China is the new evil empire and it’s just
a matter of time until China
and the US
square off in an all out war. Until
then, China is engaged in a geopolitical expansionist movement that is
breathtaking in its scope and daring and flawless in its execution. You can’t help but admire their approach and
effectiveness.
China has just about completed its seizure
of the South and East
China Seas
as bounded by the first island chain and has done so without firing a
shot. That’s impressive! They are now moving on to the second island
chain.
In the
meantime, they have begun the annexation of Philippines. China has, for some time, been
altering the population makeup of the Philippines through state sponsored
emigration. It’s only a matter of time
until the predominant ethnicity of the Philippines becomes Chinese and
Chinese people begin taking over roles in government and society. At some point, the Philippines will become a de facto
Chinese territory. What’s more, the
Philippines has begun accepting military aid from China in the form of 3000
assault rifles (1), 4 patrol boats (2), rocket
propelled grenade launchers (RPG) and ammunition (2), military trainers (2), and
is pursuing closer economic, cultural, and political ties.
This is a
classic demonstration of a soft power war being conducted, quite successfully,
against the U.S. and the world. China is well
on its way to domination of the Pacific Rim
and more. The US needs to engage in this
soft power war and in a significant way.
As it stands, we are losing by default.
_____________________________
(1)China
Defense Blog, “China turns
over 3,000 M-4 to Philippine”, 5-Oct-2017,
https://china-defense.blogspot.com/2017/10/china-turns-over-3000-m-4-to-philippine.html
(2)Defense
World website, “China Donates 4 Patrol Boats to Philippines as part of Weapons
Aid”, 30-Jul-2018,
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23080/China_Donates_4_Patrol_Boats_to_Philippines_as_part_of_Weapons_Aid#.XMEOQPZFyM8
I'd argue that China is much more dangerous to the entire world than Soviet Union even was, to say nothing of Germany.
ReplyDeleteIn 1992 Ross Perot said something that I had been thinking for some time at that point, "In the post-Cold-War world, economic power will be more important than military power."
ReplyDeleteWe haven't learned that lesson, and have spent the last 20 years trying to impose our will militarily in a region that pretty much doesn't want to go our way. China did learn that lesson, and while we were so distracted and preoccupied, has built up a considerable sphere of influence in South Asia and Africa, now expanding to the Mediterranean and Latin America.
We need an industrial policy, including tax and regulatory elements, that will bring manufacturing out of China and either back home or to our allies. And we need to use that manufacturing leverage as soft power to counter China. while we are doing that, we need to build a military, and particularly a Navy, that can at worst bottle China up inside the first island chain, and keep China from taking over that first island chain.
Basically we have to win Cold War II the same way we won Cold War I--Truman bribed up an alliance to contain Soviet expansion into Europe, and four decades later Reagan put pressure on their economy and brought down the Evil Empire. China is a formidable opponent, and we are kidding ourselves if we thing otherwise, but they have some fundamental problems that make them weak in certain areas. And we can exploit those weaknesses if we do it properly.
We are obviously starting on the back foot with respect to the Philippines, and a number of other places, but we can still catch up and pass them. We can turn a Sputnik situation into an Apollo situation, but we have to start now with a totally different approach.
Economic power has always been important, as has military power. The difference between the PRC and the US at this point is the will to use their power to achieve their aims. China has no problem using its military to threaten countries and using its economic power to bend countries to its will. On the other hand, the US seems almost ashamed of its power and is reluctant to use it in any substantive way.
DeleteA great example of China's use of economic power is what it did in Uganda by taking over the nation's main airport. Uganda defaulted on its loan and China took over the airport as a result. Do you think the US would do that? No. It would simply let the country off. China is slowly taking over Africa through similar actions throughout the continent.
China's ruthless policies don't make friends, but they get results. The US has spent its time playing nice and trying to make friends because it has the delusion that if you are nice that other countries will act in your interest.
Countries will always act in what they view as their interest unless through economic or military force you make it clear that acting in your interest is in their best interest.
"difference between the PRC and the US at this point is the will to use their power to achieve their aims."
DeleteOne of the best comments in a long time!
Husker95 wrote: "The difference between the PRC and the US at this point is the will to use their power to achieve their aims. China has no problem using its military to threaten countries and using its economic power to bend countries to its will. On the other hand, the US seems almost ashamed of its power and is reluctant to use it in any substantive way."
DeleteEhm, when was the last time China was militarily involved out of its border on the scale US did in Afghanistan/Iraq, or even Syria/Libya? When did it put the economic pressure the way US is doing on Iran? Or US did against Huawei? No, doing stuff _inside_ China does not count.
We are obviously living in different worlds.
I guess what we can agree on is that China is doing this in a much smarter way than the US does.
"when was the last time China was militarily involved out of its border"
DeleteDaily! The scale of involvement is irrelevant. China is using its military to expand its defacto boundaries. It's 'fishing fleet' and Coast Guard (both of which are just branches of the military, as is everything in China) are annexing territorial waters of Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and others on a daily basis. China's air force routinely violates the air space of surrounding countries. The Army has engaged India on a regular basis. The Chinese military conducts a regular and organized campaign of harassment of US forces. And the list goes on. China's military is quite active in support of its expansion goals.
"When did it put the economic pressure"
You are obviously not keeping up with Chinese global economic actions. China routinely sets up 'debt traps' for other countries as a means of obtaining foreign bases. Sri Lanka, Africa, and so many others are examples. China's economic might is even being used - quite successfully! - to manipulate the US!
"We are obviously living in different worlds."
Yes, we are!
Ignoring the political considerations due the growing weakness of the Navy compared to the Chinese Navy USN no longer acting as a deterrent to Chinese expansionism, the Chinese Navy year by year expanding and USN struggling to stay at current numbers.
ReplyDeleteYou might argue that the US is losing its skill sets in the number/capacity of shipyards and the related marine industrial support complex of the necessary magnitude to support a large Navy eg Dec 6 Defense News write up of all the problems at BIW, my view its greatly compounded by the type of ships Navy procures Fords, Zumwalts LCS, Burkes etc.
