Chinese Geopolitics

port_08 · Apr 22, 2014

bajingan said:
I agree with this, I think the lesson that the world learned from Ukrainian crisis is that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantor of national security, international treaties and alliances are not worth the paper they are signed on, the more the merrier, the only reason why Ukraine are in this position is because she gave up her nuke arsenal in return of security guarantee by the US and Russia ( I can't even begin to imagine their regret), the only reason why there will be no military option in Ukraine is because of Russia strategic nuke forces, the only reason why there is no invasion of Pakistan even though they armed the Taliban to the teeth and hide Osama bin laden is because they have nukes, and when you have massive nuclear arsenal, basically you eliminate military option off the table, the only option left is economic sanctions.

I hope China take notice of this and beef up her tiny nuclear arsenal, because frankly that's the only effective way to deter a superpower.

Ukraine is in no position and even if Ukraine to hold a bargain then, the political pressure is too great to bear as it is now. I don't think Ukraine has any real option then or even now. You just look at North Korea, you can try hold to them, but the big players will "sanctions" you till kingdom come. There's reason a military power as great as the US and others need to be there for a reason, that they can punish you and inflict real pain to you.

It is not the quantity but quality of the nuclear weapon. It's useless to have that many, if you have no means of capable delivery and hit your target. You need eye in the sky, delivery from anywhere, undersea and soon in space. Imagine nuclear arm satellite, weaponized space station...it will happen one day, couldbe

port_08 · Apr 22, 2014

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...
North Korea could well be preparing to carry out a fourth nuclear test, South Korea said Tuesday, citing increased activity at its main test site just days ahead of a visit to Seoul by US President Barack Obama.

"Our military is currently detecting a lot of activity in and around the Punggye-ri nuclear test site," defence ministry spokesman Kim Min-Seok told a press briefing.
...

North Korea is showing sign of desperation for attention, there will be more sanctions in place by the US and China now begin to see it as threat to them as well as China is warming to the South. The only way for North Korea denuclearization will be a more "forceful economic" sanction. In any unfortunate case of military conflict or implosion of military leadership, both party US/China need to quickly secure the sites and nuclear weapons via joint operation. US & South Korean army coming from east and southern and China PLA coming from North and western sea. This join command and operation is where US and China can secretly establish for the worst case senario.

luhai · Apr 23, 2014

Current Policy
1. Non-interference, make no allies and no enemies. Start and ends war on it's own terms, will not get dragged into a war. (This the lesson learned from the Korean War)
2. Strategic ambiguity with other all defensive posture. It keep potential adversary guess at both try capability and commit of China, yet still allows for rooms for maneuver in a crisis. So China will not be forced to make concessions to its national interest too often, yet still avoid being auto piloted into a war with WWI.

Historical Perspective
1. While western analyst loves to focus on Confucian view of celestial empire and tribute system, it's not how China operate then or now. It would be like interpenetrating European history purely from a religious point of view and missed the realpolitik that's underneath all the pretenses. The core of Chinese strategic think was forged during the era of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that's aimed to maintain or break the delicate balance of power during the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

period. A lots writing on balance of power make references to this period, including analysis of Cold War and Sino-Soviet Split, and eventual China-US detente. If you actually read text from this period, you'll find concept and stratagems that Metternich and Bismark would find familiar.

From the map, it's easily to see the Horizontal (East-West) and Vertical (North-South) alliances can either check or dominate the warring state universe. The end game of course is East-West strategy prevailed, as any meaningful alliance between Chu and northern state proved difficult due to cultural difference. And Iron Pact between Zhao-Wei-Han after middle warring states period proved too weak to stop Qin. Later a final non-aggression pact between Qin and Qi seal the fate of unification under Qin. (Qi was spared war and incorporated into the final empire peacefully. At time Qi is very weak after a brutal war of succession with Yan and aggression from Chu, it has no choice but ally with the strong western Qin for survival)

If you can understand Chinese, check this out. It about the lead up to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

THAT is grand strategy, Qin really know what they're doing in a complex geopolitical crisis, and epic failure from Zhao for being "forced" into a war with Qin (mostly due to internal politics) and unable to secure a call to arms from Wei or Chu.
[video=youtube;nTHES_21jbg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTHES_21jbg[/video]

