One Chinese foreign policy expert in a virtual conference I'm attending today: "This is not a new Cold War situation. This is a 1914 situation. The risk is drifting into a hot war."

Several responses: "If this is 1914, we hear a lot about what other countries need to do to prevent it. But what must Beijing do? There is a lot of commonality among other countries regarding issues with China. Maybe this suggests some of the burden lies with Beijing to change."

Chinese participant: "China's leadership has no room to maneuver on Taiwan. If US keeps increasing pressure, China has one option: Let's roll."

US participant: "Pay attention to what's going on between China and Australia - it's really indicative of the direction of Chinese foreign policy right now. These 14 Demands, some of which are directed at Australia's civil society."

US participant, continued: "If China does not want to see this coalition building against it, it needs to seriously reconsider its policy direction and what it is doing."

Question: "Why does China has no room to maneuver on Taiwan? Is it domestic pressure?"

Answer, from Chinese participant: "If there's a formal declaration of independence, China *must* go with the military option. There is no question."

I believe the scholar speaking lives outside of China, but is a Chinese citizen. In any event, he uses "we" to refer to China.

Serious conversation right now at the online China conference I'm attending about whether to boycott the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics over human rights, including Xinjiang.

Western participant: "If this [Xinjiang] were happening anywhere other than China, would we still be going to the Olympics?"

European participant: A boycott of the Olympics would punish the athletes, and it will be difficult to find anyone willing to play alternative host to China. But an effort should be made to educate athletes about what is happening in Xinjiang, before they go.

I'm sorry I can't say who these speakers are, because Chatham House rules.