PS Mahon mentioned one of his determinants required was for a vibrant ocean going society, China builds ~30% of the world's commercial ships, US less than 1% ?, whether it means anything Chinese flagged ships ~5,600, US ~180, think most commercial ships sail under flags of convenience.
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2021/12/06/bath-iron-works-plays-catch-up-on-ship-delivery-after-years-of-upheaval/
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/12/the-u-s-navy-has-an-achilles-heel/
We are a divided country, arguing over internal conflicts and partisan politics.
ReplyDeleteIf history is a guide we won't stay this way forever. Unfortunately it's typically an existential crisis that pulls us out of these times of extreme disunity.
We need to get our shit together in a hurry with this one because we might not be able to pull off a last-second recovery from negligence this time around.
Lutefisk
It is wrong reading. In reality, China thinks alliance and de facto control other government is a LIABILITY than assets. If you read sober articles than these emotional ones, you would know. This is why China keeps refusing to form formal alliance with Russia. You can see China has formed many strategic partnership with nations but no alliance, except one Cold War leftover with N. Korea. Just a few days ago, China has formerly made Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with ASEAN (10 S.E. nations, include Philippine). This kind of relationships are corporations in common interest tasks but no responsibilities on others, especially on defense and security.
ReplyDeleteI think that real Chinese wisdom for the time being is no liability on other nations' conflicts which have not much to do with itself. China can then selectively to support a nation and pull plug anytime.
"China builds ~30% of the world's commercial ships, US less than 1%"
ReplyDeleteOne of my concerns is that if we build a modernized Des Moines class cruiser (which we should) that within a year China will have layed the keels on 6 of them.
We need to build civilian merchant ships.
Lutefisk
US ship building industry is almost equivalent to military ship building, which is a sour point of the nation.
DeleteLess and less smart high school graduates choose STEM as college majors. This leaves the nation less and less competent engineers. Meanwhile, there are no shortages of "patriotic" people lack of science knowledge and listen to all sort of harassments and boasts.
"China is well on its way to domination of the Pacific Rim and more. The US needs to engage in this soft power war and in a significant way. As it stands, we are losing by default"??
ReplyDeleteGet a grip!
On the eastern side of the Pacific Rim, China is more powerful than we are, in every metric, from defense and diplomacy to trade and economic growth.
We will be lucky to hold onto Canada and Latam's west coast.
ComNavOps, I find your technical analysis of military/naval matters excellent. However, when you drift into politics, things become absurd rather quickly because of your US-centric view of the world.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Philippines have a population of 110 million people...they will never become ethnically Chinese. Moreover, the real reason for Chinese success in the Philippines and elsewhere is because they help third world countries to build infrastructure, while the US just wants to build military bases in these countries aand bully them into accepting US diktats.
Let's look at some facts. Various sources put the Chinese (direct and descended) population of Philippines at around 24 million which is 22% of the population and that trend is increasing. Philippines does not need to become 100% Chinese to render it China-friendly. A quarter of the population is a significant infuencer of national policy. In fact, it's already in that category, as noted in the post, and those ties are growing stronger. China-friendly, of course, covers a spectrum of attitudes ranging from peaceful co-existence to active interactions to formal ties. Philippines is already in the peaceful co-existence range with increasing examples of active interactions. So, the Chinese derived population is already sufficient to have triggered the process of 'conquest' by China.
DeleteThe movement is not yet irreversible but the US is behind the curve and is making little effort to change the direction.
Of course, not every China-derived person is automatically a pro-China agent, however, there seems to be little anti-China sentiment from the Chinese community, as far as I can observe. Further, China does not need every person to be pro-China. They can simply claim to be supporting and safeguarding 'their' people
as a rationale/excuse for taking forceful action and, indeed, have made exactly that claim/threat multiple times.
I look forward to your next comment which will be polite and respectful.
"Various sources put the Chinese (direct and descended) population of Philippines at around 24 million which is 22% of the population and that trend is increasing."
DeleteJust because one have a particular blood means that one is automatically friendly or loyal to that particular nation. Indeed if that be the case the American revolutionary war and Civil War would not have happen. Which you have also pointed out, also minorities tend not to be vocal about their views on the foreign policies of the country because they know how easy it is for them to be sweep up in racial pogroms.
Also the problem with this is that those who could be considered as racially pure Chinese stands at only 1.3 million. A pathetically miniscule amount in the Phillipines.
And if the Chinese really are interested in playing the Russian card of "protecting Chinese people overseas" they did start with automatically extending dual citizenship to anyone of Chinese ancestry overseas which right now they aren't doing, and then pouncing on that when their citizens get prosecuted.
If China ever want a conquest of the Phillipines they are just going to do it without any lame excuse or justification like how they did the Korean War intervention.
The problem with this assumption is that it puts every single nation that has formal ties and interaction with China ~ basically every one on the planet~ as being in bed with it which is certainly not the case.
DeleteI agree with Unknown. I also find ComNavOps' technical analysis of naval/military matters excellent. When going into politics the view may not be wide enough.
DeleteI disagree with the assessment that Chinese success, where U.S have failed, is due to them building infrastructure as opposed to U.S military bases though.
Whilst I typically resist to comment/contribute in previous instances of such U.S centric views, I am quite alarmed when in this instance ethnic Chinese are insinuated to harbour pro-china sentiments simply due to ancestry or the fact that there isn't many public expressions of anti-china sentiments.
I am keeping this short as my previous attempt to comment in this specific topic has repeatedly failed to be published, as such if you see multiple instances of this, I do apologize. I will be very happy to elaborate if you like.
