China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Wrought]

The Philippines would choose option 1, but I don't think China would choose any of the options you mentioned. I am worried that China may continue to take some symbolic but impractical tough measures, just like the unfortunate death of the fishermen last time.

Following said deaths, CCG implemented a new model of control around Kinmen which is now being extended without any significant pushback.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What is "symbolic but impractical" is the endless whining from netizens who demand others risk life and limb because they are impatient toddlers who take all the progress during their lifetimes for granted. Why not enlist in the coast guard yourself and be the change you want to see?

 

[zyklon]

Look, the South China Sea isn’t “China’s sea.” International law, especially UNCLOS, is clear: maritime claims depend on coastlines, not vague “historic rights.” The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled China’s “nine-dash line” has no legal basis. These waters belong to all coastal states, not the biggest navy. Major shipping lanes pass through here — no one benefits from militarizing them.

Blah blah blah blah blah . . . If you want to be disingenuous, be a little less blatant about it.

The Chinese authorities categorically rejected the PCA's unenforceable claims of jurisdiction with regard to this matter.

If you don't like that, you can help the PCA buildup their own navy.

Time for Beijing to drop the fantasy and follow the rules everyone else respects.

That's complete nonsense: Washington never even ratified UNCLOS.

So here’s the question: once Xi Jinping is eventually gone, will China finally come to its senses and abandon this nonsense?

We both know General Secretary Xi is a softie compared to the rank and file of the Central Committee.

Any successor will in all likelihood be firmer than him about asserting Chinese sovereignty.

 

[4Tran]

Look, the South China Sea isn’t “China’s sea.” International law, especially UNCLOS, is clear: maritime claims depend on coastlines, not vague “historic rights.” The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled China’s “nine-dash line” has no legal basis. These waters belong to all coastal states, not the biggest navy. Major shipping lanes pass through here — no one benefits from militarizing them. Time for Beijing to drop the fantasy and follow the rules everyone else respects.

So here’s the question: once Xi Jinping is eventually gone, will China finally come to its senses and abandon this nonsense?

Since when were superpowers obligated to follow international rules? There's no real reason for China to abandon their claims in the South China Sea, and they've already settled (or at least deescalated) these claims against every other player in the region other than Philippines. And China probably wouldn't bother doing that with Philippines because it's too much of an American puppet.

Also, what's with people thinking that China is controlled solely by Xi Jinping? The big decisions in the country are decided by the Standing Committee, and while Xi Jinping is the strongest voice in this body, it's not the only one. A Chinese claim over broad areas of the South China Sea confers a lot of advantages so even if he resigns tomorrow, I doubt that there will be any changes in territorial claims. Besides, what in the world does China gain from doing this? Better relations with Philippines? Is that actually worth anything?

Such BS and unfettered hypocrisy.

Where were these so called "rules" that you do proudly tout when the US was bombing sovereign countries?
Where were these so called "rules" when the US overthrew democratically elected governments?
Where were your so called "rules" for the Palestinians undergoing genocide and starvation?
Where were your so called "rules" when the US reneged on previous trade agreements and basically sidelined the WTO?
Where were your so called "rules" when US sanctions countries with medical emergencies? Eg. Blocked medical equipment to Cuba during the pandemic, hoarded vaccines.
Where were your so called "rules" when the US refused to vacate Cuban land in Guantanamo bay, where they abused many innocent prisoners.

Shall I go on?

Let me guess? "Rules for thou, but not rules for me".

Don't bring your "holier than thou " attitude here. We see through the hypocrisy pretty clearly.

It's about the International Rules-Based Order, i.e. "do as the Americans tell you, but don't you dare do as the Americans do". Once upon a time, I thought that following rules like this had some merit, but when the biggest violators of such rules get nary a peep of complaint from the Western world, it's clearly just baloney.

 

[AsuraGodFiend]

Look, the South China Sea isn’t “China’s sea.” International law, especially UNCLOS, is clear: maritime claims depend on coastlines, not vague “historic rights.” The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled China’s “nine-dash line” has no legal basis. These waters belong to all coastal states, not the biggest navy. Major shipping lanes pass through here — no one benefits from militarizing them. Time for Beijing to drop the fantasy and follow the rules everyone else respects.

So here’s the question: once Xi Jinping is eventually gone, will China finally come to its senses and abandon this nonsense?

2.5/10 bait you got some tho

 

[zhangjim]

What is "symbolic but impractical" is the endless whining from netizens who demand others risk life and limb because they are impatient toddlers who take all the progress during their lifetimes for granted. Why not enlist in the coast guard yourself and be the change you want to see?

I laughed for your hypocritical words. Soldiers have to obey the orders of those who cannot go to the front line. If the leader lacks determination, then everything is meaningless. Any post remedy cannot make up for the losses caused by the initial tolerance and indulgence. I'm not sure about the current casualty figures, but these soldiers are paying the price for the leadership's decisions, and it's not worth it.

 

[Wrought]

I laughed for your hypocritical words. Soldiers have to obey the orders of those who cannot go to the front line. If the leader lacks determination, then everything is meaningless. Any post remedy cannot make up for the losses caused by the initial tolerance and indulgence. I'm not sure about the current casualty figures, but these soldiers are paying the price for the leadership's decisions, and it's not worth it.

