Jura The idiot
General
when I began to follow China-related nonmilitary threads five years ago, they were like BRICS BRICS BRICS
China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?
- Thread starter MrCrazyBoyRavi
- Start date
- Status
China's distinct approach to geopolitical strategy should be viewed in light of its cultural affiliation with Go (weiqi). Go strategy is much more complex than chess, hence why an AI was only able to beat humans at it a few years ago.
The Politburo Standing Committee has historically been associated with highly skilled weiqi players.
The Politburo Standing Committee has historically been associated with highly skilled weiqi players.
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
The example given in the OP of India intervening "on behalf" of Bhutan is misleading. India's actions were driven by an assessment of Indian national interests with respect to the Siliguri corridor and India's outstanding territorial disputes with China. India was pursuing India's interests, not Bhutan's. Allies are not axiomatically of benefit, the question is whether and how a given relationship can serve China's interests.
Last edited:
Scrutinize Strategic Assumptions on China
By Captain Kevin Eyer, U.S. Navy (Retired)
April 2019
Proceedings
Vol. 145/4/1,394
History is replete with examples of nations suffering catastrophic military defeat to adversaries who were able to achieve surprise at the strategic level. In retrospect, it seems clear that all the critical warning signs were available in advance. In considering these events, the worthwhile question ultimately becomes this: Why was the essential, known information either ignored or discredited? How was it, for example, that the Russians in June 1941, the Americans in December 1941, the United Nations Forces in October 1951, and the Israelis in October 1973 failed to correctly perceive reality? And, if lessons can be gleaned from these and other historic examples, what conclusions might be drawn by U.S. leaders today—particularly as the nation faces increased competition with China?
In explaining the phenomenon of successful strategic-level military surprise it may be useful to consider Roberta Wohlstetter’s on “signal” versus “noise.” In 1965, she wrote: “In discussing this information it will perhaps be useful to distinguish again between signals and noise. By the signal of an action is meant a sign, a clue, a piece of evidence that points to the action or to an adversary’s intention to undertake it, and by noise is meant the background of irrelevant or inconsistent signals, signs pointing in the wrong directions, that tend always to obscure the signs pointing the right way.”
So, even though in each case there were those who correctly forecast the coming disaster, they were uniformly suppressed or ignored. Despite the danger, the larger institutional apparatus consciously rejected available warning signals and harbingers. Why? The answer may lie in Ms. Wohlstetter’s conviction that the necessary separation of “signal” from “noise” may sometimes be impossibly difficult, and for a variety of reasons.
A Matter of Perspective
To understand the surrounding world, individuals view events through a series of uniquely constructed “lenses,” each is developed based on a set of fundamental assumptions. These assumptions may be based in fact or belief. They may be true or false. They may be prejudices or pre-dispositions or preferences. For example, a person may understand dogs based on these assumptions: Little dogs are high-strung. Mutts are friendly. Herding dogs are exceptionally intelligent. Hounds are noisy. Problematically, some of these assumptions may be wrong or at least highly variable. Worse, once an individual develops a perspective on any particular topic, it can be very difficult to move them off their core beliefs. Even if there is evidence that their assumptions may be wrong, it often takes time for real change to take hold, and by then it may be too late to avert disaster. Nevertheless, it must be understood that these lenses are often necessary in that they allow individuals to think in a kind of short-hand, as they attempt to decode the world around them.
As far as nations are concerned, the stakes are much higher, yet the same phenomenon applies. Each nation supports a series of assumptions on any conceivable topic. And, just as with individuals, when a nation views the contemporaneous world though a faulty lens, the result may be disaster at a strategic level. Major wars occur when: both sides credibly believe they can win; both sides misunderstand the other’s key objectives (limited vs. unlimited); and at least one side cannot back down without facing regime change from internal elements. All three of these conditions exist between the United States and China today. To the Chinese leaders, any conflict involving Taiwan, Japan, or Korea is probably an existential threat to the Chinese Communist Party and must be won. The United States values the international system, more than most Americans know or admit, and an emotional/political decision by a U.S. president in response to aggression by China is not unlikely. (Consider President Truman in Korea, Reagan in Beirut, Clinton in Bosnia, and George W. Bush in Iraq).