With respect
Loc
"I am quite alarmed when in this instance ethnic Chinese are insinuated to harbour pro-china sentiments simply due to ancestry"
DeleteYou're missing two points:
1. Some portion of ethnic Chinese DO have pro-China sentiments. As you point out, it's not 100% but neither is it zero. This exact scenario is playing out in Philippines as we speak. Ethnic Chinese, whether direct immigrants or generationally descended, are moving into business and government and bringing a degree of pro-Chinese feeling. Again, not 100% but significant enough. Philippines has swung from a pro-US posture to a decidedly anti-US and pro-China one. How much of that is official government actions versus 'man on the street' sentiment is unknown but I'm not seeing any pro-US and anti-China demonstrations so it's a pretty good bet how the sentiment lies.
2. Far more importantly, the very existence of ethnic Chinese allows China to make the claim that they need 'protecting' and China can use this to justify intervention. It doesn't matter to China whether the ethnic Chinese want protection or not.
"previous attempt to comment in this specific topic has repeatedly failed to be published,"
No comment gets deleted if it's polite, factual, logical, and meets the requirements listed on the Comment Policy page. If you wrote a comment that was deleted then it failed to meet one or more the requirements.
I do not believe that the previous comments were deleted, it seemed more like a bug. The same text is being put forth now and somehow it's working fine which is great!
DeleteFor the first point you raised, allow me to elaborate. I do live in South East Asia, although not in the Philippines, and I'd say most ethnic Chinese in the region no longer have any sense that mainland china is our homeland, unlike our forefathers. Therefore I am alarmed when you start to insinuate that ethnic Chinese in the region might be pro china simply because of ancestry or the lack of anti-china sentiments. That's like saying most Muslims are extremists because they are not showing much anti-extremist sentiments (I have many moderate Muslim friends who quietly grimace Everytime some terrorist claim they do it in the name of Islam). The reality of it is that MODERATES anywhere in the world if any race or creed tend to be rather moderate in the expressions of their sentiments. That's what I've learnt and although I wish it was otherwise, it is what it is.
Most people (ethnic Chinese especially ahem) are much more interested in economic prosperity and they look at this from a relatively pragmatic point of view without much ideology. I say most because of course there are some little pink trumpets, people are people. Many who have experienced working with China already realize they don't necessarily like it, however geography dictates that China can get to us far more quickly than the U.S can. While it is clear to many of us here that China DOES NOT see us as one of them (they don't), the U.S isn't very reliable either. When Indonesia was going through the 1998 political and economic crisis and there was unrest, particularly pogrom of various ethnic minorities (including Chinese), where was the U.S or U.N with all that human rights thing? An old adage acta non verba carries weight no matter the era. People remember that China did warn the Indonesian Government of the time to rein in the violence against ethnic Chinese. However the reverse is also true, Everytime China sends their fishing/research fleets in their typical bullying behaviour into another country's EEZ today, it is detrimental to ethnic Chinese where they are minorities as it stoked up anti-chinese sentiments. We bear the brunt of it so certainly they are not doing anything for our benefit either, and I agree that this last point actually fits into the second point that you made which is a good one. Any state or person will use whatever excuse they can (be it logical, reasonable or otherwise) to further their interests.
I make these points not to argue for the sake of arguing, but in the hopes of giving insight from the region. Believe me nobody wants China as it is now to come into the region and do as they please. ASEAN (As useless an organization for defence matters as it is) wants ASEAN centrality in the region. I hope more people can understand the hopes and aspiration of the region better so as not to repeat history (the tragic misreading that led to the Vietnam War for example). The main thing is perhaps if the U.S can cast a longer view and broader perspective, we can hopefully achieve peace in our time. IF NOT, then at least maximize alignment of goals which is certainly the prevention of China's hegemony. Don't repeat the same mistakes of the WWII era treatment of the Nisei, it'd be such a waste.
With respect
Loc
"I do not believe that the previous comments were deleted, it seemed more like a bug. The same text is being put forth now"
DeletePlease note that comments on posts older than a few days are moderated to reduce spam. That results in a publishing delay until I have a chance to check them as non-spam. Assuming they meet the comment policy, rest assured they'll appear in fairly quickly as I try to check the moderation file several times per day.
The other possibility is that a comment gets automatically routed to the spam folder. This has been happening to several people lately. I have no control over this. The only thing I can do is check the spam folder regularly and move legitimate comments out for publishing but, again, this results in a delay in their appearance.
"who quietly grimace"
DeleteThough not directly related to this discussion, this comment is a good reminder of the old saying,
"All that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
QUIETLY grimacing is NOT the way to react to atrocities performed in one's name. Is it any wonder that the world has a negative view of Muslims? Wouldn't it be nice to see a protest by Muslims against those who perform evil in their name? And yet … silence. But, this is off topic.
"if the U.S can cast a longer view and broader perspective"
DeleteWithout a doubt, the US can and should be much more engaged in the region. One of the things you might want to recognize is that, despite our world wide presence, the US is isolationist by nature. We get involved only reluctantly and half-heartedly.
I would also offer the thought that, in American experience, we far too often are greeted with protests and anger when we try to help. Sometimes this is justified but often, in our opinion, it's unwarranted. That kind of reaction greatly dampens our enthusiasm for foreign engagements. What I'm saying is that there are two sides to every story.
All that said, the US should be engaging and we are slowly moving in that direction but at a snail's pace.
"QUIETLY grimacing is NOT the way.." I completely agree with this, alas.. not enough take action.
Delete"despite our world wide presence, the US is isolationist by nature.' This is interesting. For most people it would be difficult to believe that, but I understand the context you're coming from.
"we far too often are greeted with protests and anger when we try to help." I see this, however I don't think it is as much here in south east Asia as compared to perhaps the middle east. I reckon if we discount the bad actors, most of the issue that remains stem from different cultures. It is a complex matter and it takes years to form better understanding and even more for trust, years that we may not have.
I also understand the dampening of enthusiasm as you say because when Americans come into the region you may not be welcomed the way you were when you liberated Paris in 1944 perhaps. Then Americans feel Asians are ungrateful, which in turn make Asians think Americans are arrogant.. it goes on and on. American exceptionalism and all that comes into play and things get very complicated very quickly.
