China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.

[aviation_enthus]

Next decade is plausible, before 2022 is not. Just because China has the desire or stated aim to incorporate Taiwan, doesn’t mean they’ll have the physical ability to invade in the next 2-3 years. There’s been plenty of coverage on this site about the ship building program, I think most people would agree China is “not quite there yet” (vs the USN).

From a previous post:

“I worry that they’re accelerating their ambitions to supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules-based international order, which they’ve long said that they want to do that by 2050. I’m worried about them moving that target closer,” he continued. “Taiwan is clearly one of their ambitions before then. And I think the threat is manifest during this decade, in fact in the next six years.”

Davidson: China Could Try to Take Control of Taiwan In 'Next Six Years' - USNI News

China could attempt to take control of Taiwan by the end of the decade, the admiral leading U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said today. Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Phil Davidson said China’s aggression in the region leads him to believe its goal of seizing Taiwan...

news.usni.org

@aviation_enthus The convention is that when you quote something as you have you are required to provide the source that you obtained it from. It's also one of the rules. This protects both you and the forum from accusations of plagiarism.

->admin: Done!

This sort of comment from US commanders, commentators or politicians annoys me. Throughout history, having ONE superpower (like the USA since 1989), is not a “normal” state of the world.

- Portugal and Spain (New World)
- Britain and France (colonies)
- USA/USSR (Cold War)

That’s in more recent history, go back further and there’s been plenty of major (but more regional specific) powers existing at various points in history.

The USA and China will learn to accommodate each other, either through direct conflict or negotiation. The world will divide into “spheres of influence”, no single country will be able to maintain global domination.

 

[John Fedup]

If China continues on track with their economy and military buildup and US political polarization (or worse) further erodes the US, there will be a new single superpower. Europe is a mess and India with its youthful population is a possible rival but that is many years down the road and they have their political issues as well. It is shaping up to be the Chinese century unless the rest of the world gets its $hit together.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe China assumes nobody would consider invasion prior to the Olympics in 2022....opportunity for a surprise attack? Another consideration is would a boycott of the 2022 games be a trigger?

Conditions aren't quite right for it. While anything is almost always possible it is unlikely.
I don't think boycotting the games would be enough pressure. Winter Olympics? Record number of Chinese and Russian athletes winning? Kicking the Russians out in 2018 did diddily.

China's current sanctions against Australia aren't going how China thought. I'm not sure you could rely on that being an indicator or precursor to action or rising tensions. China loosing face over its lack of economic coercive power is terrible.

Column: China fails to learn from Trump backfire in trade war, is losing against Australia

China is paying a heavy toll for its efforts to punish Australia by banning or restricting certain commodity imports, while conversely Australia seems to have avoided any serious financial ramifications so far.

www.reuters.com

China's Australia coal ban is likely to be dwarfed by the EU carbon tariffs, which will likely have a much greater effect, globally. Something that is likely to annoy Russia as well.

Also China was somewhat clumsily politically out done on trade, by lets say, a fairly average Australian administration (relying on talented bureaucrats and that magical of all Australian resources, sheer blind luck)

COVID, Barley and a most unusual Australia-China trade war

Canberra’s case at the WTO is a gesture that offers Beijing a chance to walk back a trade war it can’t politically win.

thehill.com

Being Goliath and having David throw stones seemingly randomly and them hit you every time, in the eye, isn't just bad tactics, its emasculating and demoralizing. Of all nations, China had invested more in Australia per capita than basically anywhere on the planet. All its influence and power was having no effect. The fact that Australia felt it could do this while its American friend (and all its allies) struggled with its identity crisis and its own internal dramas, during a global crisis, made it even worse. Also the game of arrest your citizen is also played out I think.

I don't think China is going to grab the economic power book when dealing with wealthy western economies. They know those tickets don't work.

China's strong on intelligence, people power, soft pressure. We have seen how a larger nation can take territory away before. The Russians did it in front of everyone. What did it cost them? Part participation in the 2018 winter Olympics? There is no big wind up, just some confusion and distraction.

 

[OPSSG]

Next decade is plausible, before 2022 is not. Just because China has the desire or stated aim to incorporate Taiwan, doesn’t mean they’ll have the physical ability to invade in the next 2-3 years. There’s been plenty of coverage on this site about the ship building program, I think most people would agree China is “not quite there yet” (vs the USN).



“I worry that they’re accelerating their ambitions to supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules-based international order, which they’ve long said that they want to do that by 2050. I’m worried about them moving that target closer,” he continued. “Taiwan is clearly one of their ambitions before then. And I think the threat is manifest during this decade, in fact in the next six years.”

