Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Do I need to live in or visit countries I frequently mention? So everyone here must have visited the whole world to be talking about the whole world. Or rather, everyone here must have visited China at some point in their lives to have the legal authority to talk about the country. Or does this condition only exist for me? If you are going to use an authority argument, I suggest you try another argument.

The point is that is that you were unaware of the realities of the region and that there are opinion polls, surveys and announcements all the time of what ASEAN/Indonesia will do. Again, my point stands. I have provided surveys and sources. Where does your analysis come from?


Nice. Now explain to everyone why Indonesia carries out bilateral and multinational exercises with the US, some exercises that are clearly documented as a strategy of containment of China via PDI as the Pitch Black (the last one in 2022) that Indonesia participates.

Your militarytimes source directly contradicts your statement that Indonesian military exercises with the USA are part of a CONTAINMENT strategy. If you're going to make an argument, at least make sure your own source doesn't contradict

"Indonesia sees the current exercises with the U.S. as a deterrent in defense of the Natuna Islands, while for Washington, the drills are part of efforts to forge a united front against China’s military buildup in the South China Sea, Bakrie said." Your own source below.

What matters is how Indonesia sees the exercises with the US military and what access Indonesia grants the US. China would have to be very silly to invade the Natuna Islands, even though it may the capability to do so.
Ergo, Indonesian neutrality

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I didn't say otherwise.

Mike Tyson is a visionary: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Do you really believe this? Will all neighboring nations kneel before China without a fight? This view of yours is very optimistic.

Who mentioned kneeling? The key requirement I would use is neutrality.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Russia has almost zero economic/military influence over even Finland.

For example, Finland and the rest of Europe have cut off Russia. Yet there is barely any effect on GDP growth (1%?) to Finland.

In comparison, prior to Patchwork's departure, he mentioned a study (presumably an updated version of an old declassified RAND paper) with an estimate of a 25-35% GDP decline which applies to both the US and China. That is comparable to the 30% decline experienced by the USA during Great Depression.

Now, China is geographically the same size as the continent-spanning US. Both countries are/can become broadly self-sufficient and have a lot of defensive military strength so that it is very difficult to comprehensively attack their civilian sectors.

In comparison, Indonesia is a far smaller, poorer and less-developed economy, which is critically reliant on internal sea and air traffic between its many islands.
So if Indonesia becomes a war zone, Indonesia should experience a greater economic hit than either China or the USA.

Also consider how China has the capacity to very quickly produce very large numbers of simple low-cost Shaheed-136 loitering drone munitions that we've seen in Ukraine. A version with a somewhat longer range of 3000km would cover most of Indonesia, which includes Java which has half of Indonesia's population. And as we've seen in Ukraine, even a modest number of these drones has the capacity to take out electricity and water supplies. If this were to happen, we'd see an Indonesian GDP collapse in excess of 60% (Ukraine was at a 50% decline even before Russia recently started attacking Ukraine's electricity grid). Russia has no such capacity to produce large numbers of drones of any type.

So from the point of view of an Indonesian policymaker or the average Indonesian, it makes a lot of sense to be neutral in a US-China conflict.
I reckon Indonesian might get away with *just* a 10-20% GDP decline if it remains neutral.
That is a heck of a lot better than a 60%+ GDP decline if Indonesia sides with the US.

Just a few more thoughts on Shaheed type drones.

The same logic can be applied to everywhere else within the 1st and 2nd Island Chains eg. Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Philippines, Guam etc

My read is that Japan still believes it is far away enough from China to avoid devastation, but I expect that to change in the coming years.

---

With Shaheed-type drones that cost $20K, that costs less than any JDAM or SDB.
Note that the US military has a stockpile of 250K JDAMs which have to be dropped by aircraft.

