China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
China is perfectly willing to settle disputed territories through compromise. Keywords being disputed and compromise. For example, China would be perfectly willing to let Vietnam keep the SCS Islands it already occupies in exchange for Vietnamese recognition of the islands China occupies.

China under Mao and Deng was a lot more forceful in diplomacy than China today. The fallacy here is that if you receive less than 50% of a disputed territory, then you somehow "lost" the dispute. Territories are under dispute for historical reasons and those reasons determine who is more invested in the dispute. A good escape is China vs India. In the 1962 war, China pulled back from territories it already captured, because they weren't strategically valuable so long as China held the high ground in Tibet. The Indians, on the other hand, are desperate for every inch of ground they can get, because each extra inch is an extra inch of buffer for New Delhi. In this situation, it is far more advantageous for China to use those territories as diplomacy tokens to secure peace with India.
 
Last edited:
Mohsin77

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
PiSigma said:
... or in the case of Russia, its strategic depth.. so deep the French, Swedes and Germans all got their butts handed to them by winter.
Click to expand...

That's a common misunderstanding. Russia actually has horrible geography for defense, which is why they are always so paranoid. Its greatest strategic problem is the Northern European Plain which has no natural barriers. It's basically a massive highway for mobile forces, which can roll straight from Paris to Moscow without ever slowing down. Napoleon/Hitler's march on Russia, halted only by the weather, isn't something that comforts Russian strategists, but quite the opposite. If you're a NATO commander of an armored division, Moscow is the best target you can hope for, because of the terrain. The problem though, is that this terrain is a double edged sword.

To put this in terms of Sun Tzu, the Northern European Plain is "accessible terrain" and is dangerous for both sides. Whichever side moves first is going to have a huge advantage. This was the primary element of planning during the Cold War, because both sides knew that war on this ground would almost certainly result in a tactical nuclear response by the defending side, as neither side can defend this ground properly. This is still true today. People forget that this area is still the most dangerous nuclear flashpoint on earth.

By the way, this same geographical problem for Russia exists on its East as well. Russia's greatest defeat came from the East, at the hands of the Mongols, who were also immune to cold weather and supply block, for the most part. They still hold the record for being the only side to have defeated Russia in winter (but they defeated everyone, so I guess that doesn't count, lolz.)

This is why "Strategic Depth" is a term rarely used in strategic planning, except for special cases like Pakistan and Israel, where key locations are literally on the border. In these cases, size of an area takes on a much greater importance. But in general, the type of terrain is much more important than depth. For example, take the border of China and India. Dehli is much closer to the Chinese border, as Moscow is from Paris, but Dehli is still much safer because of the Himalayas in between.
 
Last edited:
G

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
solarz said:
It's really not very subtle when you use all your alt accounts to argue the same point.
Click to expand...

foxmulder said:
Seriously.. clear trolling.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who this other poster is. I signed up after seeing how China's hostile belligerence towards everyone is now destroying successful Chinese companies and the life's work of China's geniuses like Ren Zhengfei. It really hurts my heart. For centuries China's political system persecuted and destroyed its brightest minds, best personalities, only for a few decades it let them thrive, now it's going back to the dark old days. This is so worrisome. China has so many smart and hardworking ambitious people, but now to be Chinese is labelled something ugly in the West and many other countries because China has mismanaged its foreign relations so badly. I don't know who this other poster is, but great minds think alike! If you are reading, you made correct points. I am sure you care about the Chinese people as much as I do.
 
Jono

Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


interesting. I thought the 3 countries were America, Hawaii and Alaska !!
turned out to be USA, Taiwan and South Korea. South Korea ?? May be only the American soldiers stationed at SK were polled, haahaahaa.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
gadgetcool5 said:
Deng Xiaoping said to seek truth from facts. Your post is based on nothing but speculation.

Here are the facts.

Since the end of the Cold War, China has settled border disputes with Laos, Vietnam, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikstan. In not a single one of these disputes did China fail to compromise and give up claims to at least some of the land previously claimed. In most cases China received less than 50% of the disputed land.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In none of the cases did "factions in these countries" use the resolutions to point for "an even stronger anti-China alliance." In none of these cases did giving up land claims stop the rise of China, in fact, solving this disputes coincided with it.
Click to expand...

I am seeking truth from facts.

You are drawing the wrong conclusions made from the border agreements made in the past.

1. After the Chinese Civil War, China was a country born of a Communist revolution.
2. China advocated and sponsored the revolutionary overthrow of its non-Communist neighbours.
3. So those neighbours turned to the USA to protect themselves the Chinese threat.
4. But after the 1972, the USA and China had a quasi-alliance against the USSR.
5. And the onus was on China to demonstrate to its neighbours that it was no longer a threat.

So when China made territorial concessions/agreements, it was not due to the threat of outside pressure.

It was from China's own internal decision that peaceful relations with its neighbours was more important than a territorial dispute.

---

Contrast that to the situation now, where the USA is trying to forge an anti-China alliance to contain China.

But China's neighbours are torn:
1. Their economies are now enmeshed with China which sits at the centre of the regional/global trading system.
And that one-sided dependency is only going to increase in the future.
2. But politically, they would prefer not to be dominated by China, and would prefer to play the USA against China.

So if the USA can demonstrate that it can force China into giving up territory and other concessions, it strengthens the cold-warriors who want an even stronger alliance with the USA.

