The South China Sea's Gathering Storm
How it starts, China effectively taking over the port of Vladivostok for trade shipments to an£ from Jilin province to the rest of China - Chinese customs clearance for other international shipments with Chinese goods shipments being treated as domestic transfers.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/2023...54fad34e0.html
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/2023...54fad34e0.html
Not sure the Chinese want to take over the place - they just want access at mates rates to all the natural resources. There's no real market and not many people
They have plenty of room - and will have even more as more and more people move to the cities as development proceeds - currently only 65% live in cities compared to 80% in the USA and 90% in Australia
I believe they already have problems in the old "rust belt" and remote rural areas as the young are all moving into big cities further south
I believe they already have problems in the old "rust belt" and remote rural areas as the young are all moving into big cities further south
Joli
My immediate reaction to #1683 was shenghuo kongjian, but perhaps that was a little too literal and indeed shengcun kongjian fits the bill better.
My immediate reaction to #1683 was shenghuo kongjian, but perhaps that was a little too literal and indeed shengcun kongjian fits the bill better.
Last edited by Barksdale Boy; 19th May 2023 at 05:48.
The following users liked this post:
What we are saying is the Russian attack on Ukraine is the equivalent of the elephant in the room taking a fulsome dump and it is finally time to realise the elephant is China?
two different problems - one is immediate the other very long term
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Congratulations to the great geopolitical strategist Putin.
The China-Central Asia summit, to which China invited representatives of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - but did not invite Russia - is a very important signal.
This shows that China created a new Central-Asian C5, which China will lead. And Russia has lost its influence in the region where it historically had a lot of impact.
The China-Central Asia summit, to which China invited representatives of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - but did not invite Russia - is a very important signal.
This shows that China created a new Central-Asian C5, which China will lead. And Russia has lost its influence in the region where it historically had a lot of impact.
How do you create a little empire?
By starting with a big one and fu**ing up.
The following users liked this post:
PRC's manoeuvring in the Straits of Taiwan in breach of the COLREGS seems a bit silly, how long would it take to get BB-63 back out on her own bottom, she is pretty capable of separating tubs across her bows. 
On an aviation angle, seems time to put a couple of F-35's into trail on the PLAF aircraft that are breaching ICAO Annex Rules of the Air. Seems like a gentle reminder to play nicely.
On an aviation angle, seems time to put a couple of F-35's into trail on the PLAF aircraft that are breaching ICAO Annex Rules of the Air. Seems like a gentle reminder to play nicely.
FWIW, this geopolitics observer sees that Ukraine War and China/Taiwan gambit are at the meta level a part of the same movement: and if you read between the lines, highlight a crucial problem with the UN as it currently is. (Basically, it is no longer fit for purpose as a collective security organization).
He makes an interesting point that the Cold War / Cold Peace where US and China are the two poles is a very different beast from the USSR / West poles, in part due to China's maritime capability and geographic advantages, and it's being on par with the US economically, which the USSR never was.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
“US and Chinese air-to-air capability unimportant”, reveals a study conducted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). As per the think-tank's wargames: 90% of USAF, JASDF & ROCAF aircraft will be lost to Chinese missiles on the ground.
There won’t be any Battle of Britain style air-superiority battles fought over Taiwan. It will be a rocket/missile war fought at long-ranges with DF-21s and AGM-158s – whoever runs out of missiles first will lose the war!
Here’s a link to CSIC’s fascinating 165-page wargame study: The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...hFolxC_gZQuSOQ
There won’t be any Battle of Britain style air-superiority battles fought over Taiwan. It will be a rocket/missile war fought at long-ranges with DF-21s and AGM-158s – whoever runs out of missiles first will lose the war!
Here’s a link to CSIC’s fascinating 165-page wargame study: The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...hFolxC_gZQuSOQ
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Four major (Airpower) takeaways from CSIC's Battle for Taiwan wargaming study (see last Tweet):
1. Shift to smaller, more survivable ships. The #USNavy lost two carriers and 10-20 major surface combatants as it fought its way to enter the Chinese defensive zone.
2. Continue development/fielding of hypersonic weapons. Hypersonics proved invaluable against Chinese platforms in game iterations.
3. Prioritize bombers over fighters. The range, standoff distance, and payload capacity of bombers presented the Chinese with serious challenges.
4. Produce more, cheaper fighters and balance stealth with non-stealth aircraft production. With so many aircraft lost early in the conflict, the #USAF will need numbers (lots of them).
1. Shift to smaller, more survivable ships. The #USNavy lost two carriers and 10-20 major surface combatants as it fought its way to enter the Chinese defensive zone.
2. Continue development/fielding of hypersonic weapons. Hypersonics proved invaluable against Chinese platforms in game iterations.
3. Prioritize bombers over fighters. The range, standoff distance, and payload capacity of bombers presented the Chinese with serious challenges.
4. Produce more, cheaper fighters and balance stealth with non-stealth aircraft production. With so many aircraft lost early in the conflict, the #USAF will need numbers (lots of them).
The following users liked this post: