Wednesday, July 11, 2018

We've Been Warned

ComNavOps dislikes and avoids repeating other websites and blogs.  My goal is to add value to news via insightful analysis.  Sometimes, however, a blog offers something that is simply too good not to repeat.  Such is the case, today.

I’ve stated repeatedly that China is looking to expand not only out to the first island chain but well beyond, including, eventually, world domination.  Many people scoff at that – probably the same people who several years ago scoffed at the notion that China would capture the entire South China Sea – but history and China’s own words fully support my view.

Cdr. Salamander’s blog offers this quote from Captain Liu Zhe, the commander of China’s aircraft carrier.

“We firmly believe that the farther away from the territorial sea, the more secure the motherland will be behind, the world peace will be more of a guarantee.”

This is flat out stating that China is planning to expand past the first island chain.  We’ve already seen the first indications of China moving on the second island chain.  China has begun to set up its rationale for continued expansion by making claims on Japanese territory, preparing to establish a base on Scarborough Shoal, conducting state sponsored emigration to the Philippines with the goal of annexing the island nation when the population tilts sufficiently Chinese, and exploring the “validity” of second island chain claims in various academic and political writings.

In fact, taking the Captain’s statement to its logical conclusion, the only distance sufficiently far away from the motherland to absolutely guarantee China’s security is total global control which is exactly what I’ve stated is China’s ultimate goal. 

China is like President Trump.  You may agree or disagree with the President but you have to acknowledge that he is doing exactly what he said he would do.  We may not like what China is saying but they are doing exactly what they’ve said they would do.  They’ve said they’ll continue to expand so why would we think they won’t continue to do so?

As Cd. Salamander stated, we’ve been warned.


(1)cdr salamander blog, “Keeping an Eye on the Long Game: Part LXVIII”, 6-Mar-2017,


  1. Just to play devil's advocate, senior US naval officers have also made some pretty bold but unsubstantiated claims that don't reflect national policy at all.

    The most extreme example is probably former Pacific Fleet commander Admiral James Aloysius "Ace" Lyons who is claiming that former CIA director Brennan is a secret Muslim convert who leads a nefarious cabal of Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators in every major US Intelligence Agency. I think we can both agree that this probably isn't true.

    1. It is one thing for a single, non-official person to make a wild claim about an utterly unimportant matter and another for an extensive series of officials, scholars, diplomats, and serving military officers to systematically lay out a case for geopolitical expansion, as China is doing.

    2. I concur - there can be no doubt among anyone who has looked at this seriously that the Chinese will continue to seize territory wherever they can, however they can. The amount of overseas territory that they now effectively control, overtly or covertly, is rapidly increasing. There are declared bases such as Djibouti, forecast bases like Vanuatu and huge numbers of 'overseas chinese' controlling vast swathes of Africa and Asia. With Chinese matching the USA in GDP in the next 15-20 years, this is only going to end in war or US/Western influence ending in Asia.

      What's the answer? Two things - hit them economically like Trump is doing and expand NATO to include Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan etc and Russia. Russia joining NATO is the key in my view, if only to keep all those resources and that nice empty space away from the Chinese. We need to build a fortified chain of bases around China to cut of resources - if raw materials get cut off, China will fold, and the has already surrendered Africa and it's resources to the Chinese.

    3. "already surrendered Africa"

      Excellent comment. You are correct. We need to isolate China financially, politically, and physically and contest their expansions into Africa, South America, and elsewhere.

      What would you suggest the US do about Africa? It's not quite a foregone conclusion, yet.

    4. "We need to isolate China financially, politically, and physically and contest their expansions into Africa, South America, and elsewhere."


    5. I think the key to geopolitically balancing China in Africa is for the United States to look to its European allies. The British influence through the Commonwealth of Nations, and the French influence to its former colonies covers roughly half of Africa. Much of the rest are in the African Union or the Arab League. If we work in concert for security and economic development of Africa, we can use the influence of the Arab Gulf States and Europe to help leverage influence, even if we have to go favor trading with them to achieve it.

