War with China: Are we closer than we think? | Under Investigation
WARNING.......DO NOT GIVE TIME FOR CHINA TO GET STRONGER, AND WAIT FOR THEIR (SCHEDULED) KINETIC WAR WITH THE WEST IN 2027. CHINA IS ALREADY AT WAR WITH US IN WORDS, BIOLOGICAL AND ACTIONS TO SINK THE DOLLAR. THE TIME IS NOW TO SINK ALL THEIR ASSETS TO DO OTHERWISE IS APPEASEMENT. It’s really hard to see a way not to get militarily involved in this now. It really does feel like the only three options are appeasement so they get to continue to build wherever they want and treat their people the way they do, allowing them to invade other nations over illegal sovereign claims, or military action against them. And although the last one seems most likely to work, it’s hard to see it not spiralling out of control into a full-scale war. I only hope when or if that happens that we can all rely on our fellow European and Asian allies to work together against China.
In May and June of this year, Chinese warships took turns appearing outside the first island chain, including the Liaoning aircraft carrier in eastern Taiwan and Okinawa waters. The specific method of the CCP’s Anti-Access and Area Denial is to attack the U.S. aircraft carrier formation so that it does not dare to approach China’s surrounding waters easily. In June and July, the U.S. military launched counterattacks in the East China Sea and the South China Sea in response to the CCP's weaknesses. It made clear that the Indo-Pacific strategy has become a priority for the U.S. in recent years.
The U.S. is preparing war with China and Russia at the same time
Fighting two wars at the same time
In the eyes of the U.S., China and Russia are the two most important adversaries: their vast territory, long history, profound national culture, and strategic nuclear weapons are all threats to American global hegemony. According to the U.S., the only way to eliminate the threat is that the two great powers’ submit to U.S.’ global hegemony. As regards Russia, which has yet to recover from its weakness, the U.S. hopes to completely dismantle it and destroy its nuclear weapons, causing it to lose all global influence. As regards China, which has a more united people, a more stable ruling party, and a healthier economy, the U.S. hopes to overthrow its leaders through a “color revolution” and gradually erode the Chinese people’s faith in communism. Maintaining military containment of both countries is, in Kroenig’s view, a non-negotiable premise.
00:00:00 - Could US Military Take on China (China vs United States - Who Would Win)
00:20:33 - What if China Launched an Attack on USA
00:41:12 - Why China is Terrified of US Airforce
01:03:38 - Why Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is a Disaster for China
01:27:39 - This Is Why China Will Start WW3
01:47:37 - Who Are the Quad and Why Are They After China
02:07:42 - America's Plan to Checkmate China
02:27:35 - How The Philippines Is Ruining China's Plans To Conquer Taiwan
02:46:59 - How the Philippines Became Key to US Pacific Strategy
03:06:55 - China's Brand New Aircraft Carrier vs USS Gerald R. Ford Supercarrier
Another proposal is to include U.S. “key allies in military planning, sharing responsibilities, and streamlining the division of labor for weapons procurement”. With the U.S. and its formal treaty allies accounting for nearly 60% of global GDP, Kroenig suggests that the U.S. supplement existing alliances (e.g., NATO, bilateral alliances in Asia) with new arrangements like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) to “more easily mobilize resources and maintain military superiority over China and Russia”. He suggested that U.S. European allies invest in armor and artillery, while Asian allies purchase mines, harpoon missiles, and submarines, and the U.S. Army prioritizes Europe while the U.S. Navy handles the Indo-Pacific.
The current U.S. policy towards Russia is not a blip on the radar, but a continuation of a decades-long Cold War strategy. In 1972, shortly after Kissinger’s secret visit to China, he told President Nixon that the Chinese were “just as dangerous as the Russians, and even more dangerous in certain historical periods”. He hoped that Washington could take advantage of Moscow and Beijing by playing “an unemotional balance of the power game”. In Kissinger’s view, 20 years later, the U.S. would lean towards Russia to restrain China, if it could first use China to weaken the Soviet Union. Subsequent U.S. administrations (both Democrat and Republican) followed through on this strategy, working with China and weakening the Soviet Union, hastening its collapse.