2. Modern Chinese geopolitics is essentially western geopolitics. Mahan, Mackinder and Paul Kennedy is widely read in China, there is really no mysterious eastern theory of geopolitics. It's basically the same stuff. However, it is looking at things from a Chinese perspective, such as 1st, 2nd, 3rd island chains, Malacca Choke point, Eurasian land bridge (Modern Silk Road) is focus rather than a world island with a Eurasian pivot.

advill · Apr 23, 2014

Appears that Geopolitics in Asia shift according to political, military & economic environmental situations. Russia has recently come into the picture reinforcing confrontation with Japan i.e. the Japanese islands the USSR seized during WW II. There are reported intentions of Putin wanting closer relations with China. Add the North Korean continued belligerency to test a nuclear device, & the East & South China Seas territorial problems, all of these DO NOT support Peace in the region. Nations involved become very watchful and highly strung. US announced Pivot to Asia will be examined closely by the countries involved in disagreements & conflicts. Very sad that past lessons of wars & conflicts where ordinary people suffer don't seem to bother adversaries.

luhai said:
Current Policy
1. Non-interference, make no allies and no enemies. Start and ends war on it's own terms, will not get dragged into a war. (This the lesson learned from the Korean War)
2. Strategic ambiguity with other all defensive posture. It keep potential adversary guess at both try capability and commit of China, yet still allows for rooms for maneuver in a crisis. So China will not be forced to make concessions to its national interest too often, yet still avoid being auto piloted into a war with WWI.

Historical Perspective
1. While western analyst loves to focus on Confucian view of celestial empire and tribute system, it's not how China operate then or now. It would be like interpenetrating European history purely from a religious point of view and missed the realpolitik that's underneath all the pretenses. The core of Chinese strategic think was forged during the era of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that's aimed to maintain or break the delicate balance of power during the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
period. A lots writing on balance of power make references to this period, including analysis of Cold War and Sino-Soviet Split, and eventual China-US detente. If you actually read text from this period, you'll find concept and stratagems that Metternich and Bismark would find familiar.

From the map, it's easily to see the Horizontal (East-West) and Vertical (North-South) alliances can either check or dominate the warring state universe. The end game of course is East-West strategy prevailed, as any meaningful alliance between Chu and northern state proved difficult due to cultural difference. And Iron Pact between Zhao-Wei-Han after middle warring states period proved too weak to stop Qin. Later a final non-aggression pact between Qin and Qi seal the fate of unification under Qin. (Qi was spared war and incorporated into the final empire peacefully. At time Qi is very weak after a brutal war of succession with Yan and aggression from Chu, it has no choice but ally with the strong western Qin for survival)

If you can understand Chinese, check this out. It about lead up to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
THAT is grand strategy, Qin really know what they're doing in a complex geopolitical crisis, and epic failure from Zhao for being "forced" into a war with Qin (mostly due to internal politics) and unable to secure a call to arms from Wei or Chu.
[video=youtube;nTHES_21jbg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTHES_21jbg[/video]

2. Modern Chinese geopolitics is essentially western geopolitics. Mahan, Mackinder and Paul Kennedy is widely read in China, there is really no mysterious eastern theory of geopolitics. It's basically the same stuff. However, it is looking at things from a Chinese perspective, such as 1st, 2nd, 3rd island chains, Malacca Choke point, Eurasian land bridge (Modern Silk Road) is focus rather than a world island with a Eurasian pivot.

luhai · Apr 23, 2014

advill said:
Very sad that past lessons of wars & conflicts where ordinary people suffer don't seem to bother adversaries.

well, let's face it, ordinary people are not interested in this sort of thing. Try talk to a random person in the street about Geopolitics and their stupidity will astound you. For the most part, ordinary people will just parrot whatever sound bites fed to them, and people making those sound bites have little interest in the welfare of those ordinary people.

advill said:
Russia has recently come into the picture reinforcing confrontation with Japan i.e. the Japanese islands the USSR seized during WW II. There are reported intentions of Putin wanting closer relations with China. Add the North Korean continued belligerency to test a nuclear device, & the East & South China Seas territorial problems, all of these DO NOT support Peace in the region. Nations involved become very watchful and highly strung. US announced Pivot to Asia will be examined closely by the countries involved in disagreements & conflicts.

