Why are we NOT being told about China’s self proclaimed new sea "boundaries"?  [....] Apparently China has greatly extended her declared sea boundaries into the neighboring territorial waters of other countries to claim additional "rights" to those areas including Vietnam. It seems that the reason is to take (or steal) the oil reserves of these new areas for themselves.
The Red Chinese
dangerous possible choice for a modern superpower
with a nuclear arsenal
. Yes, much
worse than the Russians
. Whereas the Chinese might coldly rationalize the potential war-time loss of a few hundreds of millions of its ordinary citizens and soldiers, the Slavic "Evil Empire" of the late-20th century had a fresh-enough memory of millions of its citizens dying in the the forced collectivization of farms (and resultant famines), Stalin's purges, and the defeat of the invading Nazis. Russia
now has a declining population
Russians--as its elder citizens die off, and its younger citizens live lives that fail to produce children at their necessary replacement rate
--as do all populations in Europe except Albania.
Despite both countries operating under modified-communist systems, the Russians don't have the centuries of cultural arrogance
that the Red Chinese have little hesitation in exhibiting to the world. When the first imperial Russian diplomatic delegations, representing Tsars Alexis I, then Feodor III, arrived in Beijing/Peking in the late 17th century, the Manchu Chinese (Qing Dynasty) emperor and his bureaucrats believed that the gifts brought by the Russians signified that the "Tsar of all the Russias
" was offering himself as vassal
to China, and the gifts were Russian tribute
to the emperor of China. To the Chinese, it was obvious; for what other purposes would foreign caravans possibly be bringing gifts to their emperor? Especially considering that there were so few products that mere foreigners could offer that the Chinese wanted. The Chinese simply had no concept at all of foreign gifts being intended to initiate an exchange
of gifts between diplomatic equals.
Can there be any doubt that getting Hong Kong back, as a powerful economic machine developed under British mercantilism & capitalism instead of Maoist communism, puffed out Red-Chinese chests in 1997? It was less obvious that residents fleeing Hong Kong puffed up the California real-estate market of the early 1990s.
Modern U.S. business & political leaders greedily--and foolishly--handed over U.S. manufacturing capacity to China
, and outsourced high-tech hardware & services to China and elsewhere, getting no substantial national benefit for the U.S.A.
in return. That's excluding nearly-done deals rejected by rare
U.S. public, Congressional, or bureaucratic backlashes, e.g.: major U.S. port logistics management, or the acquisition of Cisco Systems (digital communications switching), by Chinese corporations. If the U.S.A. ever again needs to convert consumer-products factories into weapons factories, to have a fighting chance to win a major war, we'll be up the proverbial, um, malarial
creek without a paddle.
Red China has become so cash-rich that its military now seems free from the wry old rule-of-thumb for the wealthy: "If you have to ask how much something costs, you can't afford it". Nowadays, when Red China wants a particular strategic foothold--or a weapons
system--it can now buy into it--or just buy it.
Meanwhile, even the postsoviet "Russian Federation", with boundaries more-or-less the same as the RSFSR, has twice as much land as China
does (6.6 vs. 3.7 million sq. mi.)
- . Where might China be looking for lebensraum  to settle its predictable population increase?  25-year's worth of increase that by itself, would exceed the whole population of the "Russian Federation", hmmm?
Note #: I'm unsure how much numerical  population decline is really the result of boundaries that shrunk as former nominal "republics" seceded from the formally dissolved Union of Soviet Socialist "Republics", credited with 270 million population total in the final decade under the red hammer-&-sickle flag (1987 Rand McNally Atlas, which also shows 138 million for its Russian Soviet Federated Socialist "Republic" alone). For the postsoviet "Russian Federation", Wikipedia now shows a 2014-est. 144 million population (altho' my writing above was based on 147 million given in my initial source: chap. 5 in Pat (J.) Buchanan's grim The Death of the West, with uncited "projected [...] 114 million by 2050" [p. 102]). For comparison, Red China is credited with 1.012 billion population for 1987 (R.McN.), turn-of-21st century 1.25 billion, to "expect[ed] 250 million more people by 2025 assuming the cold-blooded Chinese 1-child policy continues (P.J.B. 2002).