A nation’s lenses—or what may be more accurately called thought-frameworks—on any given topic are developed over time, and constructed of a series of strategic assumptions, each believed to be true and enduring. These thought-frameworks are built—consciously or unconsciously—to help a nation more easily and quickly understand a topic. If new data arrives, and it can be accommodated sensibly through the set of core assumptions from which the existing thought-framework is built, that data is accepted to be true. If, on the other hand, it conflicts with these fundamental beliefs, it is often discounted as anomalous or incorrect.
This phenomenon explains military disaster after military surprise. If the framework of strategic military assumptions is faulty; if civil and military leaders become too attached to these assumptions; if they stubbornly value the core assumptions above any new data; if these strategic assumptions are not regularly reconsidered in depth, a recipe for disaster presents. The record is clear: In each case of strategic military surprise, it can be demonstrated that when new information was presented, regardless of its pedigree or import, if it was found to disagree with the specific set of closely held assumptions that informed the thinking of those nations’ civil and military leaders, it was rejected.
What of China?
In 1941, though anticipating an outbreak of war, the U.S. military found the prospect of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to be highly unlikely. The thought-framework simply would not allow an attack on Pearl Harbor to be an acceptable conclusion. Not only did General George Marshall refer to the Island of Oahu as, “the strongest fortress in the world,”1 but it was a common conviction that if and when a Japanese attack did come, it would come in the Far East or perhaps even Panama.2 At the tactical-level, Pearl Harbor was (incorrectly) thought to be too shallow to employ air-launched torpedoes. These assumptions were incorrect, and the result was strategic surprise.
Today, what strategic assumptions are included in the U.S. thought-framework regarding the possibility of war with China? Policy makers' assumptions seem to include:
1. Gordon W. Prang, At Dawn We Slept (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1981), 122.
2. Ronald H. Spector, Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan (New York, NY: Random House, 1985).
Captain Eyer served in seven cruisers and commanded three Aegis cruisers: USS Thomas S. Gates (CG-51), Shiloh (CG-67), and Chancellorsville (CG-62).
- The United States and China can coexist in a world where the Western-designed international system sets the rules. (To be fair, this assumption appears to be changing with the current and focused on peer-level competition with China.)
- We can "impose costs" on China that will deter their aggression or force them to take "off ramps."
- Regional powers can and will band together to act in ways that will deter Chinese aggression.
- War is a binary concept and is inherently military in nature; you are either at war, or you are not. Our current status with China is "competition."
- War with China is unlikely due to our economic interdependencies.
- In the unlikely event of a war, it will be regional and focused on objectives that are limited and not existential for either side.
- In the event of a war, nuclear weapons put an upper boundary on how big it can get.
- China would signal in advance of military action and negotiate to avoid a fight.
- The United States will be able to control escalation and drive the pace of a conflict.
- The United States has an intelligence advantage that ensures it can avoid major strategic surprises.
- U.S. military advantages would allow it to win a conventional fight.
- Regional nations would back the United States, and U.S. allies will join the fight, to include access to bases and logistics support.
- If the United States does not attack the Chinese mainland, China will not attack CONUS.
- China would not undertake a war with the United States prior to achieving economic and military parity, and this will not happen for some years.
- India and Russia will abstain from the conflict.
- The Chinese do not believe they will ever be given the respect, rights, or influence they deserve under the current international system. So, the United States and its regional partners and allies must either acquiesce to Chinese revisions or be ready to fight to maintain the current system by force.
- China’s leaders and people value social stability above all else because of longstanding cultural tradition and having seen the terror that accompanies instability.
- China's leaders are rational but use very different strategic calculus, much of which is opaque to U.S. decisionmakers.
- To the Chinese, war is not binary and is not limited to military action. China is at war with the West, and the U.S. in particular, right now; they hope to win without kinetic military action but may seek military conflict to demonstrate strength and gain prestige.
- Military conflict with China is more likely than most people believe.
- Anything the United States could do to "impose costs" (short of military action) has already been included in China's calculus. To stop them from achieving an objective, the United States will have to give them something they value more or take the action necessary to deny them.
