education Hype

China’s exam-oriented education system creates a paradox for AI adoption — while wealthy urban students access robotics and coding, most Chinese schools remain dominated by pen-and-paper exams until university, with rural schools suffering from dangerous buildings, half the schooling years of Beijing (Tibet), larger class sizes (45+ students, some 56+), and fewer teachers per capita than the US (1:16 vs 1:13.26). Minister of Education Huai Jinpeng is pushing AI integration to address these inequalities — advocating for “smart campuses” and the creation of a national education LLM.

Cheating Apps: China’s Latest Tech Export

Chinese homework-solving apps like ByteDance’s Gauth and Zuoyebang’s Question.AI have dominated US download charts, with Gauth reaching 2 million daily active users globally versus only 800,000 for its Chinese equivalent “Doubao Loves Learning.” Lily Ottinger argues that the international versions are deliberately optimized for cheating — showing answers before steps, featuring aggressive monetization, and solving problems across all subjects for free — while Chinese versions emphasize educational features like study planners, parent oversight tools, and detailed explanations. Gauth’s superior performance on advanced calculus problems suggests ByteDance invests more resources internationally, where homework-dependent education systems create greater demand compared to China’s exam-heavy system. Both apps employ selective censorship: Gauth initially blocked criticism of Trump but now answers freely while subtly misrepresenting China’s presidential term limits as “informal” rather than constitutional; Question.AI refuses Tiananmen Square questions entirely. Ottinger warns that these apps risk creating educational inequality — wealthier students will attend tutoring centers while others automate homework — and predicts potential US bans if regulators notice Chinese companies profit from undermining American education while offering more pedagogically sound products at home.

History

The Party’s Interests Comes First

Joseph Torigian’s biography of Xi Zhongxun reveals the CCP as simultaneously a religious organization and mafia — where suffering paradoxically deepens loyalty and persecution is a badge of honor. Our epic two-part interview explores the life of Xi Zhongxun, father of Xi Jinping, from his life as a young revolutionary to his purge and eventual rehabilitation.

*The Long Shadow of Soviet Dissent: Disobedience from Moscow to Beijing

This ChinaTalk episode with historian Ben Nathans and longtime reporter Ian Johnson explores how Soviet dissidents built a moral and intellectual movement by demanding that the USSR live up to its own laws — a strategy pioneered by mathematician Alexander Volpin that later echoed in China’s rights-defense (维权) activism. Through episodes like the 1966 Sinyavsky-Daniel trial, dissidents transformed “socialist legality” and show trials into moral theater, using underground samizdat networks to expose the state’s hypocrisy and preserve truth.

The Pacific War

We explore Ian Toll’s incredibly expressive Pacific War trilogy, examining both his innovative narrative techniques and strategic questions about WWII’s Pacific theater. The conversation covers whether Allied victory was predetermined after Pearl Harbor, how Japan’s domestic political instability drove its military aggression abroad, the evolution of kamikaze tactics as a resource-scarcity solution, and the crucial role of media management in shaping military leaders like MacArthur and Halsey into national heroes. Part 1 and Part 2 here.

Xi and Putin Weaponize WWII’s Legacy

This article by Joseph Torigian examines how Xi and Putin have leveraged the 80th anniversary of WWII’s end to legitimize authoritarianism and territorial expansion from Yalta to Kaohsiung. Both leaders lost family in the war, and now view themselves as inheritors of an unfinished struggle against Western hegemonic forces. Yet their instrumental use of history — through censorship, patriotic education, and civilizational rhetoric — carries risks. As Russia suffers from war fatigue, brain drain, and demographic decline, and China must manage the tension between anti-Western signaling and its dependence on Western trade.

Taiwan Confronts its WWII Legacy

This article by Jordyn Haime examines Taiwan’s fraught relationship with its WWII history — - while the ROC did the majority of the fighting against Japan in the mainland, over 200,000 Taiwanese served in Japan’s Imperial Army as colonial subjects, and 2,000 Taiwanese women were enslaved as “comfort women.” While Taiwan’s DPP government celebrated the anniversary by praising the liberal international order, Haime attended the non-governmental memorial in Kaohsiung honoring the Taiwanese who fought under Japan. After the KMT takeover in 1945, these veterans were politically “forgotten” during 38 years of martial law to avoid labeling them as Han traitors (漢奸). Taiwan’s democratization has reopened space for confronting these contradictions, but Haime argues that achieving true transitional justice will require acknowledging Taiwan’s role in supporting the Japanese war effort.

Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Future of War

*Closing the Taiwan Strait Deterrence Gap: Lessons from Air University Wargaming

Air University’s extensive 2023-2024 wargames challenge the conventional wisdom that Taiwan cannot defend itself without direct US intervention. The study found that a $14.6 billion force modernization centered on asymmetric capabilities could destroy up to 75% of PLA amphibious assets and “stop an invasion cold.” The optimal force design abandons prestige platforms indigenous submarines, Abrams tanks, and large warships in favor of 7 XQ-58 drone squadrons ($756M), 20 Chien Hsiang anti-radar drone squadrons ($2.54B), layered air defense systems ($7B), 30 Kuang Hua VI missile boats ($369M), 300 “Sea Baby” and 400 “Jet Ski” unmanned surface vessels ($166M), 200 unmanned underwater vehicles ($100M), 400 Hsiung Feng-III/IIE anti-ship missiles ($1.7B), and enhanced space/cyber ($2B). This strategy targets PLA’s two-phase invasion plan with simultaneous swarms of aerial, surface, and subsurface drones plus subsonic/supersonic missile salvos that “no fleet in history” could counter. Taiwan’s reported $20 billion supplemental defense budget now under Legislative Yuan consideration appears aligned with these asymmetric recommendations, representing potentially “the most decisive move in that direction in modern Taiwan history” if passed.

*Second Breakfast

The ChinaTalk team has launched a new defense podcast! Second Breakfast brings together a handful of washed vets to talk current events and the future of warfare. For example, our third episode discusses what Ukraine and Lebanon teach us about the U.S.’s blind spots, why the U.S. homeland is vulnerable to adversary attacks and cyber sabotage, and whether Taiwan’s semiconductor “shield” is a deterrent or liability.

Read a transcript with some highlights here or check out the full playlist on YouTube.

Deterring a Taiwan Invasion: Lessons from Imperial Japan

Imperial Japan’s 1944–45 defense plan for Taiwan, Operation Sho-2Go, rapidly transformed the island from a logistics hub into a fortress. Amid fierce resource jockeying, this posture convinced US planners that invading Taiwan (Operation Causeway) would be far costlier than taking Okinawa. Drawing on Japanese-language archives, JASDF Col. Hirokazu Honda shows Sho-2Go’s mix of force buildup, concealment, and asymmetric shock as the key to deterrence. The piece argues modern Taiwan can adapt these lessons: rapidly scale active/reserve forces, expand subterranean and redundant C2 infrastructure, prioritize mass asymmetric systems over exquisite platforms, and signal resolve — proving credible deterrence is achievable even under adversary air/sea superiority.

Robotics

Why Robots are Coming

Robotics researcher Ryan Julian outlines the near-term trajectory of general-purpose robots, arguing that widespread deployment in logistics, material handling, and light manufacturing is “baked in” over the next 3-5 years. Unlike self-driving cars, industrial robots can provide linear utility at partial autonomy (50% labor reduction still creates massive value), allowing faster deployment in commercial spaces where safety bars are lower. Julian predicts hundreds of thousands to millions of industrial robots within a decade, followed by more dexterous manufacturing tasks (bolts, wiring harnesses) in 7-10 years.

ChinaTalk

Why Robots are Coming

8VC is hosting a meetup for ChinaTalk this coming Thursday. Sign up here if you can make it…

Read more

a month ago · 48 likes · 2 comments · Jordan Schneider and Lily Ottinger

How Hangzhou Spawned Deepseek and Unitree

DeepSeek didn’t spring from nowhere, argues: it grew from Hangzhou’s distinctive ecosystem that empowers private firms without classic Silicon Valley ingredients like deep VC pools and elite university clusters. Hangzhou hosts a budding tech scene — the “six little dragons” (Unitree, Deep Robotics, Game Science, BrainCo, Manycore Tech, plus Alibaba) — but this piece argues that Hangzhou’s edge is “flexible governance,” where officials act like facilitators that fast-track IP, smooth out licensing agreements, and solve practical problems for small, scrappy companies.

Decoupling and Export Controls

Smuggling Nvidia GPUs to China

Gamers Nexus editor Steve Burke unearthed the complete GPU smuggling supply chain from the US to mainland China in a three-hour YouTube documentary, contradicting Nvidia’s claims that GPU smuggling is a “non-starter.” Burke interviewed US-based Chinese buyers purchasing export-controlled chips on Craigslist, Chinese middlemen who aren’t even sure which chips are banned, repair shops, and university researchers using smuggled A100s. This episode is packed with crazy characters — definitely worth revisiting if you missed it the first time.

The full documentary is now available on YouTube (after initially being removed via DMCA).

