Miscellaneous News

Phead128

Major
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
What concerns me is how this situation will play out. China has already raised the stakes significantly, but if Japan fails to respond, China risks creating an awkward stalemate. This would likely be followed by the anticipated prolonged freeze in Sino-Japanese relations. That said, Japan's controversial remarks do provide China with justification for more assertive actions. It's akin to former U.S. House Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, which gave China grounds to cross the median line of the Taiwan Strait.
Even if Japan retreats to "strategic ambiguity," the US will inevitably drag Japan into a Taiwan conflict through bases, logistics, or troops, making Japanese involvement a foregone conclusion that China should plan for accordingly. When people show you who they are, believe them, irrespective of face-saving diplomatic backtracking. When push comes to shove, Japan doesn't have independent autonomy over it's security involvement, daddy US has the supreme control.
 

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
Even if Japan retreats to "strategic ambiguity," the US will inevitably drag Japan into a Taiwan conflict through bases, logistics, or troops, making Japanese involvement a foregone conclusion that China should plan for accordingly. When people show you who they are, believe them, irrespective of face-saving diplomatic backtracking. When push comes to shove, Japan doesn't have independent autonomy over it's security involvement, daddy US has the supreme control.
I'm still pretty convinced that Japan would stay out of a Taiwan conflict as much as possible. If anything, this Takaichi thing tells me that they just don't have the guts to fight against China; especially since there's a real possibility that they could lose real territory over it.

That's about the least surprising news ever. The CIA has a record of funding every enemy of countries that the US doesn't like, and the Dalai Lama fits that description like a glove. We even already knew that the CIA was deeply involved in Tibet in the 1950s, so giving him money is just an extension of that operation.
 

Randomuser

Captain
Registered Member
Even the previous Dalai Lama was a British shill. Why did he run away to British India twice when things got tough? Why did he allow so much British "influence and support" to be in Tibet?

Honestly speaking, I'm beginning to think the role of Dalai Lama should be abolished just like King, Emperor etc. Its just a religious relic from the past that no longer justifies remaining in this age.

That title isn't even some really ancient thing. Its just a title given during the Ming Dynasty era.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
By framing it like this, it also leaves the door wide open for Russia to join the party as another successor state to one of the original WWII principle victors.

While some might scoff at what the Russia military might bring to the table, but geography alone means it can make a massively powerful contribution. As well as the political and diplomatic benefits of having another great power second China’s position.

Russia gains from potentially finally getting somewhere for a naval base that isn’t frozen over half the time and isn’t easily bottled up. As well as weapons and industrial support from China, which it can redirect to Ukraine if thats still not won by then.

Frankly speaking, should China go into war with Japan over Operation AR and/or the Ryukyus (and the US and its Lackeys Co.), personally I don't think Russia needs to join the conflict as an active belligerent.

The Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet based at Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky could serve as mobile fleet-in-beings by tying up certain portions of the JMSDF and the US Navy forces in the Northern Pacific, primarily with their SSNs and SSGNs (alongside their SSBNs and SSKs to a lesser extent). The Russian Long Range Aviation bomber fleet that is based at Ukrainka would be a useful addition to this combo as well.

In addition, the airspaces around the China–North Korea–Russia border tripoint could be utilized for PLAAF warplanes to transit between Northeastern China and the Sea of Japan for missions targetting the Japanese home islands. Similar arrangements could also be made for airspaces above certain parts of the Russian Far East that would enable PLAAF warplanes to conduct missions in the Northern Pacific.

Moreover, without active participation in the war, Russian military assets cannot be legally attacked by the opposing forces, as long as they stay just beyond the reaches of the active combat regions during the war. This should be useful for collecting military intelligence, which could be passed onto the Chinese side.

The same applies with North Korea.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Major
Registered Member
I'm still pretty convinced that Japan would stay out of a Taiwan conflict as much as possible. If anything, this Takaichi thing tells me that they just don't have the guts to fight against China; especially since there's a real possibility that they could lose real territory over it.
They can't, conflict there de facto invalidates US security guarantees to both Korea and Japan: their core SLOCs lie there. Right now, US ensures them. Shall Taiwan reunite, what then, US-guaranteed communications around Malay barrier, after (likely) a lost naval war? That's ridiculous; country can be security guarantor only if it's physically able to provide said security.

For Korea geography is in such proximity to China they can't do anything about it, but Japan(which has way large share of transpacific ones) can afford to fight.

This is not a new knowledge, and it was always tacitly understood. But saying it out loud is a stupid mistake, not the least because even in Korea this statement immediately stinks of worst memories abt Japan.
By framing it like this, it also leaves the door wide open for Russia to join the party as another successor state to one of the original WWII principle victors.
Irony here is that regardless of Ru participation, lack of concluding peace treaty b/n Russia and Japan is a strong argument for validity of UN charter miscellaneous provisions (article 107), with argumentation going firmly beyond just lack of deletion.

Funny how Japanese reluctance with Kuril islands may bite them back so hard in such an unexpected way.
 
Last edited:

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
They can't, conflict there de facto invalidates US security guarantees to both Korea and Japan: their core SLOCs lie there. Right now, US ensures them. Shall Taiwan reunite, what then, US-guaranteed communications around Malay barrier, after (likely) a lost naval war? That's ridiculous; country can be security guarantor only if it's physically able to provide said security.
If Japan thinks that they will lose more by fighting a war with China than to back out, they absolutely can. Besides, by that point, Japan is likely going to have serious doubts about whether the Americans can protect them any more.
 

Expert1324

Junior Member
Registered Member
On one hand, anyone dying is a solemn event, respect to pilot and his family.
On other hand, the JF-17/J-20 temu jokes are relentless, absolute schadenfreude when their own planes literally fall out of skies.
"But sar, this incident is obviously the pilot's own misjudgement not the plane's fault. The Tejas is literally known to be the most reliable plane in the world, as evident that there are only a few crashes over half a century! where 20 planes were delivered in total."
 
Top