Also, North Koreans, island disputes are just noise in the grand scheme of things. They are just proxies rather than the focus for the great powers in the region. In the thousand year game, the nation that can maintain and expansion its economic, industrial and technological strength to reach for the stars will have its civilization preserved, the rest will go into history like nations from antiquity. Geopolitics plays a supporting in the endeavor, but not the end game. Just thinks of Earth as western Europe on the eve of age of discovery.

Lezt · Apr 23, 2014

luhai said:
Current Policy
1. Non-interference, make no allies and no enemies. Start and ends war on it's own terms, will not get dragged into a war. (This the lesson learned from the Korean War)
2. Strategic ambiguity with other all defensive posture. It keep potential adversary guess at both try capability and commit of China, yet still allows for rooms for maneuver in a crisis. So China will not be forced to make concessions to its national interest too often, yet still avoid being auto piloted into a war with WWI.

Historical Perspective
1. While western analyst loves to focus on Confucian view of celestial empire and tribute system, it's not how China operate then or now. It would be like interpenetrating European history purely from a religious point of view and missed the realpolitik that's underneath all the pretenses. The core of Chinese strategic think was forged during the era of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that's aimed to maintain or break the delicate balance of power during the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
period. A lots writing on balance of power make references to this period, including analysis of Cold War and Sino-Soviet Split, and eventual China-US detente. If you actually read text from this period, you'll find concept and stratagems that Metternich and Bismark would find familiar.

From the map, it's easily to see the Horizontal (East-West) and Vertical (North-South) alliances can either check or dominate the warring state universe. The end game of course is East-West strategy prevailed, as any meaningful alliance between Chu and northern state proved difficult due to cultural difference. And Iron Pact between Zhao-Wei-Han after middle warring states period proved too weak to stop Qin. Later a final non-aggression pact between Qin and Qi seal the fate of unification under Qin. (Qi was spared war and incorporated into the final empire peacefully. At time Qi is very weak after a brutal war of succession with Yan and aggression from Chu, it has no choice but ally with the strong western Qin for survival)

If you can understand Chinese, check this out. It about the lead up to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
THAT is grand strategy, Qin really know what they're doing in a complex geopolitical crisis, and epic failure from Zhao for being "forced" into a war with Qin (mostly due to internal politics) and unable to secure a call to arms from Wei or Chu.
[video=youtube;nTHES_21jbg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTHES_21jbg[/video]

2. Modern Chinese geopolitics is essentially western geopolitics. Mahan, Mackinder and Paul Kennedy is widely read in China, there is really no mysterious eastern theory of geopolitics. It's basically the same stuff. However, it is looking at things from a Chinese perspective, such as 1st, 2nd, 3rd island chains, Malacca Choke point, Eurasian land bridge (Modern Silk Road) is focus rather than a world island with a Eurasian pivot.

I don't think it is fair to say that China is not following the path of the tribute system based on what you have said.

The warring states are a civil war period between "Chinese states" themselves - which was a relic of the Zhou dynasty; just like the 3 kingdom era is still Chinese fighting Chinese relic of the Han dynasty. Tribute is the relationship between "Chinese" and "Barbarians".

Mahanism, - the naval supremacy race
Mackinderism, - the heartland theory
Marxism, etc

had all been read and digested; and China is inconsistent with those theories. If you call what China is doing a variant of them, then might as well say that everything is a variation of something prior.

The heartland theory - is basically the "central country" or "China" philosophy

The Mahan analysis of the British empire, is inconsistent for a country like the USA or China - as the roaring 20s had shown the USA was the largest market for itself and the US took excessive measures to keep foreigners out of the market; instead of trying to sell to other markets. - Which today, the USA is still its largest market by price and volume; and China is still its largest market by volume.

This is where the tribute system have its charms; if you want to enter the Chinese market, you have to pay a tribute. In the past, it is valuables, nowadays, it is TOT agreements, know hows etc.

The SLOC to the first island chain is not Mahanism, but to protect the foreign trade ships that would work under the "tribute system" not so that the PLAN can open new markets with gunboat diplomacy.

luhai · Apr 23, 2014

tribute system is not grand strategy, it's simply a system of trade that circumvents seaward ban of the latter dynasties. While it's true it's civil war from modern perspective, however back then, it's a genuine state to state game of balance and power. (or look at it another way, if EU somehow become a fully unified state, then all those nice interactions between European states would be seems a civil war and does not apply to how the future EU state will interact with say China or US.)