    6. "I think the key to geopolitically balancing China in Africa is for the United States to look to its European allies."

      That's an interesting concept. Of course, the difficulties the US is having with NATO nations paying for their own defense somewhat argues against them exerting any meaningful influence in Africa.

      Do you have some specific measures that you think France, Britain, or others could take that would help in Africa?

  2. The US doesn't really get involved in Africa whereas the Chinese are investing massively and there is a growing ex-pat Chinese community. The US isn't going to get Americans to move to Africa but it can buy the resources and stockpile them and support US companies in investments in roads, rail and ports - it has to compete. Equally, US soldiers aren't seen much in Africa - where's the leadership against the genocide in Congo? If you don't intervene when there's mass murder, rape and cannibalism, where's your moral credibility? You can't only intervene where there's oil if you want to be a moral leader. Chinese hospital ships sail round Africa giving free treatment - where are the US ones?

    The USA won't win if it never sets foot on the pitch.

    1. Google "kill the boer"
      And then draw conclusions as to how well its going to go for chinese expats in the long run

    2. How is that relevant? The Chinese generally aren't buying farms and in many areas they now outnumber the locals and have better weapons.

  3. Its not just the maritime spectrum, its inevitable

    The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) or the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road is a development strategy proposed by the Chinese government which focuses on connectivity and cooperation between Eurasian countries, primarily the People's Republic of China (PRC)

    1. It not a new idea, Empire pays colony now for special access later.
      The problem invariably ends up being that when "later" comes, the person who signed on behalf of the colony, is strangely forgetful of his obligations, or dead, and his replacement has no interests in honouring them.

      China builds railways in Pakistan now, and Pakistan refuses to allow China free access later.

  4. What is dangerous for us, the world and China itself is the fact that China hasn't really gone outside its own sphere of influence (East Asia) militarily in 4000 years for the most part.. Except when foreigners(Mongols) ruled them when they expanded east for several centuries...

    Suddenly 1973-2018, because they have economic power they are going to follow the USA's example on how to become a global superpower? Automatically, without experience of 300 years economic growth, continental physical expansion, the hemispheric Monroe Doctrine, World War 1 and 2, Cold War, etc. etc. like the USA?

    If this is truly the path THEY choose based on their historic culture and prized INSCRUTABILITY, they (the CHICOMs) are making a big mistake. The world has changed.. They are breaking ground when they leave East Asia in ways they can't control. It will not be a win-win for them if they do. Beware of yourself, China. Economic power brings one thing, military power, another... Oftentimes the two do not meet.


    1. China's path is leading them inexorably towards war. Every piece of land in the world is already owned by someone and if China is bent on acquiring more land, as they say they are and as their actions demonstrate, they will, inevitably, bump up against someone who doesn't want to give up the land. Then, war.

      The only fallacy in my analysis and your warning is that China seems to want that war. They seem to believe they will come out ahead as a result of it.

    2. First, you are not listening (Chinese stated methodology is B&R+AIIB, shooting yuan instead of bullets). Second, juxtaposing past American experience onto future China without context of historical circumstance/background/cultural norm (past is not always prologue) is unfounded simplification. Last, just how would China 'win a peer war' without avoiding mutual-destructive lethality of modern weaponries, let alone 'warring' on its breadbasket customers, a complete irrational decision making of lose-lose proposition.

      Don't let 'I must stay #1' blot out rational and reasoned discourse.

    3. Sorry, I'm not 'unknown', it's Tim here.

    4. Figured it was you! We've discussed China's rationale so I won't bother rehasing it. I'll simply say that our calculus regarding "mutual-destructive" actions is not China's. We abhor the thought of war that lead to our own civilian deaths (as well as foreigners!). We shudder to even contemplate the destruction and horrors of war. China does not.

      China views war as an acceptable price if the gains are sufficient. Sure, they'd prefer to use non-kinetic means but, sooner or later, the rest of the world will run out of patience and war will happen. China is fine with that. Yes, they'll suffer enormous casualties and much destruction but they can always grow more workers (their view of civilians) and they can always rebuild factories and cities. No big deal in their calculus.

