PLA 39th Army Group maneuvering close to North Korean Border

The status quo on the Korean Peninsula is far essential for China, it's not even the least bad position never mind anything remotely approaching desirable for Beijing. It just happens to be the least risky and destabilising position.

A non-nuclear NK would be far more preferable than the current one, a non-nuclear NK instigating Chinese style economic and political reforms would just about approach being desirable.

China today isn't China of the 1950s, unlike back then, there is no remotely likely risk of either a US and western sponsored invasion of the mainland by Nationalist forces from Taiwan and/or a direct Vietnam style invasion by US led western forces.

With all the military bases America already have in the region, would a few more make that much of a difference? If anything, having large numbers of US troops stationed a proverbial stones throw from a Chinese land boarder that the PLA could pretty much annihilate with its ground forces at will (Albert with significant cost) could be a decided geopolitical advantage to Beijing as it would massively increase both the likelihood and expected number of US military casualties in any direct conflict with China over an elective conflict for the US, say Taiwan for example.

China does not really need NK as a buffer against invasion any more, China's support for NK is just a legacy of the Cold War and risk management by Beijing. That means that if the situation changes significantly on the ground in NK, so might the outcome of China's risk minimisation assessment.

I have long argued that it would be very beneficial for China to strike a grand bargain with SK to bargain unification under SK's terms as well as massive Chinese financial support for rebuilding and the modernisation of the former NK territories in exchange for the new unified Korea to ditch America and ally itself with China.

But such a move is going to be massively risky and massively destabilising for both the region and the world, so it's not something to be taken lightly. Right now the risks of it all going horribly wrong and the consequences of it going wrong will make such a move extremely unlikely. But that calculus changes completely if NK looks like it might implode or start a nuclear war.

Genuinely surprised to read that nearly everybody would see China has a near passive observer in any situation, where external powers sought to change the status quo.

The message from Beijing in many of its contentious borders and possession disputes, has been that it will abide by the status quo and seek diplomatic solutions, but woe betide anyone that tries to unilaterally change matters.
To date there have been attempts in the ECS and SCS to change the small parts of the status quo and China's response has been both proportional to the level of attempt of change and mindful of its present disadvantages in the Maritime and Amphibious conflict arenas.

An ROK/US invasion of North Korea would be a very different kettle of fish. This would be not only an attempt to make a major change to the status quo, it would also be a change achieved by force and a land war in Asia. China would; under these circumstances, be fully within its rights to respond and it would be the one Pacific Theatre where it would be well within its capabilities and expectations to win.

So to mix some metaphors, China has no interest in upsetting the apple cart, but once the balloon goes up, it has nothing to lose in responding in the most vigorous fashion, not only to prevent the change to the status quo desired by others, but to actually go further and impose its own vision for the peninsular and probably beyond.

SampanViking said:

So to mix some metaphors, China has no interest in upsetting the apple cart, but once the balloon goes up, it has nothing to lose in responding in the most vigorous fashion, not only to prevent the change to the status quo desired by others, but to actually go further and impose its own vision for the peninsular and probably beyond.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the problem is, what exactly would be a viable and beneficial vision for China regarding the Korean peninsula?

In my opinion... there is nothing special behind the killing of the second man. In a society whereby the leader had absolute power, he/she would get rid of the next most powerful person (and replace him with his/her own puppets) in his regime just so as to strengthen his/her own power and position.

In North Korea case, baby Kim wanted absolute power like his father and grandfather, the only way to do it was to replace the second man in the regime with his/her own people, however, the second man was normally very powerful, so the easiest way to achieve the goal is to kill that person quickly and not giving him/her time to react.

This has nothing to do with distancing NK from China or to move closer to US and SK. It is just power struggle within NK itself.

solarz said:

Ah, but the problem is, what exactly would be a viable and beneficial vision for China regarding the Korean peninsula?

Click to expand...

exactly, i'd say the most set of conceivable circumstances regarding the korean peninsula is still the status quo. the existence of north korea is a thorn in the side of china's geopolitical rivals, and beneficial for china as long as it can continue to exert a degree of influence on north korea. however with the purge of jang song thaek this is looking iffy.

plawolf said:

I think people may also be over analysing the closeness of Thaek to China and that his execution is some kind of message to Beijing. If it was mainly a foreign policy disagreement, you would think that a family, even one as warped and dysfunctional as the Kim's, might be able to work out their differences without it escalating into bloodshed. Hell, even if blood was unavoidable, there would have been far subtler ways to go about it thank the melodrama NK put on.

Chubby Kim could easily have 'disappeared' dear beloved uncle and announced the old geezer passed as a result of natural causes, and given the age if the guy, most of the world and all of NK would probably have bought it. That's how you eliminate a powerful political rival if the main objective is to try to consolidate power or affect major policy changes since that does not unduly panic the purged person's supporters or the general population or give hostile foreign powers definitive indication of internal strife.

No, the way Chubs went about this, the drama of the arrest, the comical language used to denounce Thaek, and the charges spoke more of rage to me. This wasn't business, it was personal. It was not enough that Thaek died, he had to also be publically disgraced as well.

