In terms of military power, in about 30 years, China has developed a platform to equip the air force and navy with larger numbers, modernization and longer combat range. The PLA Army was also reorganized towards mobility and equipment was updated. China's standards of military organization, training, and armament quality are getting closer and closer to those of the United States.
At present, China has not reached the point of military conflict on issues related to the South China Sea and the region. But China's construction of a military airport close to Vietnam's border[22] and increased pressure on the East Sea cannot be overlooked, especially given the precedent of using force of Russia and China itself. In other words, with the precedent of wars with China in the past, and the current Russia-Ukraine war, the probability of an armed conflict with China cannot be zero.
Vietnam originally designed its foreign strategy according to the principle of "balanced" or rather anchored politically, militarily and economically - externally in the three directions China, Russia and the US and
a world system with the same value system as the US such as Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, Australia, etc. The anchoring in these three directions is calculated at a time when the conflicts between these three powers are there but not too intense.
Although not politically neutral due to Vietnam's model and value system, which has been shaped since 1950, Vietnam wants to avoid being caught up in conflicts between major powers, as well as avoid conflicts with major countries, so it adopts a neutral defense strategy. However, being occupied by China in the Paracels and a part of the Spratlys cannot guarantee that Vietnam can completely avoid conflict with this great power.
Above translation from the link you posted. The bolded text captured my attention as I was ignorant from the fact that Communist Vietnam follows Western Values system per the authors claim. Judging from the theme and points the author make which are very western leaning (hard as he try to offer a balanced perspective) it's inescapable that the many points he made seem to only apply and applicable to China and Russia - the need to have buffer zones, and sphere of influence. While shielding America's guilt and even culpability, not to mention the necessity of maintaining and expanding NATO operations and membership away from its original and intended purpose which was to stop Soviet Union communist expansion.
As you,
@zhangjim rightly stated that irony isn't lost on the author's strategic dilemma and recommendations for his country which is to coax America to balance China and expect the latter to accommodate or else. I wonder if the author had managed to ask and consult the views of Latin American countries, the Caribbean and the entire western hemisphere
