Geopolitics in the 2020s.

[NotThePars]

15 hours ago, JTS98 said:

Not to mention the geopolitical relationships that would be put under strain if, for example, Singapore or Malaysia or France told the UK it wasn't going to allow Chinese nationals to move and take their assets to the UK from their territory because China told them not to. There's the beginnings of a war there.

Who initiates this war do you reckon? Asking this in good faith cause the UK's cache is plummeting and China's is rising.

[Guest JTS98]

6 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Who initiates this war do you reckon? Asking this in good faith cause the UK's cache is plummeting and China's is rising.

The destabilising effect it would have on international relations between all kinds of countries would feed in to all kinds of disputes.

What happens in the South China Sea if China manages to disrupt relations between the countries in the region and The West? This is just the kind of issue that could do that.

I'm not so sure China's cache is rising the way it is often portrayed.

• They've got trouble with huge inequality domestically between the interior and the coastal regions. There are regular protests in Chinese cities about living standards. Also, they now can't stop information getting into or out of China as they used to.
• They've got trouble in Hong Kong where they are finding they simply cannot govern without huge reputational damage because their system of government is one that hardly anybody would accept voluntarily these days.
• They consistently fail to assert their will in Taiwan and regularly make themselves look foolish for their incompetence in trying to do so. See the recent elections there.
• The Uighur situation and China's extremely unconvincing defence of it exposes The Party's view on human rights and undermines it's attempts to portray itself as everybody's new pal. It again underlines The Party's modern problem with information flow. They cannot hide things like they used to.
• They are making enemies all across Asia Pacific due to their behaviour in the South China Sea. This is a similar mis-step to when the Japanese blew the chance to be seen as the post-colonial Asian heroes in the 1930s by being bell-ends to everyone. The Chinese are simply gathering the whole region against them when they could have been much smarter about this. And the worst sin of all is that it's not even working for them. They are still weak enough to have their military chased out the area by a few ships from America and Australia.
• The Belt and Road Initiative is already looking like it's hit the skids. Pakistan and Myanmar have scaled back what they were going to do with it and Sri Lanka is close to writing the whole idea off since their government realised that they were being absolutely mugged. Overseas growth around BRI has dropped by about half. There's also clear evidence that what the Chinese said they were going to spend on the initiative was massively over-blown.
• The BRI shows one of the main weaknesses in China. Their system doesn't allow for a shite idea to be outed as a shite idea. The Big Boss loves the BRI. It's his thing. So nobody in China seems willing to put their hand up and point out how badly it's going. This is not a path to successful long-term strategy.

The narrative around the Western media these days is that China is so strong and this is China's century etc. There's not a lot to back that up. China has reemerged from a period of relative weakness, certainly. But it is still militarily off the pace. It is still diplomatically naive. It has a cumbersome political system over-run with corruption and face-saving lies. It regularly makes foreign policy blunders. It has made enemies of many of its neighbours. It has serious domestic worries to contend with.

There's an element of this that is like the Cold War exaggeration of the Soviet Union threat the The West. Of course they're a rival and a threat to an extent, but they're not the powerhouse they try to convey themselves to be.

Changing the law and leaning on other countries to curtail their own citizens' right of movement would be a spectacular PR own goal. But it's one you can easily see the Chinese government scoring. They make a hell of a lot of bad decisions. Basically because they're not very good.

Edited July 3, 2020 by JTS98

[Tutankhamen]

19 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

The destabilising effect it would have on international relations between all kinds of countries would feed in to all kinds of disputes.

What happens in the South China Sea if China manages to disrupt relations between the countries in the region and The West? This is just the kind of issue that could do that.

I'm not so sure China's cache is rising the way it is often portrayed.