Perhaps then, for the short term at least, it might be prudent to use a different tack. Nudge instead of lead, work behind the scenes and give ASEAN nations where relevant (we can discount Cambodia, Laos, etc) a good economic alternative to China. Work on aligning those goals, ASEAN centrality should mean a free south china sea for example, that looks like something that can be emphasized. The U.S can still remain very visible while appearing as a partner rather than an opportunist. I believe with sufficient quick ACTION at least, ASEAN will start to come around.
Loc
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3160164/us-comes-courting-asean-it-pressures-beijing-what-will-it?utm_source=google_amp&utm_medium=Off-Platform-referrals&utm_campaign=19371_topicpage&action%5Bfollow%5D%5Btopic%5D=19371&linker=1%2a1vermz6%2aclientId%2aYW1wLWJLRGVJR2JFRm1nZXBzRmozYjAzTmc.
DeleteI just read this article from a couple of days ago and I do think this is relevant to this topic. ASEAN centrality is repeatedly referred to, directly or otherwise, as central to the thinking of ASEAN nations. It goes as far as mentioning that there are concerns that the Quad could supplant ASEAN as the leading rule-setting organization in Asia.
The article also shed light on ASEAN perception of American engagement thus far, lots of talk but insufficient action. It's a common joke here that NATO stands for "No Action, Talk Only". There is inference in the article that this could be due to the U.S viewing South East Asia as less important than her European allies who are more "like-minded" (I read that as liberal western democracies at the very least).
It also mentioned the ASEAN Outlook, Asean's Indo-Pacific vision, in which the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean as closely integrated and interconnected region. One where the regional grouping plays a central and strategic role, turning to dialogue and cooperation instead of rivalry.
Again I must mention that I highlight these not to put blame or judge but as a matter of fact and how we can use this as part of a basis to move forward.
Although I think the turning dialogue into cooperation part of ASEAN Outlook is an idealistic goal that is still far in the making (tell me when humans in general prefer cooperation to competition), I believe there are sections that is of use here. Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean would mean it will include many of the Quad already, this can be leveraged to further align strategic goals which should be to dilute Chinese influence. It's fine if the U.S is not part of this central and strategic body that is envisioned as long as the goals are the same, to have a free and open Indo-Pacific and to balance the influence that China currently hold sway.
Loc
"...the real reason for Chinese success in the Philippines and elsewhere is because they help third world countries to build infrastructure..."
ReplyDeleteI think those countries are going to find that the Chinese are not all flowers and candy.
Lutefisk
The bills are going to come due on these Belt and Road projects, and the countries are not going to have the money to pay for them. Would it be in the USA's best interests to step up on the loans and essentially buy out China's liens?
Delete@CDR Chip: No. The proper response is for the USA to put its house in order (education, worker skills, tax policy, energy policy, relevant infrastructure (telecom, electricity, port, harbor, rail, etc.), civil defense, military/NG reforms, etc.) so that we can compete with the Chinese. It is hard to stand up to a bully when you cannot even manufacture a rifle cartridge in our country (we have not smelted lead in this country since ~2013).
DeleteGAB: Absolutely agree with everything you say. My point is that these Belt and Road deals are already out there, with considerable money owed to China, and the Chinese are presumably going to foreclose rather than forgive when the debts come due. Perhaps we could buy our way into a few deals, in addition to doing everything you suggest. We actually have to do the things you suggest before we can even entertain serious thoughts of doing any buyouts.
DeleteGAB, one further point: I don't see any political will on either side of the aisle to do the things that you list (and I agree) as being necessary. Do you?
Delete"step up on the loans"
Delete"No. The proper response"
I do not see these two paths as being mutually exclusive. CDR Chip's idea is intriguing and, if successfully implemented, thwart some Chinese expansion and provide a possibility of furthering our own global basing and influence. We are already at war with China (or, at least, they are at war with us … we just need to recognize it!) and we need to engage or lose by default. This seems like one potentially effective means to engage.
Of course, it almost goes without saying that GAB's desire for 'putting our house in order' is necessary to solidify our economic and military power.
The two courses should be pursued concurrently and I see no reason why they couldn't. Am I missing something?
"The two courses should be pursued concurrently and I see no reason why they couldn't."
DeleteI don't either, and I hope I made that clear with my response to GAB.
With possibly having to send an Armored Corps (say 1st Infantry and 1st Armor Divs) to Ukraine AND having to deal with a push by China to bust out of the island chains, things are really going to get tight.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't exactly have a great opinion of the current US administration, I at least hope they won't reach the level of retardation required to start a land war with Russia.
Delete" I at least hope they won't reach the level of retardation required to start a land war with Russia."
DeleteWould you also hope that Russia won't reach the level of retardation required to start a land war with Europe and the US?
Yes, I am fairly confident the Russians won't be that retarded.
DeleteNow of course if Putin goes crazy and decides to march on Berlin or whatever, then it'd be an entirely different story.
What about Ukraine with reports suggesting an imminent further invasion?
DeleteI assume it's just fear-mongering/click-bait/posturing/etc.
DeleteBorder spats are one thing, but most of Ukraine proper is full of Ukrainians (duh) who don't exactly like Russia and won't submit to Russian rule.
It'd be an endless source of problems and an extremely stupid move.
Furthermore, even a "simple" Ukrainian war would cost money, and Russia doesn't have that much to spare.
Therefore, I assume there won't be any serious invasion, perhaps some skirmishes in the disputed areas but not much more.
"I assume it's just fear-mongering/click-bait/posturing/etc."
DeleteMaybe.
But Putin wasn't posturing in 2014 when he seized Crimea and sent 'volunteers' into the Donbas region, where there is ongoing fighting.
It would be thoroughly unsurprising to see Russia and China, working in concert, to take advantage of a divided and distracted America and a US administration that can't seem to find its footing to simultaneously invade Ukraine and Taiwan.