- Nuclear weapons might, or might not, prevent the use of nuclear weapons. Everything will be on the table.
- If China decides to attack, it will do so quickly and without warning.
- Attacks may be limited to U.S. targets (to prevent stimulating others to join the U.S. side), seek to overwhelm, cripple, and embarrass (i.e. - be focused on iconic targets), include substantial deception efforts, and include heavy use of cyber and electronic warfare.
- If the United States or others continue to fight, China will escalate and expand quickly. They have watched the U.S. "way of war" over the past 20 years and will not allow the United States time to recover, replenish, build a coalition, or amass force.
- Regional powers will remain neutral in a conflict until it is clear who is going to win and then they will side with the apparent victor.
1. Gordon W. Prang, At Dawn We Slept (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1981), 122.
2. Ronald H. Spector, Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan (New York, NY: Random House, 1985).
Captain Eyer served in seven cruisers and commanded three Aegis cruisers: USS Thomas S. Gates (CG-51), Shiloh (CG-67), and Chancellorsville (CG-62).
Based on the way China has changed it’s military budget and size the last few years, I’d assume that the strategical framework is mainly based on self defense. At a national level, Beijing prefers industrial/economic power over military power and will probably only pursue the latter if the former is unsustainable.
Because of how well the trade war went, China downsized the military and cut the budget, using the funds for industrial projects like MIC 2025 instead. The administration believes there is no need to prepare for military action if economic action can be won.
Battlefield doctrine wise, the PLA has mostly wrestled with the concept of “people’s war under modern conditions”. The core presumption is that a high quality force can defend ground against a much larger foe by advantage in communication and high initiative on the lowest levels. It seeks to translate advantages in the Korean War (original people’s war) into a modern context, taking inspiration from the Iraq war, Sino Vietnam war and other conflicts as well.
Like the original people’s war, such a strategy is poorly suited to offense, where the military will be too small to sustain operations, technology may break down far from home, the defender’s communications are harder to disrupt, and even in the case they can be disrupted, they will be fighting in home territory and still retain cohesion.
As long as China is not attacked, the danger of war should be non existent, barring extreme stupidity from Zhongnanhai, given that China is poorly optimized to go on the offense.
Because of how well the trade war went, China downsized the military and cut the budget, using the funds for industrial projects like MIC 2025 instead. The administration believes there is no need to prepare for military action if economic action can be won.
Battlefield doctrine wise, the PLA has mostly wrestled with the concept of “people’s war under modern conditions”. The core presumption is that a high quality force can defend ground against a much larger foe by advantage in communication and high initiative on the lowest levels. It seeks to translate advantages in the Korean War (original people’s war) into a modern context, taking inspiration from the Iraq war, Sino Vietnam war and other conflicts as well.
Like the original people’s war, such a strategy is poorly suited to offense, where the military will be too small to sustain operations, technology may break down far from home, the defender’s communications are harder to disrupt, and even in the case they can be disrupted, they will be fighting in home territory and still retain cohesion.
As long as China is not attacked, the danger of war should be non existent, barring extreme stupidity from Zhongnanhai, given that China is poorly optimized to go on the offense.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
As I said before China will smell like roses when this CV is over I guess I am not the only one think like that CV is mortal danger but it also provide China with huge opportunity to elbow you know who in the court of world opinion due to efficient and effective handling of CV and floundering effort by her ideological foe
China will emerge from the coronavirus crisis stronger than the U.S., experts warn
Published: March 25, 2020 at 9:41 a.m. ET
By
China has, so far, won the propaganda battle over which superpower can best handle a pandemic
The coronavirus pandemic gripping the globe may have its origins in China, but experts say that current trends indicate the crisis will leave it in a much stronger position geopolitically relative to the United States.
“The Chinese are in a much stronger position than they have been coming out of any recent global crisis,” Ian Bremmer, president and founder of the Eurasia Group, told MarketWatch.
“They own most of the global medical supply chain. They’ve basically contained the virus through technology-powered, authoritarian surveillance, and they’ve leveraged this success by providing aid to Europe and emerging markets,” in the fight against COVID-19.