• They've got trouble with huge inequality domestically between the interior and the coastal regions. There are regular protests in Chinese cities about living standards. Also, they now can't stop information getting into or out of China as they used to.
• They've got trouble in Hong Kong where they are finding they simply cannot govern without huge reputational damage because their system of government is one that hardly anybody would accept voluntarily these days.
• They consistently fail to assert their will in Taiwan and regularly make themselves look foolish for their incompetence in trying to do so. See the recent elections there.
• They are making enemies all across Asia Pacific due to their behaviour in the South China Sea. This is a similar mis-step to when the Japanese blew the chance to be seen as the post-colonial Asian heroes in the 1930s by being bell-ends to everyone. The Chinese are simply gathering the whole region against them when they could have been much smarter about this. And the worst sin of all is that it's not even working for them. They are still weak enough to have their military chased out the area by a few ships from America and Australia.
• The Belt and Road Initiative is already looking like it's hit the skids. Pakistan and Myanmar have scaled back what they were going to do with it and Sri Lanka is close to writing the whole idea off since their government realised that they were being absolutely mugged. Overseas growth around BRI has dropped by about half. There's also clear evidence that what the Chinese said they were going to spend on the initiative was massively over-blown.
• The BRI shows one of the main weaknesses in China. Their system doesn't allow for a shite idea to be outed as a shite idea. The Big Boss loves the BRI. It's his thing. So nobody in China seems willing to put their hand up and point out how badly it's going. This is not a path to successful long-term strategy.

The narrative around the Western media these days is that China is so strong and this is China's century etc. There's not a lot to back that up. China has reemerged from a period of relative weakness, certainly. But it is still militarily off the pace. It is still diplomatically naive. It has a cumbersome political system over-run with corruption and face-saving lies. It regularly makes foreign policy blunders. It has made enemies of many of its neighbours. It has serious domestic worries to contend with.

There's an element of this that is like the Cold War exaggeration of the Soviet Union threat the The West. Of course they're a rival and a threat to an extent, but they're not the powerhouse they try to convey themselves to be.

Changing the law and leaning on other countries to curtail their own citizens' right of movement would be a spectacular PR own goal. But it's one you can easily see the Chinese government scoring. They make a hell of a lot of bad decisions. Basically because they're not very good.

If you took everything with a Chinese connection out of Western households we'd all be living at the same level as about 1950.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Tutankhamen said:

If you took everything with a Chinese connection out of Western households we'd all be living at the same level as about 1950.

Yes. But ask the Chinese who they think came out better from that deal.

Paying poor people to make stuff for you isn't a sign of the poor people's strength.

Edited July 3, 2020 by JTS98

[Tutankhamen]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Yes. But ask the Chinese who they think came out better from that deal.

Paying poor people to make stuff for you isn't a sign of the poor people's strength.

In the end it's all about peace and averages.

The average punter is better off in consumer goods than say 50 years ago either living at Chinese border with Mongolia or a housing scheme in Motherwell. And nobody wants nuked.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Tutankhamen said:

In the end it's all about peace and averages.

The average punter is better off in consumer goods than say 50 years ago either living at Chinese border with Mongolia or a housing scheme in Motherwell. And nobody wants nuked.

You're absolutely right that nobody wants nuked of course. Although my thinking on the level of worry we should apply to that shifts from time to time.

I go through phases of thinking it will never happen. There's the Dead Hand problem and the clear irrationality of retaliatory strikes as well as the moral reprehensibility and PR damage of nuking someone. On one hand it seems very unlikely.

But then there's the fact that there have been numerous close calls over the years. Usually caused by misreading a radar screen or a faulty alarm. We can't rule it out. Also the influence of a genuinely bad or insane leader. For example, the constraints on the American President nuking someone are not particularly strong.

As for consumer goods, of course you're average person is better off nowadays. But we know that people don't measure their happiness against how their life has improved, they measure it against others in their country. China has a big problem in that the eastern coastal sections are much more prosperous than the rest of the country. And people know that.

[renton]

Worth noting that China's massive increase in spending on it's Navy, for example, is primarily defensive. They still aren't looking to project power, not really.  They have some amphibious forces and a shanky ex Russian carrier that is far too small to be useful, all aimed at threatening Taiwan, but the majority of their naval build up is about making life tough for the US Navy to operate close to their own shores if it came to it.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

The rise of great powers in the industrial age has typically been driven by easy access to the main fossil fuel of the day. First the UK with coal then the US and Soviet Union with crude oil etc

China's rise has been driven by an ability to access US dollars to buy crude oil as part of the wider petrodollar cycle that was achieved by successfully stacking Walmart shelves in the United States by undercutting wages elsewhere during globalisation.