Lutefisk
Putin wants NaATO away from him. There was an implicit agreement that NATO and the EU would not claim the Eastern Block countries in return for the peaceful Soviet Union break up. Putin feels the West took advantage and wants to get back his sphere of influence. When the EU started admitting countries along with NATO this stage was set. Putin sees Germany's army as weak and the Germans and Poles will not work together. ALong with the US Army in Germany being reduced. Given the underwhelming response to Crimea, what does Putin have to fear?
DeleteThe nonsense over the Ukraine is just that: the Germans have a formal energy treaty that all but guarantees they will not interfere, and there is no real appetite to prevent Russian aggression. Germany's economy alone is much larger than Russia's so let them handle this - zero need for the USA to jump into this morass. This is yet another distraction from the usual suspects in DC and the media.
DeleteI believe Chamberlain had a similar argument. And Stalin had a timetable for dealing with Hitler also, just a few years too late. Beleive me, I am not thrilled about getting into it, but if US & NATO do nothing, again; well I hope the Atlantic and Pacific truely are sufficient barriers in these days of a global economy.
Delete"I am not thrilled about getting into it, but … "
DeleteWithout my agreeing or disagreeing, you seem to suggest that the US should actively defend Ukraine, if it comes to that. What compelling US national strategic concern do you see in Ukraine that would warrant our involvement? Again, neither agreeing nor disagreeing; just exploring your rationale.
"With possibly having to send an Armored Corps (say 1st Infantry and 1st Armor Divs) to Ukraine"
DeleteFrom a purely objective military perspective, committing to a limited military engagement would give us the real world feedback and proof of our various weapon systems and warfare theories. We could find out what works and what doesn't while gaining actual combat experience. This would provide a significant 'leg up' on China who has no recent combat experience and an entire military that is untested and unproven.
I know this would not be a popular view but it's another aspect to consider ...
Actively defending Ukraine maintains the status quo where countries cannot aggressively consume their neighbors. Exactly as Hitler was doing. Especially under a leader that from all indications wants to see the Soviet Union reconstitued or perhaps even re-establish the Tsarist Regime with him as Tsar. If we abandon that concept then where are we when N Korea again invades (although South Korea might beat them now), or Iran takes over the Shite Iraqi areas (and then possibly Kuwait or Saudi Arabia), or even China reclaims Taiwan. Messy, and not necessarily an accountants view of what we get out of 2 Koreas, 2 Chinas, or a constrained Iran. Personally letting countries decide democratically to join, or leave, a Union is the best way to go. Even if the UK is probably going ot regret their nationalistic knee jerk decision. ANd before anyone goes off the deep end US States do not have the unilateral right to leave the Union, we settled that 150+ years ago so our tradition and custom is once in you are in. Hope that makes the case.
DeleteDo you think status quo rises to the level of a US national strategic interest? For sake of discussion, let's assume Russia invades and conquers Ukraine and no other country objects. How does a Russian Ukraine negatively impact the US? Why would it be worth our fighting for?
DeleteAlthough you didn't explicitly state it as such, you seem to be making the argument of precedent: if we won't defend one country, we won't defend any country which, in theory, leaves the entire world open to being conquered by an aggressor country (China or Russia being the obvious candidates). There is some appeal to that notion but that commits us to fight for every country in the world. Is that actually in our strategic interest? What do we gain from an independent Ukraine? Or Columbia? Or whoever?
A few countries offer us basing rights or useful trade arrangements and keeping them independent is clearly in our strategic interest but what about the countries that offer nothing? Are they worth dying for?
Again, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just nudging you to think this issue through a bit deeper. Do we defend every country in the world? Just some countries? If only some, under what conditions or criteria?
@John Galt: I am a NATO skeptic and every situation must be judged on merit, and not decided by tired buzzwords. Note: I am not saying that western Europe is bad, that we should not have military exchanges, or shut our economy to Europe, but the EU is a very different place in the 21st century.
DeletePlease articulate to me what are the method, purpose, end state(s) to be achieved? How long are we to stay, how much will it cost, what is the likelihood of success, and what are the metrics to tell us how this is playing out? We dumped almost $2 Trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq (I was part of those fiascos) and we are demonstrably worse off economically and geopolitically (Iran now dominates Iraq, and the Taliban is back in charge).
EU countries have three-times the population of Russia (~450 million vs ~142 million), a GDP comparable to the USA and ~five times greater than Russia (~19.9 trillion vs ~$4 trillion): why is it that the EU/NATO cannot handle Russia? This issue dates back to the Clinton administration and European financial commitment to NATO is decreasing. With a national debt exceeding $29 Trillion dollars, why should the U.S. taxpayer spend our treasure in the Ukraine, when the European will not defend Europe?
More to the point, the USA - EU/NATO relationship is one-way: Canada and the USA commit forces to defend Europe, but the EU/NATO are not going to do anything other than issue démarches if the USA or Canada are attacked. The EU countries lack the logistics to move and sustain appreciable forces even in Europe making the issue a moot point anyway.
Still worse, the EU/NATO are cooperating with China and Russia both economically and technologically! The EU-Huawei communications deal absolutely compromised the EU telecommunications infrastructure, and ongoing scientific partnerships with China mean that technology cooperation with the EU (e.g. space craft) is literally sharing our technology with the Chinese. And things are worse on the economic front; Germany has tied its energy policy to Russia: do you think the Germans are going to commit troops, or even impose harsh sanctions only to have Putin cutoff the natural gas needed to heat and power German homes this winter? I do not believe it.
I do not subscribe to the purely transactional theory of how we should interact wit the World. Purely transactional systems result in Pirate or Wall Street mentalities and we can all see the results of those. If Ukraine offers us nothing immediately beneficial, then dropping them, creates what kind of worldview? Then we find that an island in the Pacific has the largest lithium deposit and so we annex them? If everyone feels they can be dropped tomorrow then we will have the Papal States that Machiavelli wrote about. I don't think that is a world environment where people, countires, and cultures can advance, grow, and better the conditions of their people.
