The UK has joined the U.S. in issuing a stern warning to China regarding its increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea, particularly targeting Philippine vessels.
In a joint statement following the U.S.-UK Strategic Dialogue, the two nations condemned China’s actions, reaffirming their commitment to upholding international law.
“We stand united against any attempts to destabilise the region,” British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said. Both countries emphasised “the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.”
During the talks held in London, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Lammy reiterated the shared U.S.-UK commitment to “upholding the law of the sea” as outlined by the UN Convention.
They voiced serious concerns about China’s “destabilising actions in the South China Sea” and reaffirmed their collective goal to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific. Both leaders condemned “unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion,” sending a strong message to China about the consequences of its aggressive behaviour.
Beyond addressing China, the dialogue covered other global security issues. Both nations reaffirmed their “unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty,” discussing further military and financial aid while condemning recent Russian airstrikes.
The U.S. and UK also expressed concerns about Iran’s military support for Russia, pledging to impose “new and significant measures” in response. In the Indo-Pacific, the two countries committed to deepening their cooperation with partners such as Australia, exemplified by the AUKUS agreement, to bolster security and defence capabilities across the region.
The joint statement also touched on wider global security concerns, particularly in Europe. Both the U.S. and UK reaffirmed their “enduring support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity,” pledging further military and financial assistance.
The dialogue addressed ways to “mobilise resources for Ukraine and restrict Russian revenues,” condemning Russia’s recent airstrikes on civilians. They also highlighted concerns about Iran’s military support to Russia, confirming “coordinated action” against both nations and denouncing the transfer of ballistic missiles from Iran to Russia.
Additionally, the U.S. and UK spoke of the importance of “strengthening democratic resilience globally,” particularly through anti-corruption measures. The two nations reaffirmed their shared goal of combating “foreign information manipulation and interference,” particularly by Russia, and pledged to support Ukraine in its efforts to counter Kremlin disinformation.
Both nations also highlighted their ongoing efforts to drive economic growth through clean energy initiatives and committed to cooperating on climate leadership ahead of COP29.
It’s amazing how much UK US political relations have deteriorated that the most that comes out of a UK US summit, the first since 2010 with two left of centre leaders is a joint deceleration on freedom of navigation. Hardly an exciting or controversial topic.
Not a mention on trade or anything new or useful.
What has the U.K. got for a trade deal that the US would want?
The US wants access to current U.K. markets it’s not allowed in due to standards etc.
Seems a bit one sided with the U.K. not gaining much.
Yes but where there’s a will there’s a way on trade, the problem is both the Trump and now Biden administration have been populist governments built on protectionism. CPTPP was set up by the Obama administration but the US left.
What has the US got to offer Britain? Not a lot other than dragging us into a potential pacific conflict.
Seriously why should Britain be that bothered? The closest countries we are treaty bound to protect Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore are largely anti US and pro China so clearly the situation in the SCS does not bother them that much.
The US is increasingly lukewarm on Ukraine, they unilaterally surrendered in Afghanistan after we spent considerable blood and treasure trying to support them.
I hope the US and it’s pacific allies check China but I’m not sure I see much in it for us so I have to ask with no trade deal on the table what does America have to offer us?
I’m guessing the real politic of the situation is very much this which is why there is very little be discussed between Starmer and Biden of any consequence.
UK isn’t treaty bound to defend any of those countries. Five eyes is a cooperation and intelligence sharing agreement.
Five powers not five eyes, different treaties. We do have treaty obligations to Malaysia and implied obligations to Brunei.
Yep wrong set of fives. But we do not have any obligation to defend Malaysia. We agreed to provide defence assistance on independence because of threats from Indonesia. Fighting lasted until 1966, when Indonesia accepted the formation of Malaysia.
The 1971 FPDA is consultative not the equivalent of NATO article 5.
Article 5 is also consultative though, countries are not legally obliged to fight under article 5. International treaties always work like this.
Because the impact of failing to deter a war there would probably collapse the global economy, and because we are heavily reliant on semiconductor products that are largely produced by Taiwan.
