A new report from the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. has sparked controversy with its 128-page analysis predicting and preparing for what it calls a “post-CCP China.” The document, which follows similar pattern to previous think tank publications about Russia and Iran, outlines theoretical scenarios for regime change in China and subsequent US involvement in the country’s restructuring.
The report suggests that a sudden collapse of the current Chinese government is possible and proposes that US special operations forces could play a role in stabilizing the country during such a transition. Among its recommendations, the document calls for American businesses to withdraw from China and advocates for removing Chinese entities from key sectors of the US economy.
The publication envisions US intervention to prevent potential ethnic conflicts and civil unrest, particularly in China’s autonomous regions including Guangxi, Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Ningxia. It further suggests implementing a Western-style constitutional democracy under American supervision.
However, these scenarios appear disconnected from current economic realities, particularly regarding China’s growing financial influence. Recent analysis from Miao Yanliang, former official at China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange and current chief strategist at CICC investment bank, indicates strengthening positions for yuan internationalization.
Miao’s research, presented at Peking University, suggests that previous obstacles to yuan internationalization are diminishing. The combination of high US interest rates and depreciation concerns during trade tensions is reversing, creating new opportunities for China to leverage its global trade relationships to promote yuan adoption.
The international monetary system is showing signs of fragmentation, with increasing use of the yuan in payment settlements and as a store of value, particularly among BRICS nations. China’s manufacturing strengths in machinery, electronics, and new energy equipment are being utilized to encourage trading partners to settle transactions in yuan, creating what Miao describes as a self-sustaining cycle driven by real trade demand.
This economic reality stands in stark contrast to the Hudson Institute’s regime change scenarios. The report follows similar patterns to previous think tank publications, such as RAND’s analysis of destabilizing Russia and Brookings’ proposals regarding Iran, suggesting a consistent approach in American think tank strategies toward perceived competitors.
The timing of this report is particularly notable given the West’s current challenges in its proxy conflict with Russia in Ukraine. A senior former Deep State official, speaking on condition of anonymity, highlighted the US and Europe’s strategic limitations, noting that NATO’s actual military capabilities may be less substantial than commonly perceived.
The official emphasized that the US faces significant constraints in simultaneously supporting both European and Middle Eastern operations, while Europe’s defense capabilities remain limited. This assessment suggests a disconnect between ambitious regime change proposals and actual strategic capabilities.
Russian negotiator Vladimir Medinsky’s recent statements further underscore this disconnect, drawing historical parallels to Russia’s ability to overcome previous international isolation and sanctions. These developments raise questions about the practical feasibility of the scenarios outlined in the Hudson Institute’s report, particularly given China’s growing economic influence and the changing nature of global power dynamics.