If China were to procure just 100K Shaheed-type drones (launched from trucks on mainland China), there would be more than enough to swarm Japan and the rest of the 1st/2nd Island Chain

It's just the changing nature of warfare which most people don't realise
 
Last edited:

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
The point is that is that you were unaware of the realities of the region and that there are opinion polls, surveys and announcements all the time of what ASEAN/Indonesia will do. Again, my point stands. I have provided surveys and sources. Where does your analysis come from?
Opinion polls are worthless. I showed you a clear example of a nation that less than 1/4 supported the abandonment of neutrality just 6 years before and in 2022 this country completely changed its posture. I've also sent you sources showing you similar backgrounds and that's just plain silly. There is no guarantee of neutrality, this is one of the biggest mistakes a planner will be making.
Your militarytimes source directly contradicts your statement that Indonesian military exercises with the USA are part of a CONTAINMENT strategy. If you're going to make an argument, at least make sure your own source doesn't contradict

"Indonesia sees the current exercises with the U.S. as a deterrent in defense of the Natuna Islands, while for Washington, the drills are part of efforts to forge a united front against China’s military buildup in the South China Sea, Bakrie said." Your own source below.
Are you sure what you claim? Look what they claimed:
BATURAJA, Indonesia — Soldiers from the U.S., Indonesia and Australia joined a live-fire drill on Friday, part of annual joint combat exercises on Sumatra island amid growing Chinese maritime activity in the Indo-Pacific region.

The expanded drills are seen by China as a threat. Chinese state media have accused the U.S. of building an Indo-Pacific alliance similar to NATO to limit China’s growing military and diplomatic influence in the region.

The U.S. Indo-Pacific commander, Adm. John C. Aquilino, said the 14 nations involved in the training are signaling their stronger ties as China grows increasingly assertive in claiming virtually the entire South China Sea and holds threatening self-ruled Taiwan.

“We’ll continue to help deliver a free and open Indo-Pacific and be ready when we need to respond to any contingency,” Aquilino said.


Indonesia and China enjoy generally positive ties, but Jakarta has expressed concern about what it sees as Chinese encroachment in its exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea.

Indonesia sees the current exercises with the U.S. as a deterrent in defense of the Natuna Islands, while for Washington, the drills are part of efforts to forge a united front against China’s military buildup in the South China Sea, Bakrie said.

“Indonesia wants to send the message that it is fully prepared for any high-intensity conflict in the South China Sea area,” she said.


Where did you get the information that this would not be China's containment?
What matters is how Indonesia sees the exercises with the US military and what access Indonesia grants the US. China would have to be very silly to invade the Natuna Islands, even though it may the capability to do so.
Ergo, Indonesian neutrality
Things don't happen until they happen. Jakarta knows he can't rely solely on good "sense" to hope that China doesn't invade or no attack if a conflict breaks out in the region, no one takes a position in geopolitics based on guesswork.
Who mentioned kneeling? The key requirement I would use is neutrality.
Our friend to whom I replied claimed that nations will follow China. This is quite different from neutrality, don't you think?
 

tygyg1111

Senior Member
Registered Member
Opinion polls are worthless. I showed you a clear example of a nation that less than 1/4 supported the abandonment of neutrality just 6 years before and in 2022 this country completely changed its posture. I've also sent you sources showing you similar backgrounds and that's just plain silly. There is no guarantee of neutrality, this is one of the biggest mistakes a planner will be making.

Are you sure what you claim? Look what they claimed:
BATURAJA, Indonesia — Soldiers from the U.S., Indonesia and Australia joined a live-fire drill on Friday, part of annual joint combat exercises on Sumatra island amid growing Chinese maritime activity in the Indo-Pacific region.

The expanded drills are seen by China as a threat. Chinese state media have accused the U.S. of building an Indo-Pacific alliance similar to NATO to limit China’s growing military and diplomatic influence in the region.

The U.S. Indo-Pacific commander, Adm. John C. Aquilino, said the 14 nations involved in the training are signaling their stronger ties as China grows increasingly assertive in claiming virtually the entire South China Sea and holds threatening self-ruled Taiwan.