Yeah but we make up 0.5% of the global population. I’m all for pacific countries defending Taiwan and deterring China but just like they all ask whats in it for me should the UK not do the same?
Japan, South Korea and the USA can all step up for this one. They are easily powerful enough to take on China. If they need help the likes of India can get off their ass and do something for a change instead of constantly supporting evil regimes while claiming moral superiority.
Why is it always us having to get stuck in, can’t we ride one out from the sidelines. Maybe do a bit of profiteering in a global war instead of being first in as per usual.
The last war literally turned the US economy around while bankrupting us. Maybe we could do something similar then show up at the last minute and claim we changed the tide.
I sympathise with much of what you say but despite the dilution over time of the ties that bound us together I would not want to live in a country that wouldn’t send its forces to protect the people of Australia and New Zealand amongst one or two others in the region.
I couldn’t care less if they become republics but there are debts with those nations that are incalculable and cannot be simply cast aside.
Australia and NZ are a very long way way from China, NZ is very reluctant to confront China, Australia may be rapidly back tracking under its new government as well.
Perhaps we don’t need to get involved.
Living here in Aus for nearly 40 years i think I can safely say that Aussies don’t back track. They’re on the whole a fair, pragmatic and straightforward bunch. Call a spade a spade. They’ll handle China relations in the best of their national interest and they’ll be united and defend their freedoms and Western democratic values if ever threatened. Plus there’s some serious upgrading of their military going on.
The UK needs to make sure it can back all its foreign policy talk up with sufficient ships, subs, planes, missiles and all in the right places.
I don’t doubt the fortitude of the Australian people, I have doubt’s on the Australian Labour Party though. It’s sending very mixed signals.
Should I be wasting billions in British tax payers money to build a navy to help defend Australia is Australia doesn’t want to get into the fight?
I think the UK should support Australia in what ever it decides to do, I don’t think we should be like the USA however and lead Australia into a confrontational path against China it doesn’t want.
If Australia was really that concerned by China it would not be making a fortune by selling them all its raw materials.
This post is incorrect on many levels of assumption. I would suggest reviewing Australian strategy over the last 10 years, more than what you might consider the ALP is doing recently. Australia is both making that fortune and very concerned. It also did quite a lot of scrap metal trade with Imperial Japan, if you will recall.
I certainly don’t want us to get involved and if and it’s a big if we could increase SSN numbers over the next 20 years then I would suggest a couple RN boats based in the region along with Aussie and US boats is a sufficient deterrent. That with a softer presence of OPVs or light frigates and occasional deployments of larger units should with regional allies be enough.
I don’t believe in withdrawing East of Suez but likewise it is not for us to bear a heavy burden whilst others watch on.
Personally I think the above is within the UK’s capabilities and financial constraints and it is important to remember that much of our trade is in the growing Asia/Pacific region. Europes % of global trade is on a steady downward trajectory so tying ourselves to these markets is not a good idea.
Agree, it’s worth noting though that most if our “trade” in the region is us importing vast amounts of consumer goods from Asia. Almost nothing physical goes the other way.
Should we spend billions on a navy to defend Chinese ships bringing South Korean TV’s and American smart phones to Britain.
Unfortunately as we are off shoring even more manufacturing to achieve net zero I suppose we might have to if we want to use the phone or watch TV. More seriously I think for the UK a navy and airforce as large as we can afford is fundamentally important for an island trading nation to defend itself and its interests.
For that reason I think we need to be careful of any ideas that we should be Eurocentric focused and that somehow means a larger army at the expense of the RN and RAF.
If we expect Asian countries to deter China then we should expect mainland European nations to do the same with Russia eg Germany who have lived well protected by the US and to extent the UK.
A defence policy for the UK’s national interest must be maritime focused because anything else just flies in the face of our geographic position.
The more friends the merrier I reckon. In fairness to uk we sidestepped Vietnam so we don’t always get involved in usa wars . The thing with China, it really is aiming for world domination economically militarily and politically . So it’s vital there is a collective pushback from democratic nations . Australia and New Zealand will be toast if usa moves away from Pacific
Why will Aussies and NZ be toast ? Not like China have ever threatened them. Both countries have strong economic ties with China, and the Aussies only fell out with China when their Washington bosses started putting pressure on them to join the anti-china bandwagon. The collective west is merely making an enemy of China at the behest of the US who wants to keep it’s dominant position even if it comes at the expense of all their allies.