Mahanism isn't really a the naval supremacy race. You should check out his "The Problem of Asia: Its Effect upon International Politics" as well as his more famous "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History". And

Grand strategy isn't about tactics, it's all about identifying, what do you want to achieve in the grand strategy (world domination? sphere of Influence? Independence? Survival? ), what are the key region to focus on, and who you should choose to be your friends or enemies. (for reference, the warring state end game is unification. And depend on who you are, you'll try to facilitate or oppose it) For example it has been said the heartland theory have great influence on US foreign policy circles and if we combine that with US's historical actions in the cold war we'll get the following:

Maintain dominance in the western hemisphare, and ensure that dominance will not be challenged. Prevent the pivot area from allying with peripheral powers and form a Eurasian Super State. This combined with kennan's X paper form the US strategy of containment and signing security pacts and commitments everywhere breaking US foreign policy practices since French Revolution. (see Proclamation of Neutrality) and why emergence of PRC was such a shock for the US in the 1950s (but China is no backward then, it's not seens as immediate threat, but a large potential one in the future if PRC-USSR alliance endures). Also it explains why US exploited the Sino-Soviet Split when it become obvious during the boarder conflict of '69. Remember, at the time China and US was essentially fighting a proxy war in Vietnam.

Now for China, for much of the first half 20th century its basically in survival mode not to be fully colonized like India did in the 18th century in the first half. try to stay independent in between two superpowers in the second half, which is why China refuse to fall into the Soviet Orbit in the 1950s when the whole world is taking sides. For the 21 century, I think China will still aim for to stay independent so to have has the maximum flexibility in foreign policy and focus on developing its economy. (Hench no security pacts with Russia or any other country) Globally, China probably want to the to be a pole in a multi-polar world (EU, Russia, India, China, Japan, and perhaps long term Brazil and a strong nation from Africa). Which means it will not try to direct undermine US power in regions where US power dominant (thus no Chinese Monroe Doctrine), however has a active interest in developing the developing world and facilitate a relative US decline. (So China might not oppose a South Korean led unification of Korea if it meant the United Korea will asset itself and fall out of US Orbit) As this would allow China more flexibly in avocation their core interest in areas immediately surrounding China. (Operationally, it would rule out overseas bases as an area of pursuit.) In the future, China might want to cast a sphere of Influence, but it would mean allying with weaker nations that may pull it into serious trouble. (A lesson important lesson from WWI as well as Tang Dynasty)

Lezt · Apr 23, 2014

luhai said:
tribute system is not grand strategy, it's simply a system of trade that circumvents seaward ban of the latter dynasties. While it's true it's civil war from modern perspective, however back then, it's a genuine state to state game of balance and power. (or look at it another way, if EU somehow become a fully unified state, then all those nice interactions between European states would be seems a civil war and does not apply to how the future EU state will interact with say China or US.)

Mahanism isn't really a the naval supremacy race. You should check out his "The Problem of Asia: Its Effect upon International Politics" as well as his more famous "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History". And

Grand strategy isn't about tactics, it's all about identifying, what do you want to achieve in the grand strategy (world domination? sphere of Influence? Independence? Survival? ), what are the key region to focus on, and who you should choose to be your friends or enemies. (for reference, the warring state end game is unification. And depend on who you are, you'll try to facilitate or oppose it) For example it has been said the heartland theory have great influence on US foreign policy circles and if we combine that with US's historical actions in the cold war we'll get the following:

Maintain dominance in the western hemisphare, and ensure that dominance will not be challenged. Prevent the pivot area from allying with peripheral powers and form a Eurasian Super State. This combined with kennan's X paper form the US strategy of containment and signing security pacts and commitments everywhere breaking US foreign policy practices since French Revolution. (see Proclamation of Neutrality) and why emergence of PRC was such a shock for the US in the 1950s (but China is no backward then, it's not seens as immediate threat, but a large potential one in the future if PRC-USSR alliance endures). Also it explains why US exploited the Sino-Soviet Split when it become obvious during the boarder conflict of '69. Remember, at the time China and US was essentially fighting a proxy war in Vietnam.

