China's SCS Strategy Thread

[tamsen_ikard]

China coming out on top through violence will not bring the anti-China malcontents in the region to heel, as some may readily assume. The outcome and reception would be far more negative and overall deleterious to the region’s cohesiveness and the peaceful coexistence that everyone has worked so hard to achieve.

US came on top in LatAm and people worship the US for it. They keep bullying countries in LatAm, and yet people keep worship it in LatAm.

If you win barely, with struggle and there is enough doubt that you might be defeated. Then your smaller neighbours resent you and plot your demise.

If you win with overwhelming force and end any kind of confusion that someone may challenge you, then you get respect, loyalty and admiration.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

anti china malcontents will never leave the region regardless of the way china choses to emerge on top , no nation/bloc likes to have a superpower as their neighbour , europeans dont like russia , they didnt like nazi germany , south americans does not like the us , the mena region population does not like israel .

coming out on top with violence wont reduce the anti china sentiment , but policies of those nation in future wont threaten chinese security and/or economic interests

If only that were true. Let’s look at the body of evidence. Russia fought tooth and nail against the attempted breakaway of Chechnya in the 1990s, even while it was economically at the mercy of the IMF. Then came the war against Georgia in 2008, after the U.S. under George W. Bush openly invited Georgia to join NATO. Russia invaded and “taught” Georgia a lesson, sending a stern message to many of its former satellite countries to think twice before joining NATO at the expense of Russian national security.
But what did that strategy actually accomplish? Were Ukraine, the EU, and the U.S. deterred from continuing their provocative actions - actions that ultimately culminated in Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022?
Why do so many keyboard commandos keep missing these factoids when they argue that China should take a similar approach toward the ASEAN chihuahua, the Philippines?
China’s current strategy is paying dividends across almost every domain, except among the miscreants. Those people will never change their tune except through outright liquidation - but that is an acceptable outcome for China, since those malcontents sit at the margins of the current political and business interests of their respective countries. The more the region’s economic growth develops and increases, the better its relationship with China will become as the centre of technological and business influence. The military exists to protect and guarantee security against outsiders’ sinister attempts to sow disharmony and chaos.
War has never been an instrument of progress. It has always been a harbinger of destruction to societies and civilizations throughout our long history. That fact will not change anytime soon

 

[4Tran]

The reality is that China's strategic position in Southeast Asia is better today than it was yesterday, and it will be better tomorrow than it is today. Given that, why it be a good idea to completely upset all of this positioning?

On the flip side, the US is constantly trying to appear as if they're making changes, shifting units, promoting weapons orders, and none of this is actually helping them.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

If only that were true. Let’s look at the body of evidence. Russia fought tooth and nail against the attempted breakaway of Chechnya in the 1990s, even while it was economically at the mercy of the IMF. Then came the war against Georgia in 2008, after the U.S. under George W. Bush openly invited Georgia to join NATO. Russia invaded and “taught” Georgia a lesson, sending a stern message to many of its former satellite countries to think twice before joining NATO at the expense of Russian national security.
But what did that strategy actually accomplish? Were Ukraine, the EU, and the U.S. deterred from continuing their provocative actions - actions that ultimately culminated in Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022?
Why do so many keyboard commandos keep missing these factoids when they argue that China should take a similar approach toward the ASEAN chihuahua, the Philippines?
China’s current strategy is paying dividends across almost every domain, except among the miscreants. Those people will never change their tune except through outright liquidation - but that is an acceptable outcome for China, since those malcontents sit at the margins of the current political and business interests of their respective countries. The more the region’s economic growth develops and increases, the better its relationship with China will become as the centre of technological and business influence. The military exists to protect and guarantee security against outsiders’ sinister attempts to sow disharmony and chaos.
War has never been an instrument of progress. It has always been a harbinger of destruction to societies and civilizations throughout our long history. That fact will not change anytime soon

Russia is a declining power economically, culturally and militarily. It was falling apart in 1990s and barely able to hold itself together. Why would any country respect such a country and bow their heads toward it?

All of Russia's neighbour were enticed by the Wealth and prestige of the EU and US. They saw hope, they saw a superior culture, a superior way of life. They aspired to be like Europe. They thought if they could join the west then they would achieve paradise.

That is why Russia's military power was not enough to keep periphery countries loyal. And even that military power was suspect in 1990s and 2000s when Russia was full of corruption.


China on the other hand is the opposite. It is showing organization, efficiency and superior life to everyone. And it is rising in wealth. But China is still poorer than the west which is why western worship is so prevalent in East Asia. China is simply not seen as a superior country compared to the west.

When US uses its military power, people cower in fear because of the dominance of its economy and tech power in civillian life. When Russia uses its military power, people see a declining power lashing out.

Which power does China resemble more? Russia or US?

I think China resembles US of the 1900s, the Teddy roosevelt era. It has the economic and industrial might but its still not respect for it because it has not thrown its weight around much. Teddy roosevelt changed that and made US feared and respected. China needs to do the same now. Carry a big stick and use it.

