PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

AndrewS said:

Your scenario is not realistic.

China would be perfectly happy with a neutral ASEAN. After all, ASEAN is China's largest trading partner and this trade gets intermingled. Most of China's global trade passes through the South China Seas and then the Malacca Straits.

If anything, it would be the US turning ASEAN into a "hellhole" as you put it. Because this hurts China far more than the US which is on the other side of the Pacific.

But I doubt this will happen, because this will force an overt China-ASEAN alliance against the USA.

Click to expand...

This is a good point. The US currently has control over these 3rd world dictators because the CIA effectively bankrolls their reelection.

The moment fighting starts, no amount of Hollywood propaganda will keep those despots in power, and rebel groups will pop up like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

solarz said:

This is a good point. The US currently has control over these 3rd world dictators because the CIA effectively bankrolls their reelection.

The moment fighting starts, no amount of Hollywood propaganda will keep those despots in power, and rebel groups will pop up like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

Click to expand...

Even today, the majority of decision-makers in ASEAN would choose China over the USA, as per the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak survey.
The PEW surveys also show a majority of the general population in various ASEAN countries choosing China over the USA as well.
ASEAN won't support the US, barring the exception of the Philippines

===

As the late Lew Kuan Yew wrote extensively, one day, China (and its military) will very likely displace the US.
So to survive, Singapore must prepare for that day.

Jaym said:

I get the feeling that a lot of the posters are over influenced by video games or what they hear from media heavily influenced by the military industrial complex.

I personally dont think commerce raiding or a naval blockade will work on a country as large as China.

I dont think it would work on Russia or even Iran. Basically if the country has a population above 50 million, i dont think these types of tactics will work.

Click to expand...

There has been no large scale blockage of Russia, I don't really think there will be one towards China.

AndrewS said:

Even today, the majority of decision-makers in ASEAN would choose China over the USA, as per the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak survey.
The PEW surveys also show a majority of the general population in various ASEAN countries choosing China over the USA as well.
ASEAN won't support the US, barring the exception of the Philippines

Click to expand...

Those who decide whether ASEAN will support the US or not will be politicians. Not the population. Politicians in these countries can simply ignore the will of the population and side with the US for a variety of reasons. This would not be new in geopolitics. The population's support for China only tells part of the story. Not the whole story. So, there is no way to say that ASEAN will not support the US or remain neutral or support China.

AndrewS said:

As the late Lew Kuan Yew wrote extensively, one day, China (and its military) will very likely displace the US.

So to survive, Singapore must prepare for that day.

Click to expand...

So will China want to replace the US as the global superpower, including assuming global military commitments?

So far, . Some country in the Persian Gulf (I don't remember if it was SA or the UAE) expressed dissatisfaction with China months ago because of China's reluctance to reassert its military presence in the region, generating distrust in that state. This is not why SA seeks an agreement with the USA, after all, they are the ones who effectively engage in bilateral security in compromise and are willing to do so, I still say more about the future, with the prevalence of the election won by Trump, the SA will sign the security agreement with the USA under Trump's leadership, will return to the petrodollar agreement, because it will allow the American government to limit inflation in the domestic scenario and will also encourage SA to abandon admission to BRICS+.

Returning to China, China's regional security principles do not mention military power and are still theoretical without a clear military vision for the region. Furthermore, China does not have the intention or requirements to operationalize its security principles in a military sense. While China may need a regional military presence to protect its broad economic footprint and citizens, its focus is on energy imports, investment and trade rather than challenging U.S. geopolitical dominance in the region. As much as China realizes its vision under the GSI that the country is ready to "", China doing very little to ensure this commitment, the blockade in the Red Sea is the greatest example of China's inability to free up maritime traffic, a situation that even affects China's allies.

Sinnavuuty said:

So will China want to replace the US as the global superpower, including assuming global military commitments?