Australia was sanctioned – essentially threatened – after our PM asked for an enquiry into Covid’s origins. Mineral and agricultural products were banned. It was a shock at the time.
All true, hard to see if China really does have world domination on its mind though. It certainly wants to dominate its region but the EU an and the USA want the exact same thing. It’s impossible for China to dominate the world as the USA and Europe both exist. It might try and dominate Africa and Asia much as we did in the 19th century but then there is no money in that which is why we gave it up and having a strong out multi ethnic empire makes your incredibly vulnerable to attack as we found out in 1942.
I’ll tell you exactly why the Yanks and the ENGLISH government always get stuck in. Two words; Anglo Saxons. The most warlike race in the entire world.
Attila the Hun might argue that point!
When did England get a Government? AD1277 maybe 🤔
Pretty good summary Jim!
yes, the way the usa used ww2 to essentially cripple the uk, including an insistence on loan repayments (up until 2000’s) does make one want to play by the same rule book wrt China. As you say.
I know its hard nosed, but I agree entirely with your principal behind this. I think our primary issue is essentially weak government who do not hold a long term geostrategic goal
I like that. We do have a responsibility to Australia and new Zealand who both fully supported us in two world wars. A UK fleet forward based to Malaysia etc is a No No in my opinion just a repeat of Force Z.
With Suez problematic maybe we should consider basing some units in Western Canada. Is South Africa still a viable route. Can the Carriers transit Panama? Do they have to go round the Horn?
What has the US got to offer Britain? Lots of cheap not organic food.
The idea that the USA can offer the uk cheap food is quite funny to me have you ever looked at what the USA pays for things in its supermarkets I remember people losing there minds about chlorine washed chicken maybe coming to the uk when there paying more than we do in the uk for chicken so I can’t see the USA shipping a chicken to the uk to lose money
I believe the USA can produce food cheaper than the UK however the cost of distribution in the USA is high and they have a limited super market competition in comparison to the UK on account of few players in the market and lower urban density.
Australia has much the same issue.
Super markets is probably the UK greatest global advantage.
No one else can beat M&S simply food on the planet 😀
I don’t know, the USA has plenty of supermarkets and have u seen the wages lately in the USA ? They dwarf ours in the U.K. there paying there police like 100k plus a year and your right shipping cost would be huge to get it to the U.K. that any saving on production would be lost shipping it across the sea
US wages are high cost are also high, much of it is to do with exchange rates. Sterling is still in the toilet.
If you like hormones in your meat 😀
I personally love USDA beef.
I am upset however about their constant need to pick on scotch whisky at the slightest hint of a trade problem.
Lots of war materials, food and oil if things go wrong apart from the Atlantic. I agree though they screwed us unfairly in WW1 and 2. They unconscionably held back in France in WW1.
Without British Empire holding out as a partner, eventually the USA was probably toast ( A Bomb excepted) but they never accepted that and still hardly ever do.
The BE brought the Merlin, Ultra, The RN, Bases and lots more to the party.
Plus they were defeated in trying to make a trade deal where if the UK did anything that harmed US buisnesses interests they could sue us!!!
Top UK exports in 2023. And just what does the UK have that the US needs?
Not a lot, hard to say the USA needs anything really. That’s kind of my point. The USA has little to offer and needs even less. Not really much of a basis for international relations.
This is why the US is and always will be isolationist at heart. The 1945 to 2016 movement was more of a historical blip.
Every other G7 and major G20 economy has entered into a trade agreement with us post Brexit or requested to do so.
The US has gone out of its way to not offer any kind of trade agreement,
We lack common interest with the US political administration and this will continue and get worse.
We should ajust our military and diplomatic relations accordingly and focus more on countries we have better economic potential with.
We should avoid at all cost getting dragged in to a political clash in the pacific.