      Where's my evidence? It's the human wave attacks China used. It's the massacre of citizens during human rights protests. It's the historical acceptance of female infanticide. It's the one-child policy. And so on. Chinese culture and the communist party simply don't value human life the same as the West does.

      Therefore, the horrors of war do not exert the same "gentling" effect on Chinese behavior that they do on Western behavior.

      You can deny it all you wish, but there it is. It's a reality.

    5. You can pick out evidence from any society to show that they don't care about human life. For America, they can use our endless string of mass school shootings, our largely unaddressed opioid crisis, our history of medical experimentation on unaware citizens and racial violence, our repeated use of nuclear weapons on mostly civilian targets, the pre WW2 Eugenics program, the human wave charges of the civil war....

      In the last 40 years, America has inflicted and taken far more casualties in war than China. If they were truly as casualty averse as you say, they would have pushed harder into Vietnam and India, but those wars were relatively brief and quickly de-escalated.

      Perhaps Mao was as bloodthirsty and ruthless as this caricature, but Mao was the product of the most violent civil war in living memory. The current crop of Politburo are technocratic engineers who are generations separated from that experience. Do you really expect them to make those kinds of extremely high risk gambles when the lives of their families, many of whom are currently studying in the United States may be put at risk of Western retaliation?

    6. "You can pick out evidence from any society to show that they don't care about human life. For America ..."

      This is one of the lowest quality comments I've seen in a while. I'd delete it except that it makes a good object lesson in what a bad comment is.

      For example, you utterly miss the distinction between America's incidents and China's: America condemns the incidents whereas China's incidents were/are generally supported by the government.

      Mass shootings are not a cultural failing, they are the work of demented, insane individuals and they are universally condemned by the people and the government.

      Opiod abuse is AGAINST THE LAW.

      Racial violence is condemned by people and the government and our history is a steady movement towards racial equality and peace.

      The nuclear weapons use in WWII saved more lives than it took. Millions on both sides would have died in an invasion of Japan. By the way, your use of the word "repeated" for an event that occurred twice is a blatant attempt to mislead.

      And so on.

      Thank you for providing an example of the most inaccurate, misleading, illogical, and lowest quality comment I've seen recently.

      You are clearly not up to the standards of this blog. You might want to find another blog to frequent.

    7. CNOPS,

      I wrote that comment with the idea some modern SunTzu over there in CHICOM would see that following the USA into world leadership role, militarily around the globe, is not in their own best interest as they have not experienced the cold, hard, school of hard knocks we have experienced these past two hundred years...We did not seek this. Is was pre-ordained from our very unique origins in western/world history... IMPO, that is why we are exceptional.

      They are not. At least not in the same way. The conditions today do not exist. They have 3 thousand years of culture and history to overcome, first...

      Basically, I view their actions the same as you CNOPs and that those actions alone define their intent. I would have thought they were smarter than that... ;-)


  5. I should ask my wife do I look like darth vader or one of his clone soldiers. Ya know, chinese still pops from mother's womb, not test tubes.

    Peace out.

    1. I should ask, how is the recent assumption of dictatorship by Xi viewed in the region? It's yet another reason for the West to distrust China.

    2. My guess: Probably 90/10. Xi's strongman ambition (and energy) is 90% focused within- how to combat corruption, drive economic reform/development and governing 1.3B wild cat Chinese. And 10% of his time/effort telling outsiders; don't F with China.

      However, from outside looking in, if China is responding to Xi's policy, and/plus with Xi's hard stance on diplomacy, that's 100% darth vader in the eyes of China skeptics.

      It is for practical reason: China's destiny is in its own hand (unlike other strongmen in lesser economies, Putin/Russia or Erdo/Turkey). If China does well, it rises; if not, not. Therefore, Xi's main focus/effort is within, the collateral world effect will follow.

    3. Wow, I didn't realize that Xi isn't a ruthless dictator, he's a humanitarian!

    4. I mean this sincerely, without an ounce of cynicism.

      Trump and Xi are kindred souls. Only one has unlimited power to do big things for its people; the other has been 'checked and balanced' every which way by its own.