*MP Materials, Intel, and Sovereign Wealth Funds

In this podcast, Daleep Singh, Peter Harrell, and Arnab Datta argue that critical minerals markets are broken due to extreme price volatility and a lack of WTI-equivalent futures infrastructure. To tackle Chinese dominance in REMs, the July 2025 DoD-MP Materials deal uses Defense Production Act authority creatively, but makes MP Materials “a national champion… crowned without contest.” This interview discusses whether the deal can succeed and explores alternatives like a Strategic Resilience Reserve or a sovereign wealth fund, and is particularly relevant today as the trade war has heated up again.Modern Japan

Abundance

Dan Wang

Dan Wang joins the podcast to discuss his book Breakneck, exploring China’s “engineering state” versus America’s “lawyerly society” through the lens of brutal social engineering projects. Wang argues China’s engineering mindset — treating society “as liquid flows” where “all human activity can be directed with the same ease as turning valves” — enabled four decades of 8-9% growth lifting hundreds of millions from poverty but also created “novel forms of political repression humanity has never seen.” We also did a show with Dan Wang + Ezra + Derek!

Reading Abundance from China

Afra hosted a Chinese-language reading group for Ezra Klein’s Abundance with Chinese immigrants — academics, lawyers, AI investors, engineers — who jokingly called themselves the “Ezra Thought Study Group.” They discuss the poverty of the American imagination, China’s bureaucratic advantages, America’s “China envy,” and the consequences of the US and China “doomscrolling each other’s social feeds.” Participants highlighted Bay Area defense startups (Anduril) as innovation bright spots compared with China’s widespread “crossing the river by feeling American stones” approach.

Career Advice, Travel Notes, and Best of China

Policy: An Early Career Guide REVISED!

Jordan presents a practical playbook for breaking into China-adjacent policy, from learning Mandarin to starting a Substack. Expect to be wrong sometimes, state confidence levels, welcome critique, and cultivate humility. Bonus guidance covers security-clearance common sense, book reviews as a low-risk on-ramp, developing long-form depth in your writing, time/attention hygiene for social media, and first-hand tips on finding a niche.

Notes on Kyrgyzstan

Lily Ottinger takes a look at Kyrgyzstan — Central Asia’s most democratic state, which has seen rapid growth and record-low unemployment in the wake of Chinese investment. Post-2013 BRI projects now dot Bishkek and Osh — highways, airports, a BYD factory, and a mega ski resort (target winter 2026) — while Chinese buses and equipment support public transit and parks. Public opinion, once wary of Beijing and warmer to Moscow, flipped markedly after 2022. On the ground, Chinese migrants are present in mining, restaurants, and import retail, often without Russian/Kyrgyz language skills. Overall, Kyrgyzstan’s boom showcases BRI-enabled development and rising pro-China sentiment alongside enduring sensitivities about foreign labor and elite capture.

China’s Best Music of 2025 (So Far)

Jake Newby, author of the China music Substack Concrete Avalanche, presents his official playlist of China’s best new music. It includes Kazakh and Tibetan experimental folk, Shanghai cold wave, and post-rock with an electrified guqin.

China’s best short fiction of 2025

The Cold Window Newsletter surveyed nearly all new 2025 Chinese short-story collections and finds the “no good literature” complaint false: despite domestic distrust of establishment writers, a recent plagiarism scandal, and limited overseas attention, standout work — often by women of the post 1980’s generation — thrives, mixing dreamlike, speculative intrusions and internet realism, with serious treatments of abuse and many long novellas. The top five picks: Shao Dong’s grounded realism (notably “Recreational Dancing”); Mo Yin’s genre-literate, reference-dense sci-fi (“City of Dreams”); Guo Shuang’s sharp class/fandom portrait (“Push Out the Pig”); Du Li’s dense, unsettling nightmarescapes (“The Cuckoo Vanishes”); and #1 Zhang Tianyi’s exuberant, idea-rich myth/pop-culture remixes (esp. “The Beanstalk”).

Polling and Prediction Markets

Nate Silver on AI, Politics, and Power

This grab-bag conversation with Nate Silver explores reputation and legacy-building as a public intellectual, how AI will and won’t change politics, and the future of prediction markets as aggregators of knowledge. Regarding the future of American politics, the conversation covers the impact of bad models and public narrative formation (including misconceptions about DeepSeek), as well as how to shift the public’s political opinions over the long term.

Betting on Chaos: Professional Political Gamblers

This interview with Domer, Polymarket’s top trader, explores the emerging profession of for-profit political forecasting — where bettors wager millions on elections, wars, and policy moves. Domer explains how prediction markets evolved from small hobbyist platforms to billion-dollar ecosystems offering real-time price discovery for geopolitical risk, yet still operate largely as solo “rōnin” endeavors. He details how traders gain an edge through deep research and emotional detachment, and how biases (including the tendency to overestimate unlikely events like a Taiwan war) and insider-trading risks shape market behavior. Markets can create feedback loops, where wealthy actors manipulate odds to manufacture political momentum, and they now react to news within seconds. Domer argues these markets discipline punditry by forcing participants to “put skin in the game.”