When the only common ground the British government has with the US government is freedom of navigation (a goal shared by every country on planet earth) and a vague commitment to work on climate change (a goal we share with 194 countries with the US being one of only 3 that didn’t initially sign) it’s easy to see how little we have in common.
Contradict this ti the meeting we are currently having with Germany and France and even Japan right now.
It’s also worth mentioning that despite its stance on freedom of navigation in the SCS the US remains one of the few countries in the world to not recognise the law of the sea and not be bound by it despite the fact it drafted the treaty.
The major piece of success the governments are hailing is changing international arms trafficking laws to give the UK the same exemption as Canada.
It’s hardly ground breaking.
I agree…the UK is just a US lackey with no material benefit to show for it.
The USA is always 2 or 3 Governments. You have the President and Congress and the individual states. Congress tends to be much more protectionist and often refuses to sign Treaties.
Well they are not left of center. In one of them the opposing candidate already had 2 murder attempts. And in UK that might not happened yet because the other side is really not the other side.
Britain warns China? If you do not behave we’ll send a gunboat. Ah, actually we can’t do that. Damn!
In the 1930s we appeased while rearming. Now we posture while disarming, which feels even worse. Speak loudly and carry a small twig.
In the 1930’s we had many security obligations, now we have very few.
Not a lot of countries in the pacific running to our aid so why should we bother.
Because we are hugely dependant on both imports & exports there as well as having the responsability of being a permanent member of the UN security council. The whole western democratic sphere is at risk from tyrranical CCP bent on world domination.
I’m not sure being a permanent UN Security Council member comes with any responsibility, one of them is currently invading another member while another is threatening to do so. One of them continuously props up a government in the Middle East that has been illegally occupying land since 1967 and shields them from all consequences and the other one is France.
The western democratic sphere is fine as Russia is all but finished and China is no where near the west, China is as far away from the west as it’s possible to be. Lots of strong powerful counties in the east that can counter them very little need for us.
We paid a heavy price over the years being the defender of western civilisation and got back f**k all for it.
Most counties surrounding china hate us or are at best indifferent. I’m not sure I see the need to pour scare resources into the fight on the other side of the planet.
Agreed ccp quest for world domination is blatantly obvious . Economically militarily and politically. The whole world will be 1984 and animal farm all rolled into one. With happy cat memes to keep us amused via Tiktok 🙂
What’s the difference, they’re already keeping us amused on Tiktok, Instagram and Facebook while our precious democratic countries sponsor atrocities across the globe. At least the chinese isn’t bombing any country or supplying arms to genocidal regimes. I’d start worrying about them when chinese vessels start patrolling the western Pacific and sponsoring coups across different continents at will. Until then you will need present a more convincing argument to illustrate how a country who has not fired a single bullet against any other country since 1979 is somehow a threat to us all..
Agreed, a very dangerous precedent for both the UK and the US. The ChiComs are perfectly capable of arithmetic calculations and subsequently formijgy the appropriate conclusions.
…forming…🙄
The reality is the Chicoms are only adding up the following
1) can they bring about the near mutual destruction of the PLAN and USN in the china seas..if yes go to two ( and the probability is yes).
2) can they draw a war with the US into years..if they can gut the USN in the china seas if yes go to three ( again it’s a nation of billions with huge resources it can fight for years).
3) can they win politically. This essentially means can they suffer more without political collapse than the US population in a war over years creating massive shortages in everything ( the European US supply chains would collapse)..the Chinese have happily taken the starvation of millions on the behest of the the CCP..would US citizens take to rationing, loss of access to mall shopping and being as poor as the Great Depression without ousting their government in an election ?
4) finally can the CCP rebuild its navy quicker than the USN…and after the mutual destruction..get ahead ? Well since the U.S. manages to build 1.2ish major warships a year and china essentially commissions a navy they size of the RN every 2-3 years..and has 260 times to shipbuilding capacity of the US I think we know the answer…..
in essence china is close to thinking it would win…suffer catastrophe yes..but it’s suffered catastrophic wars and events before…it’s a communist state it only sees wealth as a means to an end ( not like the west which sees wealth as the end)..so it will happily loss it all in a war if it gains what it wants and it wants Taiwan with everything.