“We’ll continue to help deliver a free and open Indo-Pacific and be ready when we need to respond to any contingency,” Aquilino said.


Indonesia and China enjoy generally positive ties, but Jakarta has expressed concern about what it sees as Chinese encroachment in its exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea.

Indonesia sees the current exercises with the U.S. as a deterrent in defense of the Natuna Islands, while for Washington, the drills are part of efforts to forge a united front against China’s military buildup in the South China Sea, Bakrie said.

“Indonesia wants to send the message that it is fully prepared for any high-intensity conflict in the South China Sea area,” she said.


Where did you get the information that this would not be China's containment?

Things don't happen until they happen. Jakarta knows he can't rely solely on good "sense" to hope that China doesn't invade or no attack if a conflict breaks out in the region, no one takes a position in geopolitics based on guesswork.

Our friend to whom I replied claimed that nations will follow China. This is quite different from neutrality, don't you think?
As another user already mentioned, Indonesia is going to lean towards whoever they think will win.
Another point of consideration for Indonesia is that China is a lot closer than the US, but again, refer to point 1.
Re: bolded text, saying something does not mean they are wholeheartedly behind it. They get benefits from playing towards both sides, and will continue to do so as long as it lasts.
 
Last edited:

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
As another user already mentioned, Indonesia is going to lean towards whoever they think will win.
Another point of consideration for Indonesia is that China is a lot closer than the US, but again, refer to point 1.
Re: bolded text, saying something does not mean they are wholeheartedly behind it. They get benefits from playing towards both sides, and will continue to do so as long as it lasts.
Do you think that's how China interprets it? In the text itself is mentioning this reaction of what China thinks about these exercises and China is right. If the country really sought neutrality, firstly if it were to join bilateral and multinational exercises with the US when there is a clear intention to create a coverage of integration and interoperability between the different military forces in the region, it would be a complete REAL evidence that there is no guarantee of neutrality on the part of that country and the worst, China is reportedly claiming this and Indonesia is part of this criticism.

Another thing, there is no possibility that Indonesia is based on hypotheses, the US has enough diplomatic and military power to drag Indonesia or any country into a greater conflict in the region, this precedes the military action itself, which is what will define the winning side and the losing side.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Just a few more thoughts on Shaheed type drones.

The same logic can be applied to everywhere else within the 1st and 2nd Island Chains eg. Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Philippines, Guam etc

My read is that Japan still believes it is far away enough from China to avoid devastation, but I expect that to change in the coming years.

---

With Shaheed-type drones that cost $20K, that costs less than any JDAM or SDB.
Note that the US military has a stockpile of 250K JDAMs which have to be dropped by aircraft.

If China were to procure just 100K Shaheed-type drones (launched from trucks on mainland China), there would be more than enough to swarm Japan and the rest of the 1st/2nd Island Chain

It's just the changing nature of warfare which most people don't realise
Worth mentioning that shahed or Geran-2 are basically monkey model Chinese loitering munitions. They use Chinese origin engines and electronics, with only a bit of Russian/Iran HE and a cheap frame that can be procured anywhere.

PLA can almost certainly make not only much better models from civilian conversion but also cheaper ones because unlike Iran or Russia they do not need to pay the market price for Chinese turboprop engines or electronics.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
Between having a shit ton of advanced SSK, a lot of ships with world class ASW, even a lot of helicopter carriers, China is far ahead of Japan in ASW.
I'm not as optimistic WRT this field, but that might just myself being more conservative.

The main point where they lose out to America in ASW is in far open waters where they can't employ slow SSKs, US generally has more boats and can repositon faster with SSNs.

Imho the main way ASW will be handled is with the 075 helo carriers and later 076 light carriers, especially if/when ASW drones can be launched from them.
Another big problem that should be mentioned would be how PLAN should counter Virginia SSNs when they are armed with hypersonic missiles in the coming future:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... which largely doesn't require them to come close to within tens of kilometers (and subsequently, ASW coverage of the PLAN) to launch their payload(?)