But if a stronger US alliance only means losing, the cold-warriors will be discredited.
That leaves business and the engagement factions in charge of policy.

And if/when they do decide to follow China and reject US influence, that is the time when China can be generous with respect to the territorial disputes.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
gadgetcool5 said:
Seriously, if land is the most important thing to power, then the most powerful countries in the world are:

1. Russia
2. Canada
3. US
4. China
5. Brazil
6. Australia

Like come on does anyone really think Russia is the most powerful country and Canada is more powerful than the US, or that Brazil and Australia are 5th and 6th?

Small differences in land area does not determine a country's power, security, wealth or anything else. What is most important is that the Chinese people have a good life, are prosperous, that China has the technology to lead the world and defend itself and its interests. This requires advanced technology, alliances, and a strong trading economy. Whether or not you control 1,000 sq km of barren frost at the top of the Himalayas or some island in the middle of nowhere that will be drowned by global warming, has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this statement.

But if China is seen to be making territorial concessions to China's neighbours in the face of strongarm tactics from the USA, guess what will happen?

The USA will be in a better position to strongarm China's neighbours into an economic and technology containment policy against China.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Mohsin77 said:
That's a common misunderstanding. Russia actually has horrible geography for defense, which is why they are always so paranoid. Its greatest strategic problem is the Northern European Plain which has no natural barriers. It's basically a massive highway for mobile forces, which can roll straight from Paris to Moscow without ever slowing down. Napoleon/Hitler's march on Russia, halted only by the weather, isn't something that comforts Russian strategists, but quite the opposite. If you're a NATO commander of an armored division, Moscow is the best target you can hope for, because of the terrain. The problem though, is that this terrain is a double edged sword.

To put this in terms of Sun Tzu, the Northern European Plain is "accessible terrain" and is dangerous for both sides. Whichever side moves first is going to have a huge advantage. This was the primary element of planning during the Cold War, because both sides knew that war on this ground would almost certainly result in a tactical nuclear response by the defending side, as neither side can defend this ground properly. This is still true today. People forget that this area is still the most dangerous nuclear flashpoint on earth.

By the way, this same geographical problem for Russia exists on its East as well. Russia's greatest defeat came from the East, at the hands of the Mongols, who were also immune to cold weather and supply block, for the most part. They still hold the record for being the only side to have defeated Russia in winter (but they defeated everyone, so I guess that doesn't count, lolz.)

This is why "Strategic Depth" is a term rarely used in strategic planning, except for special cases like Pakistan and Israel, where key locations are literally on the border. In these cases, size of an area takes on a much greater importance. But in general, the type of terrain is much more important than depth. For example, take the border of China and India. Dehli is much closer to the Chinese border, as Moscow is from Paris, but Dehli is still much safer because of the Himalayas in between.
Click to expand...

You also need to account for logistics in this argument.

The Mongols were a nomadic people, so they didn't have to manage a logistics chain stretching thousands of kilometers.

The distance from an East German supply depot to Paris was only 600km, which would have meant the end of the war.
A truck can drive there and back in a single day.

In comparison, Moscow is 2000km from the East/West German border.
You need relays of trucks and supply depots to transport supplies across that distance.

So strategic depth does actually matter at these distances.
 
A

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
I am seeking truth from facts.

You are drawing the wrong conclusions made from the border agreements made in the past.

1. After the Chinese Civil War, China was a country born of a Communist revolution.
2. China advocated and sponsored the revolutionary overthrow of its non-Communist neighbours.
3. So those neighbours turned to the USA to protect themselves the Chinese threat.
4. But after the 1972, the USA and China had a quasi-alliance against the USSR.
5. And the onus was on China to demonstrate to its neighbours that it was no longer a threat.

So when China made territorial concessions/agreements, it was not due to the threat of outside pressure.

It was from China's own internal decision that peaceful relations with its neighbours was more important than a territorial dispute.

---

Contrast that to the situation now, where the USA is trying to forge an anti-China alliance to contain China.

But China's neighbours are torn:
1. Their economies are now enmeshed with China which sits at the centre of the regional/global trading system.
And that one-sided dependency is only going to increase in the future.
2. But politically, they would prefer not to be dominated by China, and would prefer to play the USA against China.

So if the USA can demonstrate that it can force China into giving up territory and other concessions, it strengthens the cold-warriors who want an even stronger alliance with the USA.

But if a stronger US alliance only means losing, the cold-warriors will be discredited.
That leaves business and the engagement factions in charge of policy.

And if/when they do decide to follow China and reject US influence, that is the time when China can be generous with respect to the territorial disputes.
Click to expand...


hi ANDREW

All countries are HEDGING between CHINA and US, its like a YING & YANG , CHINA mainly for trade, The US for securitY. They dont want to choose side, even VIETNAM, its ruling communist party enjoy good rapport with their counterpart in Beijing.

Now for me, I like your # 1 suggestion, Beijing best course of action is to open its economy MORE and tie them in. The US cannot relied on SECURITY alone , they need to give some economic incentive. The current economic difficulties and AMERICAN FIRST POLICY of TRUMP will not help.

Sometimes Im bewildered by AUSTRALIAN and CANADIAN ACTION, especially AUSTRALIAN which relies heavily for CHINA for trade. IDEOLOGY played a bigger part than economic self interest, My theory is since they are not ASIAN per se (transplant from europe), they can easily migrate to europe and america if things goes serious wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top