I think the most likely explanation is a fat brat who never been told 'no' by anyone other than dear leader daddy in his life absolutely hated the fact that debloved dad left dear uncle in charge when he kicked it, and that resentment has slowly built up ever since until Chubs just could not take it any longer and ended up throwing a homicidal tantrum of epic proportions.

Click to expand...

interesting theory; i don't know whether the purge of jang song thaek was a message to china, but i highly doubt kim did it on a whim. since kim jong un came to power, this is not the first purge of powerful men he has carried out, you might remember kim chol's similarly ostentatious purge via execution by mortar last year. don't let his chubby appearance and his silly chinese nickname fool you, i think the young kim is well versed in the machiavellian aspects of consolidating power. maybe he did personally resent jang, but i am sure this takedown was done for very practical reasons. jang was a high political figure, and in order to take him down required a strong justification, hence the extreme language. additionally, internal political takedowns are not usually clandestine assassinations, this move (like the mortar incident) was done in a very public way so as to intimidate jang's followers and other high members of government into submission. -eg. mao's takedown of liu shaoqi

i don't think it is relevant whether jang's takedown was personal as you say, because any move to consolidate the personal power of kim jong un can be considered "personal." what is personal is also business and vice versa. however we can say that kim has proved himself to be a cunning and ruthless despot in his ability to grasp the reigns of power well enough to take down such powerful men so soon after his ascension.

solarz said:

Ah, but the problem is, what exactly would be a viable and beneficial vision for China regarding the Korean peninsula?

Click to expand...

Unified under a pro Beijing regime, not necessarily headed by anyone who is currently a lead actor.
The status quo is only as good as the time it lasts and once it fails, then all bets are off. A status quo that has failed once is not worth going to the trouble and effort of military involvement just to restore, especially when that status quo was simply the product of an earlier conflict which ended in stalemate.

So to reiterate, you do everything you can to prevent the start of fighting, but once it starts you go in heavy and make sure your desired outcome is the final outcome.

SampanViking said:

Unified under a pro Beijing regime, not necessarily headed by anyone who is currently a lead actor.
The status quo is only as good as the time it lasts and once it fails, then all bets are off. A status quo that has failed once is not worth going to the trouble and effort of military involvement just to restore, especially when that status quo was simply the product of an earlier conflict which ended in stalemate.

So to reiterate, you do everything you can to prevent the start of fighting, but once it starts you go in heavy and make sure your desired outcome is the final outcome.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be an ideal outcome, but is it realistic?

You cannot make a nation like you with just military power. The US tried to do that in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places, and have had a pretty spotty record so far.

China and Korea have 1000 years of history between them, and any attempt from China to annex Korea will be met with extreme hostility, and quite justifiably so.

I agree that the status quo is not worth the effort to restore, but I can't see what China can achieve with its military should the status quo be ended.

solarz said:

Yes, that would be an ideal outcome, but is it realistic?

You cannot make a nation like you with just military power. The US tried to do that in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places, and have had a pretty spotty record so far.

China and Korea have 1000 years of history between them, and any attempt from China to annex Korea will be met with extreme hostility, and quite justifiably so.

I agree that the status quo is not worth the effort to restore, but I can't see what China can achieve with its military should the status quo be ended.

Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to ensure that an administration friendly to China would be in control of a united Korea, after all, the US has dozens of such countries scattered around the world including NATO and the current SK administration. You need a common adversary, that's all. For the US and NATO, their common adversary is Russia and for the US and her Asian-Pacific allies, it's China.

If China was to convince a new united Korean administration to be friendly, then their common adversary would be a re-militarised Japan. It's impossible for Japan to not re-militarise if a second Korean war broke out, and once they do, China and Korea are going to be fuming. It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation for Japan. On one hand, they cannot possibly take no action in a second Korean war, and once they do, it will virtually guarantee that the new Korean administration will choose to seek cooperation with China.

solarz said:

Yes, that would be an ideal outcome, but is it realistic?

You cannot make a nation like you with just military power. The US tried to do that in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places, and have had a pretty spotty record so far.

China and Korea have 1000 years of history between them, and any attempt from China to annex Korea will be met with extreme hostility, and quite justifiably so.

I agree that the status quo is not worth the effort to restore, but I can't see what China can achieve with its military should the status quo be ended.

Click to expand...

Not really even dreaming of annexation.
I suppose that you would pitch your intervention on the basis of fighting to achieve total liberation and unification of the country.
I think there would be little doubt that after a War of this sort that there would be very little of a Korea that actually still existed and so similarities with Europe after WW2 is not a bad place to start thinking. That would mean maintaining an initial position as an occupying power, combined with the equivalent of a Marshall Plan to put everything back together again.
I think everybody understands that Afghanistan and Iraq are text book examples of how not to do this sort of thing, all the more odd as the US and other Western powers have previously been much better at this sort of thing.

So you maintain the nations own civil and military security forces from day one. Use your cash to rebuild both Physical Infrastructure and Institutions, ensure that you involve local leaders in meaningful, if not leading roles from the earliest days of the peace and hand back sovereign rule once complete, as quickly as possible.

I suppose the big question would be, does such a future involve the Kim's?
I have no doubt that the PLA would have rushed to their aid, but just could not get to them in time before that bomb dropped......