So far,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Some country in the Persian Gulf (I don't remember if it was SA or the UAE) expressed dissatisfaction with China months ago because of China's reluctance to reassert its military presence in the region, generating distrust in that state. This is not why SA seeks an agreement with the USA, after all, they are the ones who effectively engage in bilateral security in compromise and are willing to do so, I still say more about the future, with the prevalence of the election won by Trump, the SA will sign the security agreement with the USA under Trump's leadership, will return to the petrodollar agreement, because it will allow the American government to limit inflation in the domestic scenario and will also encourage SA to abandon admission to BRICS+.

Returning to China, China's regional security principles do not mention military power and are still theoretical without a clear military vision for the region. Furthermore, China does not have the intention or requirements to operationalize its security principles in a military sense. While China may need a regional military presence to protect its broad economic footprint and citizens, its focus is on energy imports, investment and trade rather than challenging U.S. geopolitical dominance in the region. As much as China realizes its vision under the GSI that the country is ready to "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

", China doing very little to ensure this commitment, the blockade in the Red Sea is the greatest example of China's inability to free up maritime traffic, a situation that even affects China's allies.

Click to expand...

As far as this is concerned, it is early days. When China has dominance over global finance, plus all tech, supply chains and resource extraction, I believe we'll see a kick start of real work on the GSI and other regional partnerships. Difference will be under China the focus would be defense and maintenance of trade and supply chain, rather than political control of captured countries.

Sinnavuuty said:

the blockade in the Red Sea is the greatest example of China's inability to free up maritime traffic, a situation that even affects China's allies.

Click to expand...

Why should China help do America's failed homework for it? It's a situation that nearly only affects American aligned countries.

"NATO inability to stop Ukrainian attacks in Crimea is the greatest example of NATO's inability to ensure free international air space" is what you sound like

Sinnavuuty said:

Those who decide whether ASEAN will support the US or not will be politicians. Not the population. Politicians in these countries can simply ignore the will of the population and side with the US for a variety of reasons. This would not be new in geopolitics. The population's support for China only tells part of the story. Not the whole story. So, there is no way to say that ASEAN will not support the US or remain neutral or support China.

Click to expand...

The ISEAS-Yusof Ishak survey covers "decision-makers" in ASEAN.

That includes politicians, government officials, academics, businessmen etc

So a majority of these individuals would choose China over the USA, if forced to.

Sinnavuuty said:

So will China want to replace the US as the global superpower, including assuming global military commitments?

Click to expand...

I think it's too early to say what will happen with China assuming foreign military commitments, as this will be a decades long process.

Plus it also depends on what the US does.

But remember that China's preferred approach is to use economic influence and have friendly relations with everyone.

Sinnavuuty said:

the blockade in the Red Sea is the greatest example of China's inability to free up maritime traffic, a situation that even affects China's allies.

Click to expand...

I believe China helped, but in the other direction.

Conference were recently held in China where high ranking military representatives from over 20 Arab nations participated. Make of that what you will but I think it's assigning divisions of work and everyone has their roles cut out for them.

China calling for a return to 1967 Israel-Palestinian setup was ignored/rejected so now the going back to the 1947 resolution.
Fatah and Hamas recently reached some agreements in meeting held by China.

Israel will never accept going back to the 1947 resolution but I think this is just a case of going through the motions for everyone to see.

no_name said:

I believe China helped, but in the other direction.

Conference were recently held in China where high ranking military representatives from over 20 Arab nations participated. Make of that what you will but I think it's assigning divisions of work and everyone has their fair share cut out for them.

Click to expand...

I highly suspect you are right. There is no reason for China to resolve the Red Sea blockade since Chinese vessels are being allowed through. Some larger Chinese shipping companies don't want to take that risk, but the mid-sized and smaller ones definitely are. As for Chinese allies being negatively affected by it too, which bloc is being the most disproportionately impacted by this? Obviously the West and their vassals by far. It's not even close. Why would China try to undo a Houthi blockade to spare its allies if doing so restores full navigation safety to the West? Not to mention China doesn't have many allies, whereas the US has very many vassals. Sinnavuuty isn't thinking properly about the costs and benefits to all involved here. It's absolutely in China's favor to ignore the blockade and let the West fuck themselves trying to undo it. Even if the end result is that no one successfully undoes the blockade and it continues indefinitely, the overall impact is still disproportionately more negative for the West and their vassals than for China.