I do see the logic in a lot of what you say but I honestly can’t see a US/China war lasting more than a few weeks before someone’s starts seriously considering nukes. I simple can’t see any situation for long drawn out hostilities. It will be intense, concentrated violence and destruction on a level the world probably has not seen since WW2. When people talk about China’s ability to outbuild the US they seem to be applying the Ukr/Rus war to the way the US fights and that is simple not the case. US doctrine still relies heavily on the deep battle and to the surprise of quite a few, mainland China is on the target list for any large scale hostilities between the two. The US will not sit back and watch China build new ships, tanks, aircraft, etc.
to be honest, most of the serous assessments I’ve read have the US and china going at it very long term..simply put they will not go nuclear because they will not have a driving need to, as it will not be existential for either nation..as for deep battle the same thing that stops to the nuclear war will stop the deep battle and that is the 12,000 miles that is the pacific. Basically you will end up with two giants who are to far from each other to achieve a killer blow, so they will simply bleed each other..neither of which will want to essentially push the everything dies button. Remember USSR and NATO were essentially so close that one could overrun the other..creating an existential risk that would have always gone nuclear..as one side would be pushed to destruction ….china and the US cannot invade and destroy each other, so nuclear weapons would be an insane response …..they probably therefore will fight across the globe until one is tired of fighting and gives the other what it wants.
It’s not a that much of a deep battle for the US when launching longer range cruise missiles from penetrating bombers or ballistic missiles from mobile launchers from Japan, the Philippines and other outpost that are difficult to defend against. The recent deployment of the Typhon systems was to clearly demonstrate the fact that mainland China is within easy reach of US weapons. You can bet your last dollar that the dark shadow system will be deployed to the region as soon as it is declared operational. Things like the aim-174 is not just for show. All these new weapons that seem to be coming out of no where is aimed directly at a China fight. Putting aside the weapons procurement issue, The US cannot afford to lose this fight unless they are willing to retreat from the region and the world stage completely. They also know that they cannot win a war of attrition with China and they have no plans to be in one. Listen to the testimony of senior military officials when they talk about a war in the Pacific. It will be short and violent. Not a long war.
What you failed to factor in your assessment is china’s military capabilities which frankly, we know little to nothing of the depth and sophistication of their gears. We in the west make a big song and dance about our military tech but forget that all our electronics and assembly lines comes from china. Even the US military admits that China are already ahead in missile tech. They reign supreme in civilian drone tech as well, do you really think that drone dominance does not extend to their military as well ? Any military base that the US can attack from in the Asian Pacific will be toast in first 3 days of war between US and China. The big difference between the US and chinese military is that one is built to smash inferior adversaries whom for the most part will have little to no capacity to square up, while the other is developed to face a very sophisticated opponent around its comfort zone. So it is kind of naive to think that the chinese have not simulated severally how to fry every single US base that could threaten its territory and sink any carrier group in the region. The Chinese already know how the US fights its wars and the kind of equipment they could field. But does the US really know what China can do or what tech they might field ? I really doubt that they do…
When you say “we” do you mean civilians or do you mean for example, US intelligence? Because if you’re referring to US intelligence then you are terrible wrong. There is wide consensus that US intelligence has penetrated the highest levels of the CCP and the Chinese military. What you have failed to note is the rampant corruption in China that has allowed this. Have you ever heard of Qin Gang? or Wei Fenghe? or maybe even Li Shangfu?
Have you?
“Even the US military admits that China are already ahead in missile tech.” Please provide a source for this.
“They reign supreme in civilian drone tech as well, do you really think that drone dominance does not extend to their military as well ?”
They are dominant in cheap civilian drones but almost every Chinese military drone is a cheap copy of US drones. Have you noticed that they haven’t as yet been able to copy the stealth drones? They certainly have been trying to and will no doubt make progress but so far they trail the US by at least a couple of decades in military drone technology.
“The big difference between the US and Chinese military is that one is built to smash inferior adversaries whom for the most part will have little to no capacity to square up, while the other is developed to face a very sophisticated opponent around its comfort zone.
”
Are you referring to China’s bullying of it’s neighbors like the smaller Philippines with this statement?