 

[kafkahibino]

China’s current strategy is paying dividends across almost every domain, except among the miscreants. Those people will never change their tune except through outright liquidation - but that is an acceptable outcome for China, since those malcontents sit at the margins of the current political and business interests of their respective countries. The more the region’s economic growth develops and increases, the better its relationship with China will become as the centre of technological and business influence. The military exists to protect and guarantee security against outsiders’ sinister attempts to sow disharmony and chaos.
War has never been an instrument of progress. It has always been a harbinger of destruction to societies and civilizations throughout our long history. That fact will not change anytime soon

i agree with you , i would like for china to be more aggressive only when that has been achieved + its submarines can dominate any waters it wants

If only that were true. Let’s look at the body of evidence. Russia fought tooth and nail against the attempted breakaway of Chechnya in the 1990s, even while it was economically at the mercy of the IMF. Then came the war against Georgia in 2008, after the U.S. under George W. Bush openly invited Georgia to join NATO. Russia invaded and “taught” Georgia a lesson, sending a stern message to many of its former satellite countries to think twice before joining NATO at the expense of Russian national security.
But what did that strategy actually accomplish? Were Ukraine, the EU, and the U.S. deterred from continuing their provocative actions - actions that ultimately culminated in Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022?

the west and russia's neighbours have stopped viewing russia as a military superpower , they continued provocations because the west + nations that let the west put their guns on their shoulders believe(d) that they would not face consequences , that their lives would be better by siding with the west and being provocative towards russia

there is a reason nato expanded eastward and forces hostile to us and israel in the americas and mena region respectively rarely oppose them with actions ; nations that choose to act as chihuahuas against russia believe their standards of living + way of life after doing that wont deteriorate without russia ruining itself , while those with hostile feelings towards us and israel are deterred because they believe that their standards of living + way of life would be worse the day after they've been hostile to us/israel compared to the day before , @tamsen_ikard in #12,491 makes a great point

 

[UmbraPenumbra]

anti china malcontents will never leave the region regardless of the way china choses to emerge on top , no nation/bloc likes to have a superpower as their neighbour , europeans dont like russia , they didnt like nazi germany , south americans does not like the us , the mena region population does not like israel .

coming out on top with violence wont reduce the anti china sentiment , but policies of those nation in future wont threaten chinese security and/or economic interests

Doubtful if the US is still intact and their presence remains. All anti-China malcontent nations' operations will just go underground. More terrorist groups and more powerful ones will just pop up in the area that will continue to threaten Chinese security and interests. It would be like the middle east all over again.

 

[UmbraPenumbra]

US came on top in LatAm and people worship the US for it. They keep bullying countries in LatAm, and yet people keep worship it in LatAm.

If you win barely, with struggle and there is enough doubt that you might be defeated. Then your smaller neighbours resent you and plot your demise.

If you win with overwhelming force and end any kind of confusion that someone may challenge you, then you get respect, loyalty and admiration.

I think you're being too impatient and impulsive in this. There's certain parallel between US and the Caribbean nations with China and SEA, and how it unfolds is becoming more and more on China's favor. What China needs right now, is time; time to grow and to become even more stronger, to win without fighting. The opposite is true for the US and its allies since the window of opportunity of winning against China grows smaller as time goes on. If they wait a decade or two longer, it would becoming almost insurmountable. So the US using the Philippines to goad China into conflict is one way to prevent that from happening as well as you goading China to do the same, it ain't gonna happen. If all else fails, goad US to fight China! The US really needs it; the sooner, the better! Haha

 

[manqiangrexue]

@votran @tamsen_ikard Nobody's saying China's not able to make some big moves, but the biggest question that China faces is, why make those moves now when it's easier to make them tomorrow? And that question repeats every day. When you are rewarded for your patience with increasingly favorable power dynamic, why call it now and take the shot?

 

[Wrought]

Only a fool starts fighting when he is already winning without fighting. Unfortunately there are a great many fools in China (like there are in every country), but fortunately they are not calling the shots in Beijing (unlike in some capitals I could name).

 

[duskseeker]

This is such an absurd assumption - one that would definitely lead to the destruction of the Pacific countries’ economic ascendancy. For a supposed Southeast Asian person, you sure are gung-ho about the region being engulfed in warfare, which means human and economic devastation on a scale we have not experienced since the Vietnam War.
The arguments made for China to become more aggressive, and worse, to take kinetic action against the Philippines (and by extension against its patron, the U.S.) amount to a strategic blunder of epic proportions.
China coming out on top through violence will not bring the anti-China malcontents in the region to heel, as some may readily assume. The outcome and reception would be far more negative and overall deleterious to the region’s cohesiveness and the peaceful coexistence that everyone has worked so hard to achieve.
The ones who would be happy to see our region torn apart are the Europeans and the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. They would be more than willing to enter the conflict. Even if you assume Chinese aggression would not be impeded by their supposed disinterest. America has a historical pattern of waiting until its opponent is close to exhaustion and then waltzing in to claim victory, just as it did in World War II.
China will not resort to using nuclear weapons, because that would mean not only the end of the world as we know it, but the CPC itself would be condemned by the Chinese people and held responsible for the destruction it brought upon the country and the people it claimed to lead into the 21st century.

This is what I am saying about the short sighted goal of the Philippines. If it's not China they are going to war for, it's another southeast Asian nation so that their Euro/American masters can keep the region in a state that they are in. From my view the Filipinos have been stress tested to the point they can't even protest to the point missing one day of work means they are further buried in debt.