This sort of comment from US commanders, commentators or politicians annoys me. Throughout history, having ONE superpower (like the USA since 1989), is not a “normal” state of the world.

- Portugal and Spain (New World)
- Britain and France (colonies)
- USA/USSR (Cold War)

That’s in more recent history, go back further and there’s been plenty of major (but more regional specific) powers existing at various points in history.

The USA and China will learn to accommodate each other, either through direct conflict or negotiation. The world will divide into “spheres of influence”, no single country will be able to maintain global domination.

Best and most concise post, I have seen since posts #158 and #328 of this thread. Thank you for the lovely food for thought.

 

[SolarWind]

The democratic system in the US leads to balance over time. Any talk of US erosion due to political polarization is either information war or wishful thinking by Russian and Chinese state-sponsored analysts and press, who believe in self-fulfillment of their prophecies. The fact that the political polarization in the US is sustainable is evidence of the strength of the system. If you pay attention to American politics you would notice that in Congress, foreign policy is usually bipartisan, if not unanimous, unlike domestic policy, which is usually split among party lines. The bottom line is any talk of US demise is highly exaggerated.

 

[Ananda]

Xi’s Gambit: China Plans for a World Without American Technology (Published 2021)

Beijing’s leaders plot a path to go it alone, vowing to spend big to fill gaps in innovation and avoid dependence on the United States and others.

www.nytimes.com

Sorry since this's from NYT, they usually have limit to open their article for non subscribers. The point of article basically why Xi administration see technology "Independence" is the a very strategic goals. They will spend tens of billions to build tech development to there. They know the have to gain capabilities on chips development that can rival US source.

This means they have to build domestic RnD centers that not only can rival US Labs and RnD centers, but also create more initiative on tech development. Problems is in my opinion asside their own capabilities, they only can rely with Russian. As I do believe based on current development, the Japanese, and European RnD centers will also take more precaution against Chinese co-op.

This will be huge endeavors, but it's shown how China see the future global competition will be. This's also reflect with increasing Sino-Russian endeavor in Aerospace and Space, the creadle of Technology competition.

 

[John Fedup]

The democratic system in the US leads to balance over time. Any talk of US erosion due to political polarization is either information war or wishful thinking by Russian and Chinese state-sponsored analysts and press, who believe in self-fulfillment of their prophecies. The fact that the political polarization in the US is sustainable is evidence of the strength of the system. If you pay attention to American politics you would notice that in Congress, foreign policy is usually bipartisan, if not unanimous, unlike domestic policy, which is usually split among party lines. The bottom line is any talk of US demise is highly exaggerated.

I am not an American but living next door in Canada, the vibes I get is that polarization is a big problem, especially with local militias that really haven’t been watched enough, especially by the Trump administration. I will let the more knowledgeable American members comment on how big a problem this polarization is.

 

[SolarWind]

I am not an American but living next door in Canada, the vibes I get is that polarization is a big problem, especially with local militias that really haven’t been watched enough, especially by the Trump administration. I will let the more knowledgeable American members comment on how big a problem this polarization is.

Armed militias aren't anything new and they are an outlier. I don't know how many exist, but FBI deals with them before they become a problem. We rarely hear about that in the news.

Polarization mostly manifests on TV and in social media where the issues tend to be grossly exaggerated. People think very differently and disagree very strongly. However, gatherings for protest only happen where they are tolerated by state and local government, which are all democratically elected. Most of the disagreement between the two poles are about how to interpret the Constitution and how to better run the country, for things like health care, taxes, immigration, minimum wage, firearms, etc.

The people who stormed the Capitol, are, in my opinion, just idiots who didn't understand the gravity of what they were doing, and will go to jail for it.

 

[John Fedup]

Armed militias aren't anything new and they are an outlier. I don't know how many exist, but FBI deals with them before they become a problem. We rarely hear about that in the news.

Polarization mostly manifests on TV and in social media where the issues tend to be grossly exaggerated. People think very differently and disagree very strongly. However, gatherings for protest only happen where they are tolerated by state and local government, which are all democratically elected. Most of the disagreement between the two poles are about how to interpret the Constitution and how to better run the country, for things like health care, taxes, immigration, minimum wage, firearms, etc.

The people who stormed the Capitol, are, in my opinion, just idiots who didn't understand the gravity of what they were doing, and will go to jail for it.

Ok but OT so best to end this as this isn’t the right thread. The next 2-4 years will tell us where things are going.