Where China fits in post-peak oil demand in an era of electric vehicles and renewables combined with energy storage very much remains to be seen.

[Dunfermline Don]

The rise of great powers in the industrial age has typically been driven by easy access to the main fossil fuel of the day. First the UK with coal then the US and Soviet Union with crude oil etc
China's rise has been driven by an ability to access US dollars to buy crude oil as part of the wider petrodollar cycle that was achieved by successfully stacking Walmart shelves in the United States by undercutting wages elsewhere during globalisation.
Where China fits in post-peak oil demand in an era of electric vehicles and renewables combined with energy storage very much remains to be seen.

If renewables are the next big thing. It’s such a shame we don’t live in a country with an abundance of wind and tidal power opportunities.

[Detournement]

On 02/07/2020 at 05:17, JTS98 said:

Interesting that China is now saying it plans to make moves to stop Hong Kong residents leaving to live in Britain. This is perhaps the most significant story in the news at the moment as it has unbelievably far-reaching consequences for everyone in the world.

Can China manage to legitimately sell the idea that it can stop its nationals choosing of their own volition to move to a democratic country of their choice? This would set a precedent that allows states to effectively imprison their population. The DDR lives!

Practically, this will involve China making quite convoluted changes to the law. For example, they might be able to stop Chinese nationals moving directly to the UK, but how can they stop them moving to the UK after they've moved to Singapore or Malaysia or France etc? Huge implications for state control of the banking system and individual assets if this happens.

Not to mention the geopolitical relationships that would be put under strain if, for example, Singapore or Malaysia or France told the UK it wasn't going to allow Chinese nationals to move and take their assets to the UK from their territory because China told them not to. There's the beginnings of a war there.

Also, what does it say for the future of The Party in China and its legitimacy as the government of China (which was established only by violence, remember) if they resort to basically imprisoning their citizens? This is one of these political moves that China may think makes it look strong but will actually highlight its weakness and the challenges it faces in controlling what is claims as its territory.

It'll be pretty simple. 

Take UK residency/citizenship and lose the right to re-enter China and lose your property there. 

[Detournement]

13 hours ago, JTS98 said:

Yes. But ask the Chinese who they think came out better from that deal.

Paying poor people to make stuff for you isn't a sign of the poor people's strength.

They've went from 88% poverty to 2% in 40 years. 

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Dunfermline Don said:

If renewables are the next big thing. It’s such a shame we don’t live in a country with an abundance of wind and tidal power opportunities.

 

Whisky tango foxtrot?

[Dunfermline Don]

Whisky tango foxtrot?

My sarcasm doesn’t always translate well when written down!

[dorlomin]

11 hours ago, renton said:

Worth noting that China's massive increase in spending on it's Navy, for example, is primarily defensive. They still aren't looking to project power, not really.  

Instructive that the ambition to crush the self determination and democracy of Taiwan is recast as fluffy, lovable "defensive". Autocracy vs democracy. Might be a lonely stance but I know which side I am on. 

Quote

hey have some amphibious forces and a shanky ex Russian carrier that is far too small to be useful, 

Again, instructive. China launched its second home built carrier a few months ago and has 2 nuclear powered carriers under construction. These are thought to be in the 80-100 000 tonne class. No mention of these. It may have plans for more of them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme

Their "too small to be useful" carrier is 3 times the size of the HMS Hermes that helped retake the Falklands.

Quote

the majority of their naval build up is about making life tough for the US Navy to operate close to their own shores if it came to it.

Carriers are built to operate planes far from your home waters. In your home water you use land based planes that are cheaper, use much less weight in carrier specific components and generally carry more fuel and weapons. 

Also their claim to a huge chunk of the South China Sea is glossed over in this little fairy tale. 