But the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not fully satisfy the U.S. During Yeltsin’s administration, the U.S. failed to persuade Russia—like Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan—to give up its nuclear weapons altogether. After the U.S. withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty in 2001, Russia also withdrew from the START II Treaty. At this time, Russia still deployed more than 5,000 strategic nuclear warheads and maintained a strong influence in Eastern Europe. The goal of the U.S. is to further weaken or destroy Russia economically, destabilize its politics, confuse the Russian people, and eventually dismantle Russia into smaller countries, and most importantly, eliminate its nuclear arsenal.
NATO’s eastward expansion has pushed the security issue in Ukraine to a boiling point. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward because its original mission—to confront the Soviet Union and contain communism in Europe—had come to an end when the Cold War ceased. However, NATO reneged on this “gentleman’s agreement” after the Cold War by adopting 14 more member countries, including some former members of the Soviet Union. In 2018, Ukraine amended its constitution to make attaining NATO and EU membership its primary national strategy, which posed a serious threat to Russia’s national security. As Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, is only 760 kilometers in a straight line from Moscow, giving permission to NATO to deploy ultra-high-sonic nuclear weapons in Ukraine would almost certainly mean the total military surrender of Russia.
NATO’s Eastward Expansion.
The United States discarded its oft-misunderstood “two war” doctrine, intended as a template for providing the means to fight two regional wars simultaneously, late last decade. Designed to deter North Korea from launching a war while the United States was involved in fighting against Iran or Iraq (or vice versa,) the idea helped give form to the Department of Defense’s procurement, logistical and basing strategies in the post–Cold War, when the United States no longer needed to face down the Soviet threat. The United States backed away from the doctrine because of changes in the international system, including the rising power of China and the proliferation of highly effective terrorist networks.
But what if the United States had to fight two wars today, and not against states like North Korea and Iran? What if China and Russia sufficiently coordinated with one another to engage in simultaneous hostilities in the Pacific and in Europe?
Political Coordination
Could Beijing and Moscow coordinate a pair of crises that would drive two separate U.S. military responses? Maybe, but probably not. Each country has its own goals, and works on its own timeline. More likely, one of the two would opportunistically take advantage of an existing crisis to further its regional claims. For example, Moscow might well decide to push the Baltic States if the United States became involved in a major skirmish in the South China Sea.
In any case, the war would start on the initiative of either Moscow or Beijing. The United States enjoys the benefits of the status quo in both areas, and generally (at least where great powers are concerned) prefers to use diplomatic and economic means to pursue its political ends. While the U.S. might create the conditions for war, Russia or China would pull the trigger.
On the upside, only some of the requirements for fighting in Europe and the Pacific overlap. As was the case in World War II, the U.S. Army would bear the brunt of defending Europe, while the Navy would concentrate on the Pacific. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) would play a supporting role in both theaters.
Russia lacks the ability to fight NATO in the North Atlantic, and probably has no political interest in trying. This means that while the United States and its NATO allies can allocate some resources to threatening Russia’s maritime space (and providing insurance against a Russian naval sortie,) the U.S. Navy (USN) can concentrate its forces in the Pacific. Depending on the length of the conflict and the degree of warning provided, the United States could transport considerable U.S. Army assets to Europe to assist with any serious fighting.
The bulk of American carriers, submarines and surface vessels would concentrate in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, fighting directly against China’s A2/AD system and sitting astride China’s maritime transit lanes. Long range aviation, including stealth bombers and similar assets, would operate in both theaters as needed.
The U.S. military would be under strong pressure to deliver decisive victory in at least one theater as quickly as possible. This might push the United States to lean heavily in one direction with air, space and cyber assets, hoping to achieve a strategic and political victory that would allow the remainder of its weight to shift to the other theater. Given the strength of U.S. allies in Europe, the United States might initially focus on the conflict in the Pacific.