 

[ngatimozart]

Next decade is plausible, before 2022 is not. Just because China has the desire or stated aim to incorporate Taiwan, doesn’t mean they’ll have the physical ability to invade in the next 2-3 years. There’s been plenty of coverage on this site about the ship building program, I think most people would agree China is “not quite there yet” (vs the USN).



“I worry that they’re accelerating their ambitions to supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules-based international order, which they’ve long said that they want to do that by 2050. I’m worried about them moving that target closer,” he continued. “Taiwan is clearly one of their ambitions before then. And I think the threat is manifest during this decade, in fact in the next six years.”

@aviation_enthus The convention is that when you quote something as you have you are required to provide the source that you obtained it from. It's also one of the rules. This protects both you and the forum from accusations of plagiarism.

This sort of comment from US commanders, commentators or politicians annoys me. Throughout history, having ONE superpower (like the USA since 1989), is not a “normal” state of the world.

- Portugal and Spain (New World)
- Britain and France (colonies)
- USA/USSR (Cold War)

That’s in more recent history, go back further and there’s been plenty of major (but more regional specific) powers existing at various points in history.

The USA and China will learn to accommodate each other, either through direct conflict or negotiation. The world will divide into “spheres of influence”, no single country will be able to maintain global domination.

Cracker post.

I definitely agree that a single superpower is an aberration and that a multipolar world is the norm. The US may not like that and rail against it, but it has no real choice in the matter. However it does have a choice in how it handles the rise of the PRC and that choice is important. The wrong choices lead either to war or PRC domination. The correct choice leads to peaceful, yet wary coexistence. The third choice will be the hardest to achieve, especially when the PRC says one thing and does the opposite. They are far more different and difficult to deal with than the USSR was, making them more dangerous.


We also should not fall into the trap of continually analysing the PRC through a western liberal and cultural lens because that's not how they work. We have to analyse them through a Chinese cultural and a communist with Chinese characteristics lens, to really start understanding where they are coming from and what informs their decision making process. Only then can we really give informed opinions on what we think that they will do or not do.

 

[weaponwh]

10 years ago or if anyone more moderate than Xi was in charge that would most likely be the case. However, Xi is on a mission and he fully intends to fully invest Taiwan. You just have to look at Hong Kong, and the Uygher genocide. So far there hasn't been any economic fall out for the PRC over either. Fully investing Taiwan and returning the rebellious province to the motherland has been central CCP policy since 1949 and they aren't going to change that for anything.

I would argue that 6 years is the window that they have before the forces against them build up enough strength to make what is an already difficult operation more difficult. They have very little experience in conducting an amphibious operation against a well defended target, and the PLA have no experience in modern warfare. That increases the level of difficulty significantly.

Remember that this is a political imperative for the CCP and it is something that they cannot back down from because it would reduce their political status with the masses.

integrate taiwan into mainland was policy since 49, its not like something Xi just came up recently. xinjiang issue was there since 2009 , china start cracking down hard after the riot, this is before xi was the chairman.
as for Hong kong, CCP see it as immediate security issue right after 2019 protest(they can't stand protester rush into HK legislator office and desecrate national symbol etc), and accelerated security law right after that, years after Xi take over. remember there were protest in 2014, CCP didn't do much back then. if 2019 protest was similar to 2014, i dont think CCP will do much afterward. Beside china have about 80,000 protest per year in mainland.
China will crack down any domestic opposition to their power, doesn't matter its Xi or other in charge. Jiang crack down on falungong back in 90s, and the tiannmen square 89.

Invasion of taiwan is different level of severity in term of international perception, and China know this. China military is growing, so 5, 10, 20, 30 years from now its gonna be much different. Where taiwan due to its size/grow potential will lag further and further behind. Also Taiwan internal politic is not align, KMT prefer 92 consensus, and blame the opposition party for any economic fallout. Taiwan heavily rely on mainland economy as well. as long as China is stable and growing, time is on their side., and they know it. So basically they can wait till 2035 or later for much better chance at taking over taiwan. Xi dont want to have a legacy of taiwan invasion failure. beside he start his career as pig farmer, and had decades of govern experience, so he is definitely knowledgeable, have plenty experience, and outmaneuver his opponent to achieve today's position. Not someone can easily made a blunt decision. They waited over 70 years, they can wait another decade or two.

if china is not stable, they might use external opponent to drove up domestic support. In that case they might start a war with taiwan. but that just a theory.