DeleteYou are right that Europe has more resources than Russia. But short term, resources can be negated by drive and focus. Julius Ceasar in Gaul defeated many tribes that vastly outnumbered him. Germany ran rampant for 6 years until Paul Kennedy's Wealth of Nations theory corrected the balance.
SHould we go it alone in Ukraine, I do not think that is a good path. Should we be pushing back on Putin and leading to get NATO/EU motivated, certainly.
As to the Long View, Putin will pass on shortly (in political time), what is really scarey is if he leaves behind a regime that has had success is swallowing its neighbors. Worse is that he leaves a complete power vacuum.
As to China, do not think that US companies do not do anything to sell their souls to the CHineese. The number of sales in the semiconductor equipment market to 3rd parties that do work for the Chinese is amazing, I worked in that field and know it is done (Thank you Wall Street mentality). But that said I beleive China wll become Socialist Capitlaistic society (indeed Xi has stated this) and we can engage with them while making them comply with Golbal Norms of Behavior.
To wrap up, what interests do Taiwan, the Phillipines, or South Korea offer us? Yet we are pivoting to the Pacific. The loss of TMSC could be replaced in the US with 5% of the Defense budget. KIA is not a national assset nor are Korean ships. The Phillipines don't even offer large bases anymore. So if not Ukraine then why these countries?
Good discussion with no clear cut way forward.
"Good discussion with no clear cut way forward."
DeleteAnd that is the problem and challenge, isn't it?
At the risk of putting words in your mouth that you did not mean, you seem to be offering the thought that we should be taking a broader (more ethical?) view than just short term interests, however, you stop short of recommending that we jump to the defense of every country in the world. That leaves you/us … where?
I believe it was Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, who noted that anyone can make good decisions and be a good leader when they have every conceivable fact. Great leaders are those who can make good decisions with only partial facts. Unfortunately, partial facts are all we ever have to go on. We need leaders, today, who can make good decisions with only partial facts. Sadly, we lack those people.
So, your discussion offers a great deal to consider but stops short of specific recommendations. Care to take a stab at some specifics?
I recognize that these are just brief comments, not books and that is not possible to lay out one's entire philosophy in so few words!
First NEVER quote Jack Welch, he is symptomatic of the the Wall Street short term gain at all costs and hide everything in a befuddling accounting system. Also look at his "Protege" track records to see his legacy to American Industry.
DeleteNo we should not be guardian to all, nor used by those we have treaties with. But we have to stand by agreements we have made that try to make the world a better place.
I would encourage/force NATO countries to provide specific numbers of divisions, squadron, and ships. Don't use spending as a measure, fielded units are what counts. Money is a terrible defense metric, just look at our Defense budget and the system we are producing.
As for the rest of the world, you are right there is not room for a book writing. I beleive we can work with CHina while holding that they have to comply with the Global Rules of the Road. SO the islands have to go and we have to be very careful about them doing things as bargining chips to get something they really want (i.e. Spratly for Taiwan?). We do have enormous economic advantage over them in that Xi does not want unemployed people that had a taste of a better life. The former President had them when he cut of chips but then backed off.
In general Dictators (Jong-un, Madero, Putin, Belarus, most of Africa, the Middle east, and the *stans) AND Theocraties need to be contained until their people realize there is a better way. If they try6 to break out of containment then a hard slapping has to occur. NOT regime change or nation building but hard strikes, maybe including ground forces, and leaving behind messages that if you do this again we will be back - harder.
And then countries trying to move to democarcy. Not our job to get involved but our job to protect them from the bullies as they grow.
Best I can do and rambles some but contain support and use limited force with specific lesson missions.
"First NEVER quote Jack Welch"
DeleteWisdom can come from anyone and his view on leadership that I referenced is spot on. One may debate or disagree with other views that he held but in this one he is completely correct and we can all benefit from it.
"Money is a terrible defense metric, just look at our Defense budget and the system we are producing."
There, for example, is a nugget of wisdom from you! I seek and utilize wisdom from anyone who has it!
"As for the rest of the world …"
Recognizing you have only a brief comment to work with, this is excellent and provides the groundwork for a reasonable approach to the world. Well said.
@John Galt: I am not being ‘transactional’- which sounds a lot like, I want to do X, but cannot pay for it, so I will tell naysayers that they are being ‘transactional’.
DeleteThis ignores that countless nations have collapsed due to fiscal mismanagement, and with a $29 Trillion-dollar public debt, a 140% debt to GDP ratio, and Congress set to add Trillions more to the debt, there is no money to fund any foreign adventures. We are very much in danger of becoming the next Greece, Argentina, Weimar Republic. It is pure hubris to believe otherwise.
I ask again: please articulate what are the method, purpose, end state(s) to be achieved in the Ukraine? How long are we to stay, how much will it cost, what is the likelihood of success, and what are the metrics to tell us how this is playing out?
After you answer these points: where does this fall in the budget priorities of the USA?
The Europeans have given their answer: they are not going to spend more on defense regardless if you ask for funding or manpower, or equipment; and they certainly are not going spend blood on the Ukraine and that is that.
GAB
@GAB The end goal in Ukraine is to give their attempt at democracy safety from aggressive encroachment or forced cow towing to Russia. That entails making Putin realize he cannot encroach/sieze or actively endorse and support/provide separatists. I think maintaining a safe environment for Democracies should fit fairly high in the Budget priorities. NOTE providing a safe environment DOES NOT necessarily mean only use of Military Force and certainly not nation building.
DeleteAs to the budget - there is no greater fiscal hawk than I.
DoD - Having seen first hand the waste and mismangement at DoD, I would go through the Pentagon like Sherman through Columbia, SC. I would prototype and then only procure systems that are tested and work. The top heaviness of the Force Structure would be cured quickly back to WWII era numbers. $14B carriers would be cancelled.
Not to get into the politics but deficit spending needs to nend that means revamping the tax code and at least getting rid of loopholes. ALong with review of spending as to what works and what is only pork. And then the decision is if you want it can you sell how to pay for it.