Now for China, for much of the first half 20th century its basically in survival mode not to be fully colonized like India did in the 18th century in the first half. try to stay independent in between two superpowers in the second half, which is why China refuse to fall into the Soviet Orbit in the 1950s when the whole world is taking sides. For the 21 century, I think China will still aim for to stay independent so to have has the maximum flexibility in foreign policy and focus on developing its economy. (Hench no security pacts with Russia or any other country) Globally, China probably want to the to be a pole in a multi-polar world (EU, Russia, India, China, Japan, and perhaps long term Brazil and a strong nation from Africa). Which means it will not try to direct undermine US power in regions where US power dominant (thus no Chinese Monroe Doctrine), however has a active interest in developing the developing world and facilitate a relative US decline. (So China might not oppose a South Korean led unification of Korea if it meant the United Korea will asset itself and fall out of US Orbit) As this would allow China more flexibly in avocation their core interest in areas immediately surrounding China. (Operationally, it would rule out overseas bases as an area of pursuit.) In the future, China might want to cast a sphere of Influence, but it would mean allying with weaker nations that may pull it into serious trouble. (A lesson important lesson from WWI as well as Tang Dynasty)

Instead of throwing words around about what is strategy and tactics, to undermine the tribute system, one need to understand what a tribute system is.

1) Have a powerful military to guard against raiders, a protected market
2) trades to happen on the terms the host country decides
3) have a very large market to attract trade potential - the largest market

Everything you have said is consistent with China following the tribute system thinking.

I also think that you have a very simplified and romantic view of world politics; I have my doubts that any world leader would be shocked by the events unfolding in front of them. Certainly, to believe that the USA were shocked of China in 1950 is absurd.

China was not in survival mode to prevent colonization; this is a modern invention as China at that time is not a homogeneous country with an identity that it is a country. the Westphalia Sovereignty; is one that is imposed onto the Chinese civilization cira 1800s the people of that time simply have no idea what a country is; as defined today. The fact is also that today, the Chinese understanding of what a "Country" is, is different than that of the west.

Alliances, also work differently in China's case, China had not have an ally for the past 60+ years, it is not likely to change.

China also did not go into the soviet orbit for more personal reasons, i.e. Mao didn't get along with Stalin; and the refusal of Soviet aid and the requirement of paying all supplied hardware in cash meant that proponent of joining the soviet orbit were quickly silenced. Stalin also asked Mao to restudy Marxism and gave aid to the Nationalist. Thus Mao decided to do it alone, instead of relying on the USSR. So, to say that China had the foresight to not get into the USSR orbit is, at best a simple romanticism. Reality is much more complex.

LesAdieux · Apr 23, 2014

China seizes Jp ship for war reparation

port_08 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...
China has to be careful as the current Japan administration is adamant to live their own glory path, the timing could be a bit unfortunate for Obama. In politics there is always a subtle meaning to any event. The current low between Japan and China is to be expected as some historical issue/'wounds' so call are still seems to be not properly addressed.

this has created a new dimension in the conflict.

China renounced the right for war reparation at state level, but individuals still have their own rights to make claims. in the past Chinese courts didn't take this kind of cases, so many took their cases to the jp courts, which always got rejected.

port_08 · Apr 23, 2014

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...
Multi-country maritime exercises were held off the coast of the eastern Chinese city of Qingdao on Wednesday.

This is the first time for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy to organize multilateral maritime exercises.

Nineteen ships, seven helicopters and marine corps from eight countries including China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Singapore, Indonesia, India, Malaysia and Brunei were organized into three task forces to conduct the exercises dubbed "Maritime Cooperation - 2014."
...

Warming of the relations between China and the following countries. Traditionally these countries have always warm to China.

A more hostile at the moment is Japan who wants to dominate, Philippines probably clueless, Vietnam suck up and North Korea unpredictable childish.

Pretty interesting how China balancing all these relation requires master skill in diplomacy. You can't have it all, some good, some bad...

Chinese Geopolitics

port_08

Junior Member

port_08

Junior Member

luhai

Banned Idiot

advill

Junior Member

luhai

Banned Idiot

Lezt

Junior Member

luhai

Banned Idiot

Lezt

Junior Member

LesAdieux

Junior Member

port_08

Junior Member