Speaking about the Chinese military, they haven’t been in a war in several decades. What makes you so confident in their ability? what happens when soldiers start dying en masse? Will they even fight?
I tried posting a link from bloomberg about china’s lead in hypersonic missile tech, but that’s still awaiting approval apparently. But then you can Google the information yourself if your bias will let you. China already has 2 stealth drone models publicly operational with the PLAAF, CH-7 and GJ-11, and have a hypersonic drone WZ-8.
China not fighting any wars also has its advantages too(as we’ve seen in Ukraine), in the sense that it can present unexpected surprises in the battlefield, unlike the US who fights a war every fourth night( and lose most by the way). Every potential opponent already knows that the US military banks heavily on ariel dominance and will lose once that is taken away from them. I mean they lost against farmer militias in Vietnam and against sandal wearing insurgents in Afghanistan leaving behind billions worth of military hardware as the ran to make the last plane out of kabul.
So spare me the Hollywood exaggerated US military capabilities.
Carpet bombing a weaker opponent from the sky can only win a battle not the war. Our western press can spin this anyway they like but we’ve seen the world’s most powerful military run from a war several times in a life time.
Are you sure the drones you listed are really the examples of Chinese superiority in drones? Surely you are joking.
Are you going to address the rampant corruption in the Chinese military or how US intelligence have compromised them? Are you going to address the purge of senior military officials due to widespread corruption? Speaking about the Rus/Ukr war, will the Chinese weapons that make you so proud perform similar to the Russian ones in Ukraine?
You said that the chinese are unable to copy stealth drones and I gave examples of operational stealth drones already in the PLAAF fleet.
The chinese high level military chi3fs you mentioned were charged for corruption, stripped of their military honour and jailed. That says nothing about US infiltration, except you have prove of this that you can share with us, there is absolutely no credibility to your assertion. The corruption and purge of some high ranking officers in the PLA is a testament to their zero tolerance for corruption irrespective of how high up you are, and I think that’s actually a good thing. Now can you see that ever happening in the US ? or are you going to tell me there is no widespread corruption in the pentagon ? All the top US servicemen, senator and Congress men are literally in the pockets of defence contractors. Almost $900 spent yearly but can barely rollout a weapon system on schedule, some scrapped after billions are wasted. Even the rampant corruption that led to the financial crises still did not put anyone of note in prison, go figure. The pentagon is the epitome of unchecked corruption and corporate racketeering stealing the American people blind while public infrastructure falls apart in real-time.
On ruso/ukr war, I actually think the Russian hardwares have not done so bad against the combined Intel, logistics, hardware and finances of NATO and Ukraine. I mean US, UK, and German tanks are on exhibition now in Moscow as war trophies. And just like most US sponsored war, it will eventually end in the US leaving Ukraine in the cold at some point and Russia ending up bigger in size than it was 2 years ago.
I guess sarcasm was lost on you. Have you seen the pictures of the drones that you posted. Do you think those are stealthy?
You think it’s a good thing that some of the highest people in the Chinese military are being removed due to corruption. Doesn’t that make you wonder how many more of them are compromised? Or how many more of them secretly wish to live in the west are willing to work with western intelligence for a number of financial or moral reasons?
Now you are moving the goal post. Before you were sure the US intelligence have infiltrated the chinese military, I asked for prove and now it’s a hunch. Just because you think it doesn’t make it true mate.
I really do think it is a good thing that corrupt top ranking officers are made an example of. And no, it doesn’t make me wonder how many more are left because if the generals can go down for corruption, then other corrupt personnel haven’t got a chance of getting away with it. That is a true working system in my opinion.
As for wishing they live in the west, don’t flatter yourself, China have millions of their citizens travelling for business, study and holiday yearly and can reside where ever they want to live.
As for the stealth drones, I wonder why you think they aren’t what it says on the label. Is it cos you think the Chinese cannot produce stealth tech ? You do realise that they have 2 models of stealth jet fighters in operation with the PLAAF since 2011 right? Or are you going to say those are not stealth as well? Maybe they can make stealth 5th gen fighters since 2011 but somehow can’t make stealth drones….go figure.