"maintaining a safe environment for Democracies"
DeleteWithout agreeing or disagreeing, you seem to want safeguarding of fledgling democracies to be a US national priority and one worth going to war for. Okay. Now, what about countries that are not really democratic and don't really want to be a democracy but still want to be independent? For example, Afghanistan clearly is not ready for democracy, is not culturally suited for it, and does not want it. Should we safeguard them? Most of Africa would fall into this category as well as many other nations around the world. What about countries that claim to be democratic but aren't, such as Russia which claims to be a republic with free and open elections but, in practice, is ruled by a dictator. Or China which claims to have free elections. Or Iran. How about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? And so on. Would you suggest we protect any country that claims to be democratic or would they have to meet some kind of arbitrary criteria the US imposes?
What happens if two democracies go to war with each other (Ukraine and Russia, for example)? Which one do we protect? Both Argentina and the UK are democracies so which one would you have protected in the Falklands war?
What about a horrendously corrupt democracy? Would we protect them? And yes, I see the irony given our own corruption!
If you wish to make safeguarding fledgling democracies a national mission, that's fine, as long as you've thought through the ramifications which is what I'm nudging you to do by posing these questions.
@John Galt: “The end goal in Ukraine is to give their attempt at democracy safety from aggressive encroachment or forced cow towing to Russia.”
DeleteNot to be flip, but this is exactly the kind of ambiguous non-statement policy that led to mountains of American resources and rivers of American blood spilt in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Korea and other places.
It is also a ‘blank check’ for ill-conceived, poorly executed programs, which is why I ask the questions: what is the method, purpose, end state(s) to be achieved in the Ukraine? How long are we to stay, how much will it cost, what is the likelihood of success, and what are the metrics to tell us how we are doing?
CNO hit on the readiness (suitability?) of some nations to be democratic, but frankly there are larger issues:
1) So what if Ukraine becomes a mature democracy and why is this an issue for the USA? Ukraine has never been a democracy in the past and even amongst Europeans this was not an issue. Washington, Madison, Adams and company were clear on the avoidance of entangling relationships and the wars of others.
2) Is the USA even capable of achieving this mission? A consistent, and arguably the greatest impediment to democracy is failure to establish Rule of Law (RoL) – we lack significant expertise in advising the vast majority of nations, most of which do not accept trial by jury (and have some really good contrary arguments!. Most English-speaking nations inherited Common Law legal systems, which are diametrically different from than the Civil Law legal systems.
GAB
@John Galt: “The end goal in Ukraine is to give their attempt at democracy safety from aggressive encroachment or forced cow towing to Russia.”
DeleteNot to be flip, but this is exactly the kind of ambiguous non-statement policy that led to mountains of American resources and rivers of American blood spilt in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Korea and other places.
It is also a ‘blank check’ for ill-conceived, poorly executed programs, which is why I ask the questions: what is the method, purpose, end state(s) to be achieved in the Ukraine? How long are we to stay, how much will it cost, what is the likelihood of success, and what are the metrics to tell us how we are doing?
CNO hit on the readiness (suitability?) of some nations to be democratic, but frankly there are larger issues:
1) So what if Ukraine becomes a mature democracy and why is this an issue for the USA? Ukraine has never been a democracy in the past and even amongst Europeans this was not an issue. Washington, Madison, Adams and company were clear on the avoidance of entangling relationships and the wars of others.
2) Is the USA even capable of achieving this mission? A consistent, and arguably the greatest impediment to democracy is failure to establish Rule of Law (RoL) – we lack significant expertise in advising the vast majority of nations, most of which do not accept trial by jury (and have some really good contrary arguments!. Most English-speaking nations inherited Common Law legal systems, which are diametrically different from than the Civil Law legal systems.
GAB
"So what if Ukraine becomes a mature democracy and why is this an issue for the USA?"
DeleteI'm a bit conflicted, here. In general terms, I do believe that, on a personal level, there is a moral imperative for the strong to protect the weak. Does this apply on a national basis, as well? Whether this commits us to war to protect every weak country is less clear, especially given that the weak [countries] will often turn out to be less than ideal democracies or even just decent world neighbors. I've also seen far too many examples in my life of attempts to help a country only to have that country wind up resenting us. As I say, conflicted.
"Washington, Madison, Adams and company were clear on the avoidance of entangling relationships and the wars of others."
They were and their wisdom is, generally, ageless. However, they had the benefit/reality of distance as a shield against the consequences of non-involvement. For example, in their time, the activities of 'terrorists' or rouge nations somewhere across the world would have little or no effect on the US so there was no need to get involved. Today, distance is much less a protective buffer than it was and there are very real consequences associated with not getting involved. For example, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or whoever that sponsors/allows terrorism DOES affect us directly and that provides the justification and imperative to get involved early rather than later when the problem is worse and more difficult to deal with.
While Ukraine remaining independent may offer no direct strategic benefit to the US (so why get involved?), the opposite - Ukraine falling to Russia - may well result in substantial negative impact on the US, down the road. IF, I REPEAT IF, that is the case then getting involved would be in our interest and sooner is easier than later.
In short, the world is much more interconnected today than it was in the 1700's and the wisdom of our forefathers may need to be modified somewhat. Of course, there are many ways to get involved other than military action and we have been woefully remiss in applying those other options.
@CNO & @GAB I do not beleive isolationism is a valid foreign poicy. I do respect the opinons of the early founders about entanglements and trying ot nuture all democracies other than our own. However, as CNO points out, times have changed. The global econmic environment, reach of weapons, etc., means the advantages of being shielded behind a strong Navy on 2 Oceans are gone. We msut be engaged to try to shape and maintain a safe environment for democratic countries.
DeleteAgain each situation is different and the responses must be tailored. In NO circumstances do I propose major militray operations to nation build, or even overturn governments we disagree with (remember Iran in the 1950s?).
I do not however consider Russia now nor Argentina during the Falkans as democracies so that case of 2 democracies fighting is not valid. However, Teddy Roosevlet won a Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Japanese Russian war. I would use that as an example of how we can help when 2 countries (whether democratic or not) fight.