 

[ngatimozart]

@weaponwh Jiang didn't make himself leader for life and it was Deng who crushed the Tiannamin Square student protesters in 1989. Xi has made himself leader for life and another Helmsman just slightly not as great as Mao. He's surpassed Deng in the purity of thought and Xi thought is now second only to Mao thought. He's starting a cult of personality, the very thing that Deng railed against after the excesses of Mao. That's why Deng structured the top job so that no one individual could hold it for more than 10 years.

Xi is in a hurry for some reason. If he wasn't he would've dealt with the SCS and Hong Kong differently showing the peaceful harmless face to the world. But he didn't and now the world is awake, watchful and wary. That makes any overt moves against Taiwan more difficult, but not impossible. It just narrows the window for such an operation.

 

[weaponwh]

@weaponwh Jiang didn't make himself leader for life and it was Deng who crushed the Tiannamin Square student protesters in 1989. Xi has made himself leader for life and another Helmsman just slightly not as great as Mao. He's surpassed Deng in the purity of thought and Xi thought is now second only to Mao thought. He's starting a cult of personality, the very thing that Deng railed against after the excesses of Mao. That's why Deng structured the top job so that no one individual could hold it for more than 10 years.

Xi is in a hurry for some reason. If he wasn't he would've dealt with the SCS and Hong Kong differently showing the peaceful harmless face to the world. But he didn't and now the world is awake, watchful and wary. That makes any overt moves against Taiwan more difficult, but not impossible. It just narrows the window for such an operation.

Xi, just like putin is consulate his power and root out any opposition. Xi does have ambition for China for sure, his one belt one road, 2025 plan etc., but it doesn't mean hes going to take the risk of invading taiwan in 6 years. That scenarios while exist, but the chance is small. I think in the near term his focus will be what he called it revitalization of china. I watch the recent 5 year plan a bit, it seem mostly concentrate on science and shed dependency on IC from US. Make sense due to recent trump ban on tech sold to china. So i think china will focus on its economy/science R&D as its main priority, taiwan etc will be secondary as long there aren't any significant event that change the status quo.
I also think China will wait until they belief they have absolute advantage over taiwan. Maybe before 2050(their 100 year goal) but not within 6 years. That been said, I dont think anyone know the internal politic of Xi and its elite members. so i guess we just have to wait and see.
as mention before HK protest 2019 vs 2014 is quite different, something CCP wont tolerate is seeing Hkonger rush into HK legislator building, desecrate national symbol etc, Also they wont accept continuation of protest like this every few years, so im sure any CCP leader in charge will do something about it. They basically use national security law to seal off any future attempt of protest we seen in 2014/2019.

 

[ngatimozart]

@weaponwh Well that's the crux of the matter, we don't know the internal politics and allegiances within the Politburo and the CMC. However from appearances Xi has been good at purging his political opposition. Xi is relatively young too so the expectation that given a normal life span, he should remain in charge for the next 20 years or so. Unless there is a palace coup of course.

 

[OPSSG]

@weaponwh Well that's the crux of the matter, we don't know the internal politics and allegiances within the Politburo and the CMC. However from appearances Xi has been good at purging his political opposition. Xi is relatively young too so the expectation that given a normal life span, he should remain in charge for the next 20 years or so. Unless there is a palace coup of course.

As I see it all politics at CMC is factional politics with some factions winning by siding with Xi but that is a really complex discussion that I will not want to elaborate on further. We just can’t get good open source info on who is which faction and everyone in China is speculating — but they are careful not to have a written record.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't see any strong internal factions opposing Xi openly, currently. That isn't likely to happen, he is too competent and too popular both internally and externally of the party. They will wait and challenge at succession, while "young", he is still nearly 70. Who ever succeeds him is unlikely to be of the same generation.

What will likely develop are favorites vying for attention and promotion. Any successor or faction leader will be keen to demonstrate talent, even if it is behind the scenes or obscured. China will face a series of challenges over the next 10 years, and most of the biggest ones will be internal. Shrinking population (and economy), aging population (massive labor shortage), middle income trap (of which few countries can develop out of) are all likely to hit at the same time. Externally, throw in a global economic system, which being positive, is fragile and low growth, environmental issues (of which climate change is just one, fish stocks will cause more issues in the short term), global geopolitical issues, and the future looks to be quiet challenging. In a one party system I think this is going to throw up some hard challenges as people try to move out of impossible portfolios to safer ones.

An invasion of Taiwan can take many forms. It does not have to mean taking of the main island itself. It does not have to be a traditional military invasion. While this may be an eventual aim, its extremely unlikely to be the first step. Seeing progress may be seen as a win internally. Politicians have always redefined what winning means. Peace in our time, Making it great again, best ever, most what ever.

