PLA had some good fighters, especially under Lin Biao, but obviously today's PLA is a completely different thing. In the 60s, Vietnamese fighters were being trained by the PLA, so we can agree that the PLA was good up until at least 1975. I was talking to a 90 something year old Chinese soldier this Spring who served in Myanmar during WW2 under the KMT regime, alongside the US, and from what he told me, the Chinese troops were superior to the Americans. During this time, China was allied with the US. He said the Americans didn't want to get their hands dirty, and were afraid to die. The soldier was still standing strong at 90+ years old, and carrying his own weight. He didn't require a cane or any assistance, and was traveling back and forth from the mainland to TW all on his own. Still, even the PLA 40-50 years old are strong, and tough. The ones I have met have been strong, disciplined, and unafraid of hard work. I believe there is a video out there surfacing of a competition between the Chinese and US marines in an obstacle course, and the Chinese soldiers won. I don't believe American strength comes from their troops. Their true strength comes from their desire to defeat the enemy, and willingness to do anything it takes to crush their enemies. American strength comes from covert operations, and their ability to buy out their enemy. China simply doesn't have that heart. Compared to 1966, only a small handful of Chinese actually have faith in their country. Today's China is even more fragmented than it was in 1948.
I don't know how good Chinese soldiers are today. They haven't fought in 40 years, although I suspect they've gotten soft, but today's Vietnamese troops haven't been tested either. And if China falls, I suspect the US will go after Vietnam soon after. Just like how the west went after China after the USSR fell. At that point Vietnam will become another Syria, and almost certainly overseas Vietnamese will be used against Vietnam. Not only that, the US is certain to also go after India, because the west does not like independent countries, and India has proclaimed itself as an independent country. The USSR had the upper hand in the Soviet bloc, but Mao ought to be respected for sticking to his principles, at least up until 1971, 18 yrs after the USSR had abandoned its principles. I don't think Xiaoping begged for help from the US. What is more likely to be true is that Xiaoping invaded Vietnam to prove himself as a worthy ally (儿皇帝） to the US, which turned out to be a stupid decision because the US tried to overthrow him in 89. That's the popular consensus. There may be 1 billion people who don't like Xi, but that doesn't mean all 1 billion of those people can be tools for the west, and they don't like Xi for different reasons. A lot of Chinese don't like Xi, or the west. Many of them don't like Xi because of his associations with the west, so I doubt they will be sympathetic towards the west. Only those on the far right can be considered reliable for the west, which is at the most 300 million, but out of those 300 million, how many can be counted on for actual combat? One thing we have to remember about bourgeoisie is that they are very calculating people. They also love living luxuriously, so not all of them are willing to get their hands dirty, or put in any kind of work whatsoever. And not all bourgeoisie are against Xi. Most of them live comfortable lives, and don't want any disruptions. But those are only current situations. It could be that in 10 years, when China gets "richer" that the political climate changes, and the west makes gains through propaganda. At that point, it is likely more CN bourgeoisie will be willing to fight for the US, and the circumstances will be more favorable towards the west. As I've said before, the normal pattern is, the "richer" a country becomes, the more sympathetic they become towards the west, because through business, the west is able to gain control over countries, and that has been happening quickly in CN for the past 40 years. What history has shown us is that countries can be overthrown by a small group of bourgeoisie, even though the west failed in 89 against China, but today's China is much different. The pro western forces have been growing at a rapid rate for the past 30 years, and continues to grow. As China agresively opens up its markets, ultimately, they will be opening themselves up to destabilization as well. That's the way it works. If you want a market economy, political interference is guaranteed.
Big disruptions can be made by a small group of bourgeoisie. 70% of Soviets voted to stay in the USSR, however, it was a group of no less than 10% of bourgeoisie who changed the entire landscape of the USSR. More recently, the pro Russian Ukraine, led by Yanukovych, and before that, all of eastern Europe fell in a similar fashion. Hong Kong is another example. The main reason why the west will prevail is because the west has shown itself time and time again that they are determined to dispose of the Deng dynasty, whereas the Deng dynasty has shown no signs of retaliation, or even intentions of retaliation. Even when China sold billions in US dollars, the CN media had to come out with a statement saying that it was not a move against the US. I've said this before, when a country is using all its might against you, and you practice "non interference", you are guaranteed to lose. What's worse is that China is actually funding the west to undermine China.
)