Alliance Structure
U.S. alliance structure in the Pacific differs dramatically from that of Europe. Notwithstanding concern over the commitment of specific U.S. allies in Europe, the United States has no reason to fight Russia apart from maintaining the integrity of the NATO alliance. If the United States fights, then Germany, France, Poland and the United Kingdom will follow. In most conventional scenarios, even the European allies alone would give NATO a tremendous medium term advantage over the Russians; Russia might take parts of the Baltics, but it would suffer heavily under NATO airpower, and likely couldn’t hold stolen territory for long. In this context, the USN and USAF would largely play support and coordinative roles, giving the NATO allies the advantage they needed to soundly defeat the Russians. The U.S. nuclear force would provide insurance against a Russian decision to employ tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.
The United States faces more difficult problems in the Pacific. Japan or India might have an interest in the South China Sea, but this hardly guarantees their participation in a war (or even the degree of benevolence of their neutrality.) The alliance structure of any given conflict would depend on the particulars of that conflict; any of the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan could become China’s primary target. The rest, U.S. pressure aside, might well prefer to sit on the sidelines. This would put extra pressure on the United States to establish dominance in the Western Pacific with its own assets.
Parting Shots
The United States can still fight and win two major wars at the same time, or at least come near enough to winning that neither Russia nor China would see much hope in the gamble. The United States can do this because it continues to maintain the world’s most formidable military, and because it stands at the head of an extremely powerful military alliance. Moreover, Russia and China conveniently pose very different military problems, allowing the United States to allocate some of its assets to one, and the rest to the other.
However, it bears emphasis that this situation will not last forever. The United States cannot maintain this level of dominance indefinitely, and in the long-term will have to choose its commitments carefully. At the same time, the United States has created an international order that benefits many of the most powerful and prosperous countries in the world; it can count on their support, for a while.
USA WILL GO TO WAR TO PROTECT ITS TERRITORIES AND ECONOMIC INTEREST: TAKE RUSSIA BEFORE THE CHINESE DO IT: CAPTURE VLADIVOSTOK AND NORTH KOREA FIRST THEN CHINA
USA WILL GO TO WAR TO PROTECT OUR ECONOMIC INTEREST: TAKE RUSSIA BEFORE THE CHINESE DO IT: CAPTURE VLADIVOSTOK AND NORTH KOREA FIRST THEN CHINA
A new map of China's national borders has sparked protests from governments in Asia after its boundaries drew in the territories of its neighbors—including a small chunk of Russia.
The map, published on Monday by China's Ministry of Natural Resources, lays claim to disputed land on its southern border with India and encompasses all of Taiwan. Off its southern coast, Beijing's so-called "dashed line" captures huge tracts of the South China Sea, where islands, reefs and maritime zones are contested by half a dozen countries.
Beijing's longstanding territorial claims on its periphery aren't new. Under Chinese leader Xi Jinping, however, China has employed its growing hard power to consolidate its ambitions. In recent years, its neighbors have also faced the ramped-up presence of the Chinese coast guard. Watch the movie below..........
Russia
Moscow and Beijing put aside their centuries-old boundary disagreements for the sake of political stability two decades ago. The last territorial settlement, finally ratified by the parliaments of both nations in 2005, resolved their shared eastern border, now under renewed scrutiny because of China's map service.
Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island, or Heixiazi, sits at the confluence of two border rivers, and ownership is legally shared between the two countries. China's official map paints the entire 135-square mile piece of strategic land into its easternmost territory.
The Kremlin has yet to comment on the map, which Beijing said was compiled using "national boundaries of China and various countries in the world."
Russia's Foreign Ministry didn't return an emailed request for comment.
India
Xi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India met days earlier, seemingly cordially, at the recent BRICS summit in South Africa, and China's map controversy comes two weeks before they are set to meet again in New Delhi for the upcoming Group of 20 forum.
The Indian government and at least one lawmaker were the first to respond to what they considered a cartological land grab of India's northern state of Arunachal Pradesh, at the eastern end of the 2,100-mile disputed border commonly known as the line of actual control.
Beijing considers the region part of Tibet and announced new Chinese place names there in April. Its map also includes Aksai Chin in the west, controlled by China but claimed by India.
"We have today lodged a strong protest through diplomatic channels with the Chinese side on the so called 2023 'standard map' of China that lays claim to India's territory," Arindam Bagchi, a spokesperson for India's External Affairs Ministry, said on Wednesday.