Quote

 

Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs)

Type 075 (NATO designation Yushen-class) - 2 fitting out
Amphibious Transport Docks (LPDs)

Type 071 (NATO designation Yuzhao-class) - 6 in active service, 2 under construction
Landing Ship, Tank (LSTs)

Type 072A (NATO designation Yuting III-class) - 15 in active service.
Type 072III (NATO designation Yuting II-class) - 10 in active service.
Type 072II (NATO designation Yuting-class) - 4 in active service.
Type 072 (NATO designation Yukan-class) - 3 in active service.
Landing Ship, Medium (LSMs)

Type 073 (NATO designation Yudao, Yudeng and Yunshu-class) - 13 in active service.
Type 074A (NATO designation Yubei-class) - 6 in active service.
Type 074 (NATO designation Yuhai-class) - 12 in active service.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force

How exactly is 71 amphibious warfare ships "defensive".

There is an old joke about Prussia that most states had an army, but the Prussian Army had a state. Its not that far from the truth about the PLA and the PRC. 

[renton]

43 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

Instructive that the ambition to crush the self determination and democracy of Taiwan is recast as fluffy, lovable "defensive". Autocracy vs democracy. Might be a lonely stance but I know which side I am on. 

Again, instructive. China launched its second home built carrier a few months ago and has 2 nuclear powered carriers under construction. These are thought to be in the 80-100 000 tonne class. No mention of these. It may have plans for more of them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme

Their "too small to be useful" carrier is 3 times the size of the HMS Hermes that helped retake the Falklands.

Carriers are built to operate planes far from your home waters. In your home water you use land based planes that are cheaper, use much less weight in carrier specific components and generally carry more fuel and weapons. 

Also their claim to a huge chunk of the South China Sea is glossed over in this little fairy tale. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force

How exactly is 71 amphibious warfare ships "defensive".

There is an old joke about Prussia that most states had an army, but the Prussian Army had a state. Its not that far from the truth about the PLA and the PRC. 

I wasn't recasting anything. It's true that their  limited power projection capabilities are aimed at Taiwan. I said as such. I wouldn't cast that as defensive under any definition. What I meant is that as a force capable of global reach they are way, way off.

As to the two carriers, they are STOBAR configurations based on the last Soviet designs. In raw tonnage they may be bigger than the old Hermes, but that's irrelevant. Hermes was only useful using STOVL aircraft. STOBAR as I'm sure your aware are the worst of all worlds: designed to be smaller than CATOBAR vessels but use conventional take off aircraft - they can't get their aircraft up fully loaded in terms of weapon loads and fuel. The QE class based around the F35B is far more capable than either Chinese carrier group (or at least it is in theory assuming the UK buys enough F35Bs to make them worth while)

Of course, they don't need the carriers to threaten Taiwan, but my point is that their naval build up is principally in surface escorts and diesel subs. My point is that far from matching up to the US, they are building a force to try and prevent the USN having the run of their coastline. Part of that is in trying to make intervention in Taiwan by the US more problematic, but it looks to me like they generally are shit scared of the USN. They won't match up for a decade or more, if they ever do.

That is a good thing.

Edited July 3, 2020 by renton

[dorlomin]

1 minute ago, renton said:

It's true that their  limited power projection capabilities are aimed at Taiwan.

In one of the links I posted the explicitly quote that they are aimed beyond that. 

Quote

On 30 July 2011, a senior researcher of the Academy of Military Sciences said China needed at least three aircraft carriers. "If we consider our neighbours, India will have three aircraft carriers by 2014 and Japan will have three carriers by 2014, so I think the number (for China) should not be less than three so we can defend our rights and our maritime interests effectively." General Luo Yuan.[30] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme

Quote

As to the two carriers,

You said they had one small, ageing ex Soviet carrier. 

Quote

In raw tonnage they may be bigger than the old Hermes, but that's irrelevant. Hermes was only useful using STOVL aircraft. STOBAR as I'm sure your aware are the worst of all worlds:

There air craft are supersonic and carry much heavier loads than the Harriers of Hermes. Plus it has a much larger air group. 

 

Quote

 The QE class based around the F35B is far more capable than either Chinese carrier group.

Compare and contrast this too:

Quote

hey have some amphibious forces and a shanky ex Russian carrier that is far too small to be useful, 

 

Quote

 but my point is that their naval build up is principally in surface escorts and diesel subs

Two nuclear powered super carriers under construction is not just " surface escorts and diesel subs"

They have nuclear powered ballistic missile subs and a fleet of nuclear attack submarines. What are you trying to do with this?