I never said anything about a hunch. I’m saying what people with more more info are saying. Are you really asking me for proof that US intelligence has infiltrated the PLA? Are you for being serious?
With regards to the stealth drones I admit I had a different Chinese drone in mind than the copies you referred to. By the way those are still in development and not yet operational.
Okay can we say that the chinese intelligence have infiltrated the pentagon then ? That is actually more plausible to me just looking at the amount of Intel leaks the US have had in the past few years. As you said yourself the chinese copy US drones, I wonder how they got the blueprints. By your own assertion China knows more about the US military than the US knows about china’s PLA. Except we are never going to know the full extent of the exposure until a war breaks out.. But judging from the amount of US Intel
and tech China have gotten their hands on over the years, I’d say the US is much more exposed to chinese espionage.
“Okay can we say that the chinese intelligence have infiltrated the pentagon then ?”
That is certainly possible. Let’s just agree to disagree but I would say judging by the historic levels of corruption in the Chinese system I know which military I think s more compromised.
It’s easy to deduce which military is more exposed, we can both check if any useful information about the PLA is in the public domain, what operations they’ve conducted, how many aircraft, drones, submarines or missile types. Western intelligence only has a ballpark of the number of surface vessels and that’s cos it can be spotted from satellite and we constantly hear how many ships the chinese navy have and the projected number in a few years. If the US knew the number or type of other equipments, it’d be in the public domain just like the number of ships. The US on the other hand routinely have the depth of their capabilities and even classified programs leaked by their own people(whistle-blowers), that’s even before we get to actual chinese infiltration. Do we even know what the chinese intelligence is called or who the intelligence chief is ? You have to admit that China is a different kettle of fish which is why the US are so rattled about them…
“It’s easy to deduce which military is more exposed, we can both check if any useful information about the PLA is in the public domain”
This is untrue. In most of the close aircraft intercepts that happen over the South China Sea the US at times have issued the name of the Chinese pilot that was in the plane. Believe me the US often knows the names of the pilots in each unit. Even where they live. All this is relatively easy to find on the internet by the way. If amateurs can find it then I assure you that US intelligence has it.
Not saying the US can’t find somethings about chinese military personnel, I only argue that US military secrets are probably more exposed than chinese ones. They are less prone to hacking cos they have an independent Internet from the rest of the world. We have the US showing what they can do in every corner of the world which is why we all know that the US military is feeble without ariel dominance, and with an opponent like China, anything you put in the air will not get close to chinese airspace without being intercepted. China had s slow balloon patrol US airspace for hours before even being spotted. I know you believe US tech to be superior, but the problem is that it has not been tested by any worthy opponent. I mean in 1999 the then cutting edge stealth F-117 nighthawk was shot down in Kosovo using an old soviet missile system. In 2011 another supposed cutting edge drone RQ-170 sentinel was hacked and hijacked by Iran in one piece. These were done by militaries no where near the level of sophistication of the PLA, but hey let’s take your word for it because the US can bomb or hack insurgents with AK rifles and RPGs.
The thing is china simply does not see war in the same way as the west, they have a complete different paradigm..the modern western way of fighting has never actually been tested on a very large peer enemy with significant strategic reserves, land mass and a cohesive population that wants to fight…historically every time you have that mix a war drags on for ever and ever…even if you only have one of those a say “population with a will” the war drags on for ever…simply take Afghanistan..the west essentially won every battle, utterly dominating militarily and in the end lost completely. The reality is there is no way on earth a war with china is ending in a short time…they will simply keep fighting to complete strategic exhaustion or complete collapse…
To understand where the Chinese will take this war you have to read stalins papers on conflict as well as Mao’s papers on protracted war..as these are the papers every Chinese military leader reads and absorbs.
in effect china sees war as having 4 phases…they are presently engaged in phase one with the west ( yes china is already at war with the west).
1) none kinetic and political warfare Aimed at influencing neutrals or internal elements of the enemy state..with a focus on disintegration operations and hybrid ops to weaken an enemies ability and resolve to fight.
2) heavy kinetic..1-5 weeks..essentially china will go all out probably launching its entire theatre ballistic and cruise missiles stocks within days..as launching major kinitic strikes by all combatants.