Again addressing Ukraine's importance, are we only to get involved when we directly get harmed or benefited? In my world view having more democratic countries is a good thing. You can beleive that only if they are Western European, or located in the Pacific, or give us markets or resources, but I disagree with a that view. But that is the basis for a good discussion.
Unfocused decisions to act are terrible and must be avoided at all costs, again I am not proposing anthing like that. Each situation is different and must be treated as such.
@John Galt
DeleteRefusing to get drawn into a stupid war in the Ukraine not 'isolationism'. Nor is anti-democratic, nor is it transactional or any of a hundred other descriptors that people throw out in the absence of anything resembling a realistic plan.
I ask the following questions for a third time: what is the method, purpose, end state(s) to be achieved in the Ukraine? How long are we to stay, how much will it cost, what is the likelihood of success, and what are the metrics to tell us how we are doing?
The idea that the USA ideas doing nothing to support democracy in the Ukraine is not true: DoS, DoJ (Rule of Law), USAID have dozens of programs, let alone the efforts of the EU and IMF.
You are confusing tangible programs that build democratic institutions (courts, police, banks, etc.), with an open ended military commitment to a nation that is a 'republic’ in name only, that we promised we would not extend our military alliance into, that we have no strategic reason to commit to; to piss off a nuclear armed Russia that has a legitimate strategic and economic interests in said nation (Ethnic Russians makeup nearly 20% of Ukrainians and almost a third of the Nation Speaks Russian).
GAB
@CNO: “I do believe that, on a personal level, there is a moral imperative for the strong to protect the weak. Does this apply on a national basis, as well?”
DeleteNo.
And relations with Russia, even as bad as relations currently are, is 1,000 times more valuable than the Ukraine.
"@CNO: “I do believe that, on a personal level, there is a moral imperative for the strong to protect the weak. Does this apply on a national basis, as well?”
DeleteNo."
I would note that from a purely philosophical view one's national basis consists of a massive collection of individual bases which, I've noted, we each, individually, have a moral obligation to protect those weaker than ourselves. Thus, our individual moral obligations collectively 'stack' to make a national moral obligation. Another way of saying this is, that which is a moral obligation on an individual level cannot be ignored on a national level and still claim to be a moral nation.
Now, does that mean we should be jumping into every other country's problems in order to protect them? Yes and no.
Yes, we should be protecting weaker peoples and countries, HOWEVER, no, we don't need to use the military. We have massive non-military powers (financial, political, trade, aid, etc.) that should be employed before military force and, if CORRECTLY applied, can be far more effective.
Another key point is that you cannot, and should not, protect those who don't want help. This rules out so many countries and peoples.
So, do I advocate using military force to protect Ukraine? No, or at least not until we've attempted our non-military options. We have the power to completely isolate Russia financially and in other ways in order to influence their behavior but, not only have we not done so, we've done the opposite in many cases such as by allowing Germany to establish pipelines with Russia.
Our window of opportunity to deal with Russia began with the collapse of the Soviet Union. We had the opportunity to make them a neutral or friend and we didn't even try. Now, we're having to deal with a problematic Russia that we made.
Having said all that, I do see a national strategic interest in Ukraine and that interest is 'precedent'. If we establish the precedent of allowing an enemy country to seize a neutral with no objection, we set a precedent for China to seize Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, etc. and that is, most definitely, a national strategic concern for the US. If we won't defend a country from being conquered, why would Syria, Iran, NKorea, Russia, or China think that we'd defend or enforce any of our lines-in-the-sand or follow through on any of our threats?
So, precedent IS a national strategic interest. Again, however, there are non-military ways to address that … which we're failing to do.
In a great recent development the G-7 has weighed in with proposing non-military actions. As I said each case has to be handled invidually and with the complete range of options.
Delete@CNO: "Now, we're having to deal with a problematic Russia that we made."
DeleteExactly. Even for all that, the Russians tipped us off about Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
On a secondary note: look at how closely the eastern boundary of the EU/EC/NATO conforms to the Teutonic Crusades in the east.
GAB
"eastern boundary of the EU/EC/NATO conforms to the Teutonic Crusades "
DeleteI love students of history! The past teaches us the future.
3000 rifles and 4 patrol boats, vs P139 million from the US in 2021....... I dunno about you but I feel that Chinese military aid to the Philippines is drastically overblown.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.rappler.com/nation/afp-receives-weapons-united-states-military-june-2021/
Also, this is the first time I have heard of any official migration policy to the Phillipines by the Chinese. And if that is the case they are certainly doing a terrible job about it.
"I dunno about you but I feel that Chinese military aid to the Philippines is drastically overblown."
DeleteIt's not the quantity or type that's alarming, it's the trend. The Philippines is now eliciting direct actions with China and strengthening ties while simultaneously pushing the US further away.
One has to look at the big picture. China is encroaching on Philippines territory and the Philippines is more or less accepting it. Philippines is accepting Chinese military aid while pushing the US away. China is investing in Philippine commerce and industry.
This is a beautiful example of slow motion, inexorable, soft power annexation. Philippines is in the process of falling to China. The US needs to get in the game and start fighting back on all levels.
The Phillipines also received 20 blackhawk helos from the US which in terms of utility is comparable with those 4 PT boats.
ReplyDeletePhilippines is attempting to play both sides. I note, however, that the trend favors China. The Philippines Senate voted to terminate the US Navy's Subic Bay base and Clark Air Force base. On the other hand, Philippines threatened to terminate the Visiting Forces Agreement with the US but has put off doing so and may ultimately allow it to stand.
DeleteLots of affinity there. Most of the upper and political class in the Philippines have some Chinese ancestry. President Duterte for one. And lots of former presidents and other leaadership: Aquino, Marcos, Magsaysay, Quezon for a few.
ReplyDeleteEven 120+ years ago during the Philippine Revolution Aguinaldo and all the hi-level and low-level commanders were Chinese/Philippino Mestizos.