 

[SolarWind]

The global economy is not so much fragile, the correct term is volatility, which is measurable, and what you call low global growth rate is attributed to limitations on developing new technology by developed countries. China's high growth rate has had to do with its economic catching up with developed countries, which China has not yet fully achieved. A high growth rate in developing countries, including China, is subject to ready availability of technology to the developing country, such as those used in developed countries. If the flow of technology to China is cut, it will be up to China to research them on their own, thus placing them on similar economic growth rate footing as developed countries.

 

[Feanor]

The global economy is not so much fragile, the correct term is volatility, which is measurable, and what you call low global growth rate is attributed to limitations on developing new technology by developed countries. China's high growth rate has had to do with its economic catching up with developed countries, which China has not yet fully achieved. A high growth rate in developing countries, including China, is subject to ready availability of technology to the developing country, such as those used in developed countries. If the flow of technology to China is cut, it will be up to China to research them on their own, thus placing them on similar economic growth rate footing as developed countries.

Not necessarily. First off the flow of technology can only in rare cases be cut completely. Second off even if you don't have direct access to the technology the mere known existence of the technology can point you in the right direction for your own research. Realistically even if the flow of technology is significantly hampered a country can still develop faster if its behind, just not nearly as fast as it would with unrestricted flow of technology. Of course the technology aspect is far from the only one. Technology is available to many third world countries but only some are able to make good use of it to develop.

 

[cdxbow]

Not necessarily. First off the flow of technology can only in rare cases be cut completely. Second off even if you don't have direct access to the technology the mere known existence of the technology can point you in the right direction for your own research. Realistically even if the flow of technology is significantly hampered a country can still develop faster if its behind, just not nearly as fast as it would with unrestricted flow of technology. Of course the technology aspect is far from the only one. Technology is available to many third world countries but only some are able to make good use of it to develop.

There is an 'art' element in manufacturing that can be hard to replicate even with the item and the knowledge of how it was made. Two examples come to mind, the ball point pen flummoxed Chinese manufactures for many years, manufacturing high performance jet engines still does. This is separate from the issue of third world countries as you point out, as they may lack the scientific, technological or manufacturing infrastructure to make use of the knowledge. In some areas 3D printing and other computer driven manufacturing technologies can level the playing field a bit as they are relatively self contained, cheap and accessible, which sort of guarantees the widespread production of things like small drones.

 

[Vivendi]

Some analysts believe that there is a real danger of military conflict related to Taiwan, long before 2027:

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, McMaster called Taiwan "the most significant flashpoint" that could lead to a large-scale war with China and sees the period of "greatest danger" beginning in 2022 after the conclusion of the Beijing Winter Olympics.

"I think that has to do with really Xi Jinping's belief that he has a fleeting window of opportunity that's closing, and he wants to, in his view, 'make China whole again,'" he said.

Is war with China just a matter of time? (washingtonexaminer.com)

Although this scenario seems "not likely" I suggest one should be cautious. The political environment can change rapidly, potentially triggering Xi Jinping to execute plans that are already there. If something happens that changes the political calculus significantly China may decide to move even before the Olympics.

I suggest that the US should move with haste and rapidly assist in strengthening the Taiwanese deterrence. For example, Taiwan has recently ordered 400 Harpoon block II missiles and 135 SLAMM-ER missiles, however, it will take some time to execute those orders. In the interim the US should consider to "loan" a smaller number of missiles to Taiwan, to provide some deterrence until the missiles have been delivered.

Taiwan has ordered 66 new F-16 block 72, to be delivered by 2026. They are also working on upgrading their existing F-16 (19 had been upgraded by December 6 2020). Perhaps the US should also consider a small interim loan of F-16 block 52 to Taiwan, until those new F-16 can be delivered and/or the old upgraded.

In addition to the above, Taiwan is also developing submarines that could start entering service around 2025. When all this additional capability start getting in place it will increase the cost of an invasion. Thus China may consider it a "window of opportunity" to make a move well before 2026.

Taiwan says new Harpoon missiles will help it crush half of Chinese invasion fleet | Taiwan News | 2020/11/02
US finalizes sale of 66 F-16 fighters to Taiwan as China tensions escalate - CNN
Taiwan aiming to complete upgrade of 22 F-16A/B fighters by end of 2020 (janes.com)
Taiwan Is Finally Set To Build The New Diesel-Electric Submarines It Desperately Needs (thedrive.com)