"We reject these claims as they have no basis. Such steps by the Chinese side only complicate the resolution of the boundary question," Bagchi said
Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India's foreign minister, called Beijing's move "an old habit." He told Indian broadcaster NDTV: "This government is very clear what our territories are. Making absurd claims doesn't make others' territories yours."
"India cannot afford to remain a mute spectator to such Chinese activities," said defense analyst Ashok Kumar, a retired major general of India's armed forces.
"India has to re-strategize to counter such actions in a proactive manner. It will be ironic to host the Chinese premier as part of the G20 summit when such an action has been taken just before this meet,"
The map shows new territorial borders, but the land grab has sparked protest from India, Malaysia and others MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CHINA
South China Sea
"A correct national map is a symbol of national sovereignty and territorial integrity," Li Yongchun, a senior resources ministry official, said of the newly released map, on which 10 dashes can be seen encircling the entirety of the South China Sea.
"The publicity and education of national territory awareness is an important content of patriotic education and an integral part of ideological work in the new era," Li said. "Maps, text, images and paintings can all describe national territory, but maps are the most common and intuitive form of expression of national territory."
Malaysia was the first of the littoral states on the energy-rich sea to come out in opposition to the Chinese map, which claims disputed features and most of the country's exclusive economic zone. International law recognizes a state's right to the maritime resources within its EEZ, which extends up to 200 nautical miles from the coastline.
"Malaysia does not recognize China's 2023 standard map, which outlines portions of Malaysian waters near Sabah and Sarawak as belonging to China," the Malaysian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "Malaysia is not bound to China's 2023 standard map in any way."
"Malaysia is of the view that the South China Sea issue is a complex and sensitive matter. It must be handled in a peaceful and rational manner through dialogues and negotiations based on international laws, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)."
Tensions simmer between Poland and Belarus after incursion reported
I'm a Mormon on OnlyFans
The West isn't buying into China's year of diplomacy
Russian forces unable to return Ukrainian fire in key area: ISW
The Philippines—frequently blockaded by China's coast guard vessels while attempting to resupply a Manila-held outpost in the Spratly Islands—said its foreign affairs department would lodge a diplomatic protest because the map "infringes upon the sovereignty, the sovereign rights and the territorial integrity of the Philippines," according to Jonathan Malaya, the assistant director of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s National Security Council.
Beijing's extensive maritime claims in the region were roundly rejected in 2016 after the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in Manila's favor in Philippines v. China. The Chinese government refused to participate in the case and has never recognized the tribunal's verdict.
China's Foreign Ministry said the map publication was "a routine practice in China's exercise of sovereignty in accordance with the law." Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said on Wednesday: "We hope relevant sides can stay objective and calm, and refrain from overinterpreting the issue."
Indonesia considers itself a non-claimant when it comes to physical territory in the South China Sea, but it remains in dispute with China over fishing rights in the Indonesian EEZ. Its Foreign Ministry said on Thursday that depictions of territorial boundaries should comply with UNCLOS.
The governments of Brunei and Vietnam didn't return separate written requests for comment.
Taiwan
Taiwan's inclusion in the Chinese map would have surprised few. Beijing maintains a long-running claim to the democratically government island, whose Republic of China government retains control over Taiwan proper as well as a number of outlying island groups, including two off China's east coast.
Taipei has spent decades rebuffing Beijing's sovereignty claims but has only recently hiked up its defense spending to meet China's enlarged military footprint in and around the Taiwan Strait. The geopolitical and geoeconomic ramifications of any move to take the island by force aren't lost on Taiwan's neighbors, or its backers in the United States.
Jeff Liu, a spokesperson for Taiwan's Foreign Mionistry, told reporters on Wednesday that "the People's Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan. That is the fact and the status quo universally recognized by the international community."
"Regardless of how the Chinese government distorts its claims to Taiwan's sovereignty, it cannot change the objective reality of our country's existence," Liu said.