Quote

. My point is that far from matching up to the US  they are building a force to try and prevent the USN having the run of their coastline.

Their carriers and amphibious systems are a complete waste of money for that mission. They could invest it in a huge air and missile fleet. Their stated aim is concerned with other regional powers. See above. 

Quote

Part of that is in trying to make intervention in Taiwan by the US more problematic,

I am unaware of any plans by the US to over throw the government in Taipei. 

 

[Detournement]

It's nice that Dormolin has replaced his Corbyn bitterness with anti China xenophobia.

Everyone needs a crutch. 

 

[renton]

8 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

In one of the links I posted the explicitly quote that they are aimed beyond that. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme

You said they had one small, ageing ex Soviet carrier. 

There air craft are supersonic and carry much heavier loads than the Harriers of Hermes. Plus it has a much larger air group. 

 

Compare and contrast this too:

 

Two nuclear powered super carriers under construction is not just " surface escorts and diesel subs"

They have nuclear powered ballistic missile subs and a fleet of nuclear attack submarines. What are you trying to do with this?

Their carriers and amphibious systems are a complete waste of money for that mission. They could invest it in a huge air and missile fleet. Their stated aim is concerned with other regional powers. See above. 

I am unaware of any plans by the US to over throw the government in Taipei. 

 

Just on this last part I would have thought it was obvious I meant US intervention to prevent the overthrow of the Tapei government by China.

I got my number of active carriers off, thats fair, yet it is still true that neither active unit is as capable, tonne for tonne as a similar sized STOVL or CATOBAR carrier, if it were a choice between the De Gaulle, the QE or the Chinese 002, the Chinese vessel would be last. STOBAR is just an awful compromise. The aircraft may be supersonic but they cannot lift off with their full combat loads or combat range, simply an issue of generating lift over the short deck with no assistance. In comparison to a US Nimitz or Ford its not even a contest.

I get that they are developing SSNs and trying to build super carriers, but the form of the thing is not the substance of the thing. An SSN is more than a reactor, you know that - will the Chinese manage to put one or even s fleet of those into the water that matches up to Western systems, first time? Same for carriers, the US have had an uninterrupted tradition of carrier airlines now for multiple decades, even they are struggling to get the Ford into service.

My guess would be that in terms of hard power, the Chinese would not be able to match, let alone over match the US in their own backyard for at least a decade, maybe two. Their short to medium term goals are tryijg to make it hard to impossible for the US to operate within that first island chain. It's up to the US to try and retain an edge. That seems to be the thrust of the USMC reorganisation. 

[dorlomin]

4 minutes ago, Detournement said:

anti China xenophobia.

I am defending the democracy of the Han Chinese Taiwan.

And you claim I am xenophobic against the Han Chinese because I oppose the imperialism of the Marxists in Beijing. 

 

[dorlomin]

3 minutes ago, renton said:

Just on this last part I would have thought it was obvious I meant US intervention to prevent the overthrow of the Tapei government by China.

This is the first time you have even hinted you would be opposed to the PRC crushing Taiwan's democracy. 

Quote

 neither active unit is as capable, tonne for tonne as a similar sized STOVL or CATOBAR carrier, if it were a choice between the De Gaulle, the QE or the Chinese 002

Now talk about Indian and Japanese ships. The ones the Chinese themselves discussed as quoted.

 

Quote

I get that they are developing SSNs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_092_submarine

Launched 1981

Quote

and trying to build super carriers, but the form of the thing is not the substance of the thing. An SSN is more than a reactor, you know that - will the Chinese manage to put one or even s fleet of those into the water that matches up to Western systems,

You said they were a diesel sub and surface escort navy. They are a fully tooled up nuclear power with a larger fleet of nuclear submarines than the UK or France. 

Quote

 the US have had an uninterrupted tradition of carrier airlines now for multiple decades,

The US navy will be the only one more powerful than it in a couple of years, if not already. 

Quote

 Chinese would not be able to match, let alone over match the US in their own backyard

If there backyard was important to them, they would have built land based aircraft with the money. 

This is about the PLA's ambitions for expansion of influence.