So you don't want to be a soldier, because obeying orders is hard? Because you might disagree with the leader? Didn't take long to find the limits of your sacrifice. Losses for others, tolerance and indulgence for yourself, eh? No wonder you speak of hypocrisy; you would know.

In that case, you can keep whining on the sidelines while the actual soldiers and leaders handle the policy.

 

[zyklon]

This is clearly a serious and embarrassing operational failure on the part of PLAN and/or CCG, likely involving loss of life and with considerable propaganda value for PCG, the Philippines, and all who would question the professionalism and competence of China's maritime forces. Looking at the range of possible responses and dynamics from this point forward, I see three basic postures for China and two basic postures for the Philippines.

China #1: the Baseline Response. The first response involves incremental adjustments to existing operational procedures while preserving broader objectives. The focus here is on identifying the specific factors that contributed to the collision, and to eliminate or at least greatly reduce them going forward. Likely lines of inquiry concern the involvement of PLAN assets in what has generally been understood to be CCG-led operations, the specific involvement of such a large and relatively cumbersome PLAN combatant in pursuit of a dramatically smaller and more agile vessel, situational awareness and decision-making aboard the CCG vessel, possible failures or shortcomings in communication and coordination between PLAN and CCG assets. Looking further afield, consideration would also be given to the ship characteristics that are desirable for these kinds of operations.

China #2: Building upon the first response, this response would significantly revise the operating directives given to CCG and/or PLAN maritime assets, with the objective of more categorically eliminating the risk of further embarrassing "blue on blue" incidents, perhaps also with an eye to reducing the risk of inadvertent "blue on red" incidents. This would necessarily imply greater freedom of movement for PCG and other Philippines assets and potentially undermine Beijing's ability to pursue its objectives in the area.

China #3: Also building upon the first response, this "face saving" response would also seek to more categorically eliminate the risk of further such incidents but, rather than achieving this by altering PLAN/CCG behaviour as in #2, would do so by attempting to coerce changes in PCG behaviour. This would likely involve revising operating directives and rules of engagement to include a broader ranger of kinetic responses, including lethal responses, across a broader range of circumstances.

Philippines #1: This response celebrates this incident as a spectacular propaganda coup, and evaluates the PCG crew's conduct as both daring and effective, providing a blueprint for future operations.

Philippines #2: While recognising the propaganda value of this incident, this response is more wary of escalatory dynamics, recognising that this was nearly an incident of another kind entirely, i.e. a catastrophic collision between the PCG ship and PLAN 052D. PCG crews are counselled accordingly.

Clearly, the combination of China #3 and Philippines #1 would be the most escalatory going forward, while the combination of China #2 and Philippines #2 would be the least. I make no comment on the relative likelihood of each prospect.

The PLAN and/or CCG may demonstrate some restraint in the short term as lessons learned are implemented.

However, #3 and #1 will likely converge in the medium term, if not short term, especially with someone like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

effectively running the Pentagon.

 

[GodRektsNoobs]

I have no confidence in their ability to handle things. In the field of public crisis, they have shown extreme incompetence over the past many years.

The ones who really need to go to court are those who demand control over the scale of the conflict. But obviously, this is a necessary sacrifice for 'obeying the overall situation'. So those who make policies will never be tried.


We are not shameless enough to promote failure as victory, which is equivalent to 'punishing my enemy's feet with my butt'.

Dude. You sound like the stereotypical 公知, who has nothing but complaint for the country that took its people from starvation and foreign oppression to a major power. Despite all your gloom, your country rise in international status is meteorical and unprecedented in history. China will turn this minor setback into a meaningful gain like every single occurence in the past, with or without your pessimism.

 

[zhangjim]

So you don't want to be a soldier, because obeying orders is hard? Didn't take long to find the limits of your sacrifice. Losses for others, tolerance and indulgence for yourself, eh?

You can sit on the sidelines and keep whining and worrying while the actual soldiers and leaders handle the policy.

This is the embarrassment of the 'gray zone' in times of peace. The soldiers had to carry out limited actions under the foolish rules set by the upper echelons. From the facts, soldiers must engage in this seemingly endless game of hide and seek, but Filipinos obviously won't take the initiative to leave. So, will this game be played for another 100 years? What I hate the most is this boring political trick.

Dude. You sound like the stereotypical 公知, who has nothing but complaint for the country that took its people from starvation and foreign oppression to a major power. Despite all your gloom, your country rise in international status is meteorical and unprecedented in history. China will turn this event into a win like every single occurence in the past, with or without your pessimism.

Perhaps in the eyes of outsiders, China is becoming increasingly powerful, but from the perspective of practical interests, it is a country that has not yet completed reunification and a large number of interests have been occupied by foreign countries. I don't think this situation can also be seen as a major power.

 

[votran]

Well if they are
Firing at the ship, it means people will die. That's pretty much a declaration of war.

Cause the other will also start firing and then the Chinese ship will have to go for the kill in self-defense. That just became a war.

Ramming is preferable cause China has the bigger ships. If they ram the Philippines, they can't ram back. So, philippines can only back down. China is essentially overpowering them using a grey zone tactic.

Moreover, ramming is less likely to cause casualties but still damage the ship enough that it has to do repairs which will cost the Philippines.

Overall it's a smart move.

us bomb iran multi time i dont see the iranian US war happen right now

the so called act of war lead to war happen is overrated

war only happen if both side willing to fight

i dont think philipine willing to do that right now with their current military strength and trump in office