    5. If you do not see the difference between an evil, murderous, second coming of Hitler and an American President who actually cares about the citizens then you have a very warped view of reality. I'm sorry for you.

      Well, enough said.

    6. I feel like someone has to actually commit genocide before you label them as a 2nd coming of Hitler. Does Xi have a bad human rights record? Sure. Has he tried to exterminate an entire race in gas chambers? Not that we know of.

    7. CNO, if that's your truly belief that Xi/Hitler (and Chinese/stormtrooper) will eventually show his (their) true color, and the US has no choice but to re-fight WW2, then I'm relieved, cuz you are just wrong about Xi (and Chinese), WW3 ain't gonna happen. Trust you me, I know more about them than you.

      Peace out.

    8. "2nd coming of Hitler"

      Declared himself dictator for life, bent on global conquest, trampling on the rights of other countries, seizing territories illegally through military intimidation, ignoring international law, conducted political purges, thrown rivals into jail for life, military build up, and more. Sure seems like he's checking all the boxes to be another Hitler.

    9. "you are just wrong about Xi (and Chinese),"

      Well, all I can say is that I've been 100% right about China all along. I predicted years ago that China would seize the E/S China Seas and they did. I predicted that China would continue to ratchet up the aggressive military intimidation and they have. I predicted that China would annex the Philippines and they're in the process of doing so. I predicted China was intent on global conquest and they've steadily been establishing military bases around the world (note, not friendly, peaceful, trading bases but military bases - many acquired through ruthless, unethical, illegal means such as Sri Lanka).

      If I've been right about all these things, would you say it's more or less likely that I'm right about the rest of my predictions.

      Your track record, on the other hand, is completely wrong. The peaceful, friendly, helpful, good world neighbor that you've consistently predicted for China has been 100% wrong.

      Which of us is more likely to be right about predictions of a war with China? I'll stand on my record.

      Honestly, your comments are becoming less and less credible because they're less and less reflective of reality. That's not a personal attack, just an observation that your views are being proven wrong on a daily basis!

    10. Sir, Chinese are realpolitik and pragmatic animals and they will push the envelope as far as they can with what you allows (or gave it away).

      What they are not is suicidal and ideological ( as born out by Mao's disasterous years).

    11. Well, neither of us is ever going to convince the other. So, why not put your money where your mouth is and have a friendly bet? Pick a date by which you think China will have annexed the Phillipines, and let's put some money down on whether it's gonna happen.

    12. Chris, I should of include this: though I think CNO is wrong, but I need to add he is justifiably wrong (with the assumption he hadn't spend time in China, or long enough to get a vibe of that place.)

      I would suggest to all China skeptics: do a 'reconn' to the 'enemy territory' to find out (I mean, you gotta know your enemy as well as yourself to prevail in all fight should you choose to fight, right?)

      Instead of a bet, how about a little R&R in China.

    13. "he is justifiably wrong"

      What's the difference between an evil empire intent on global conquest and a good empire intent on global conquest? In the end, none.

      I judge Xi and China on their actions and those actions are evil. Perhaps Xi goes home at night and serves food to homeless people in a soup kitchen. I have no idea. What I do know is what I see and that is utter disdain for the rest of the world and ruthless conquest of China's surrounding regions and countries, one by one.

      What's the difference? None.

  6. I know its late BUT....consider this. China has always considered the world to be barbarous and they the enlightened civilized world. When China conquered a territory it didn't just send in troops and take over. It then COMPLETELY destroyed that peoples identity. Hell thats why China exist. The mongols always won but then in a generation they were Chinese...the people in charge always stayed the same.

    IT STILL IS. The Chinese have a habit of taking over area's by shipping in populations. They need resources. So, what if they instead of taking the PN really look to the west. To Africa. What nation will go to war over africa?

    Yep about what I thought. The PN gets annexed then Vietnam and all the others lose their crap and join together. AND Japan goes to full war footing.


Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.