Even as China’s economy has taken a large hit from the outbreak, and from falling global demand as it spreads throughout Europe and the United States, the country does appear to be opening for business, with the city of Wuhan — where the outbreak began in December — scheduled to lift its lockdown next week.
Carl Weinberg, founder and chief economist at High Frequency Economics, said in an interview that while it may be too early to declare the Chinese economic recovery underway, policy makers there appear to have a better handle of the situation. “The Chinese built a hospital with 2,000 beds in 10 days from start to finish,” he said. “They started building it in January before the pandemic was fully recognized. We’re way behind the curve on it.”
Meanwhile, the U.S.-China relationship has deteriorated in recent weeks, as Chinese and American leaders for the pandemic. On Tuesday, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said there should be an international investigation “into the origins of the coronavirus,” and submitted legislation that calls for China to provide compensation for the economic impact.
China will emerge from the coronavirus crisis stronger than the U.S., experts warn
Published: March 25, 2020 at 9:41 a.m. ET
By
China has, so far, won the propaganda battle over which superpower can best handle a pandemic
The coronavirus pandemic gripping the globe may have its origins in China, but experts say that current trends indicate the crisis will leave it in a much stronger position geopolitically relative to the United States.
“The Chinese are in a much stronger position than they have been coming out of any recent global crisis,” Ian Bremmer, president and founder of the Eurasia Group, told MarketWatch.
“They own most of the global medical supply chain. They’ve basically contained the virus through technology-powered, authoritarian surveillance, and they’ve leveraged this success by providing aid to Europe and emerging markets,” in the fight against COVID-19.
Even as China’s economy has taken a large hit from the outbreak, and from falling global demand as it spreads throughout Europe and the United States, the country does appear to be opening for business, with the city of Wuhan — where the outbreak began in December — scheduled to lift its lockdown next week.
Carl Weinberg, founder and chief economist at High Frequency Economics, said in an interview that while it may be too early to declare the Chinese economic recovery underway, policy makers there appear to have a better handle of the situation. “The Chinese built a hospital with 2,000 beds in 10 days from start to finish,” he said. “They started building it in January before the pandemic was fully recognized. We’re way behind the curve on it.”
Meanwhile, the U.S.-China relationship has deteriorated in recent weeks, as Chinese and American leaders for the pandemic. On Tuesday, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said there should be an international investigation “into the origins of the coronavirus,” and submitted legislation that calls for China to provide compensation for the economic impact.
"calls for China to provide compensation for the economic impact."
These people think too highly of themselves.
The TSMC export ban has gotten me thinking about this again.
China currently keeps peace with the west by means of economics. If you invest in our country, you get to cash in on the worlds largest market and our world class infrastructure. For the past two decades, this is what has defined relations with the West.
That mindset has changed greatly within the past two years. Trumps trade war was the first overt sign of politics taking precedence over economics. Trumps trade war did not reduce the trade deficit, nor did it lead to the return of manufacturing to America.
But what it did do is greatly weaken China's ability to control the US with its market size. When it comes down to it, American pride is more important than Chinese money.
I think the TSMC chip ban represents a continuation of this trend, and an important sign that China can no longer rely on the promise of market share influencing the West. China therefore needs a new approach to dealing with other countries. The frequent diplomatic gaffes of the previous decades were papered over with generous investments and trade deals. A new method will be needed in the new era.
China currently keeps peace with the west by means of economics. If you invest in our country, you get to cash in on the worlds largest market and our world class infrastructure. For the past two decades, this is what has defined relations with the West.
That mindset has changed greatly within the past two years. Trumps trade war was the first overt sign of politics taking precedence over economics. Trumps trade war did not reduce the trade deficit, nor did it lead to the return of manufacturing to America.
But what it did do is greatly weaken China's ability to control the US with its market size. When it comes down to it, American pride is more important than Chinese money.
I think the TSMC chip ban represents a continuation of this trend, and an important sign that China can no longer rely on the promise of market share influencing the West. China therefore needs a new approach to dealing with other countries. The frequent diplomatic gaffes of the previous decades were papered over with generous investments and trade deals. A new method will be needed in the new era.
It's not about money at this stage. It's about power. Here's the Wolfowitz Doctrine:
- Status