Japan
China and neighboring Japan have a long history of disagreements. This week, a renewed war of words followed Beijing's decision to ban all Japanese seafood products in response to Tokyo's discharge of diluted waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant, which was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
But just northeast of Taiwan in the East China Sea, barely visible on China's new map, lies the disputed Senkaku Island group, which China calls Diaoyu and Taiwan claims as Diaoyutai. The uninhabited islets are under Japanese administration—and protected by a U.S. defense treaty.
The territorial dispute, which Taipei now rarely engages in due to warming ties with Tokyo, flared up a decade ago when the Japanese government nationalized the islands. Since then, China's largest maritime law enforcement ships—some equipped with autocannons—have staked Beijing's claim to the islets by circling them on a near-daily basis, often anchoring in their territorial waters for days.
It is just one of several potential flashpoints in Asia involving territorial disputes between China and its neighbors.
Li, the Chinese government official, said Beijing's new map had "serious political and strict legal nature" as well.
Why China Will Reclaim Siberia
“A land without people for a people without land.” At the turn of the 20th century, that slogan promoted Jewish migration to Palestine. It could be recycled today, justifying a Chinese takeover of Siberia. Of course, Russia's Asian hinterland isn't really empty (and neither was Palestine). But Siberia is as resource-rich and people-poor as China is the opposite. The weight of that logic scares the Kremlin.
Moscow recently restored the Imperial Arch in the Far Eastern frontier town of Blagoveshchensk, declaring: “The earth along the Amur was, is and always will be Russian.” But Russia's title to all of the land is only about 150 years old. And the sprawl of highrises in Heihe, the Chinese boomtown on the south bank of the Amur, right across from Blagoveshchensk, casts doubt on the “always will be” part of the old czarist slogan.
Like love, a border is real only if both sides believe in it. And on both sides of the Sino-Russian border, that belief is wavering.
Siberia – the Asian part of Russia, east of the Ural Mountains – is immense. It takes up three-quarters of Russia's land mass, the equivalent of the entire U.S. and India put together. It's hard to imagine such a vast area changing hands. But like love, a border is real only if both sides believe in it. And on both sides of the Sino-Russian border, that belief is wavering.
The border, all 2,738 miles of it, is the legacy of the Convention of Peking of 1860 and other unequal pacts between a strong, expanding Russia and a weakened China after the Second Opium War. (Other European powers similarly encroached upon China, but from the south. Hence the former British foothold in Hong Kong, for example.)
The 1.35 billion Chinese people south of the border outnumber Russia's 144 million almost 10 to 1. The discrepancy is even starker for Siberia on its own, home to barely 38 million people, and especially the border area, where only 6 million Russians face over 90 million Chinese. With intermarriage, trade and investment across that border, Siberians have realized that, for better or for worse, Beijing is a lot closer than Moscow.
The vast expanses of Siberia would provide not just room for China's huddled masses, now squeezed into the coastal half of their country by the mountains and deserts of western China. The land is already providing China, “the factory of the world,” with much of its raw materials, especially oil, gas and timber. Increasingly, Chinese-owned factories in Siberia churn out finished goods, as if the region already were a part of the Middle Kingdom's economy.
One day, China might want the globe to match the reality. In fact, Beijing could use Russia's own strategy: hand out passports to sympathizers in contested areas, then move in militarily to "protect its citizens." The Kremlin has tried that in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and most recently the Crimea, all formally part of other post-Soviet states, but controlled by Moscow. And if Beijing chose to take Siberia by force, the only way Moscow could stop would be using nuclear weapons.
If and when all the military assets of China are destroyed during the Taiwan invasion, there is an overland path to occupy defeated China by way from North Korea which is only 280 miles away from Beijing. Or which ever come first, the war against North Korea or Vladivostok.
There is another path: Under Vladimir Putin, Russia is increasingly looking east for its future – building a Eurasian Union even wider than the one inaugurated recently in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, a staunch Moscow ally. Perhaps two existing blocs – the Eurasian one encompassing Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – could unite China, Russia and most of the 'stans. Putin's critics fear that this economic integration would reduce Russia, especially Siberia, to a raw materials exporter beholden to Greater China. And as the Chinese learned from the humiliation of 1860, facts on the ground can become lines on the map.
see and click below
No comments:
Post a Comment