I have confidence that PLAN's ASW capability is sufficient within the First Island Chain, but what happens outside that chain is really concerning. Unless the PLAN does not plan to operate beyond the First Island Chain (even for a Taiwan AR scenario), then this would be something important that those in the August 1st building would have to resolve ASAP and with due diligence.

No wonder Winston Churchill proclaimed that the "U-boat peril" is what scared him the most during the entire WW2.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Mike Tyson is a visionary: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Do you really believe this? Will all neighboring nations kneel before China without a fight? This view of yours is very optimistic.
Yes, China controls shipping across SCS. In time of war, anyone that doesn't at least stay neutral will get punished. China will destroy their economy.

This is not the context I am giving here, first they cited the national public's view of the "neutral" country as solid evidence of a neutral stance, I gave a recent example that this is not intrinsically true, then they cited economic dependence as evidence of neutrality, I've already given recent reports that this is nonsense, all in the Russian context.

It is exactly this kind of critical analysis that I expect from SDF members. Congratulations.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but Indonesia will try to stay neutral in a war between US and China. They've said this many times. More importantly, China has the military capacity to force them to do so. That's probably the most important part of this equation. No country wants to be stuck on the losing side. If Japan thinks America will get destroyed, even it would not fight back if China attacks American bases in Japan.

Of course, none of this will stop america/australia from launching cruise missiles or even flying B-52s over Indonesian airspace. Indonesian objections mean nothing during a war if they can't stop it.

It's all about hard power in a war. Indonesia has none of that.

Russia is weak militarily. It cannot really punish nearby nations for siding against it. China can destroy countries in Asia easily.
 

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yes, China controls shipping across SCS. In time of war, anyone that doesn't at least stay neutral will get punished.
That is, if China controls the SCS by carrying out a blockade, will all countries passively accept it? Following a few pages of another topic, it was mentioned that China would go to war if the US and allies carried out the blockade of the SCS, but when it comes to China will all countries in the region passively accept this without reacting?
China will destroy their economy.
The destruction is mutual. What do you think will happen if China carries out a blockade on Taiwan? Extend this to the entire SCS involving all countries in the region that are China's biggest trading partners.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but Indonesia will try to stay neutral in a war between US and China. They've said this many times.
As I have already said, I do not believe in the neutrality of any country in the region.
More importantly, China has the military capacity to force them to do so. That's probably the most important part of this equation.
The US too, be it militarily and diplomatically. Did you consider that in your equation?
No country wants to be stuck on the losing side.
So is total victory certain for China? Do you guarantee this at the operational level?
If Japan thinks America will get destroyed, even it would not fight back if China attacks American bases in Japan.
Why would they think that? And even more, why would they not react when they are attacking national soil? PS: they said the same thing about the Ukrainians
The argument is that China has enough military power to wipe out countries in the region, Japan would have to be the first to adopt neutrality because the country's destruction is certain if it enters a conflict with China.
Of course, none of this will stop america/australia from launching cruise missiles or even flying B-52s over Indonesian airspace. Indonesian objections mean nothing during a war if they can't stop it.
The objection is not the source of the argument, but rather the cooperation that can occur indirectly or even directly in the war effort.
It's all about hard power in a war. Indonesia has none of that.
This is exactly why it depends on other allies in the region as well as all other countries allying with the US in multinational exercises.
Russia is weak militarily. It cannot really punish nearby nations for siding against it. China can destroy countries in Asia easily.
Of course they can. It's punishing. Not in a hard power mode, but in an asymmetrical way, deterrence through hard power was in effect until February 24, 2022. And hard power did not prevent the reformulation of the European security architecture, even under an alleged modernization of the Russians in the program that started way back in 2008.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top