3) extended medium intensity kinetic…essentially attritional warfare of the standing forces…( the mutual destruction of most of the PLAN and USN in the pacific)
4) long term attritional and asymmetric warfare…essentially grinding the opposing sides will to fight by never giving up..and keeping hitting with what you have left and what you can build in war time.
stags 2-4 will see a ramp up of the none kinetic political warface..( encouraging separatists, terrorists, political discontents, opposition parties that want peace at any cost..
That is how china plans to do it…
“in effect china sees war as having 4 phases”
Honestly I don’t see anything new or revolutionary here. This is standard warfare practiced by Russia and former ussr countries. I’m actually quite surprised that you placed so much faith in a country that has not shown any ability to engage in high intensity combat in recent history. Most of the personnel in the pla weren’t even alive the last time they were in a conflict and the tactics used that time is considered primitive by today’s standard.
Have you seen the analysis on their recent large scale exercises and the tactics that still dominate what they do? I don’t mean to sound dismissive but I do not see what gives so such confidence. For a military that is so great it seems strange that they don’t have the confidence to invade an island just a hundred miles away. Basically in their backyard. Perhaps you have more confidence in them than they have in themselves.
On the point of strategic reserves, you really should consider how much food and fuel China imports and what would be the implications of the USN subs basically closing the Malaca Straits. You can all the will in the world to fight but that’s pointless when you have no fuel for your weapons and no new resources to build more.
I think your completely missing the key point here..I am not saying they would in the end win or loss..I think anyone who makes an assumption on who would win when two great powerblocks go to war is an idiot. But the risk is if china calculates that it could win and starts the war, because at that point it would be irrelevant if china won or lost..because it’s a zero sum game, the war kicks off and the west loses even if it wins..the loss of life, the destruction and economic damage would be catastrophic..the aim should focused on never fighting the war…because when it starts it will not be “over by Christmas”..
And the biggest black swan event in human history will if/when two large nuclear powers go to war..make no mistake if china and the U.S. have a strategic nuclear exchange, human civilisation is over..because our food production would collapse and the vast majority of the human race would starve to death over a decade.
No I didn’t see that as the main point of your post. You implied numerous times that China was now or soon had this great military that would overrun the US. Now nothing is impossible as they have the human resources and the economy but my point is there is no indication that they have the military know how as yet. The point you keep ignoring is in terms of knowledge and experience and tonnage the USN still dwarfs the PLAN and it will remain that way for many years to come. Another element to consider is the looming demographic issues that China faces. You should also note that the west can and does play information warfare as well and the West has defeated an ideological enemy before that was even more threatening without going to war. I think you underestimate how good we are at this.
Never did I say overrun the US, that’s a ridiculous proposition..because neither the U.S. or china could overrun the other..that’s the point. It then comes to which nation has the greatest will to win the particular fight..for china Taiwan is a totemic issue of national unity..Taiwan to china is a part of its nation held by another power..what is it to the average U.S. voter who will suffer economic hardship and see reports of many thousands of US servicemen dead. Let’s be really clear the last war the US and Uk were involved in they lost, soundly and completely, their military dominance squandered, china knows that.
your assertion of knowledge and experience is an interesting one, that’s very true..but again you can never assume that is a war wining advantage..yes it will get you victory in the initial battles…but as to winning a long protracted war…it does not and never haw been a guarantee..The US itself was a proponent of the fact you can learn to fight and develop when you need it..just consider US interwar armoured warfare..they could not even be bothered to develop a medium tank, before WW2, let alone how to fight combined arms with armour, that was purposeful, they felt if they need medium and heavy armour and to learn how to fight with it they would do it when a war started…within a short space or time the US army was out fighting the most experienced professional “armoured warfare” army in the world.. The RAF had quite frankly poor experience and doctrine compared to the Luftwaffe..which airforce became dominant?… the imperial German navy did not exist in 1870 by 1900 it was still a coastal defence force, by 1914 it was the second most powerful navy on the planet and gave the high seas fleet of a navy that had not lost in 100 years a run for its money and gained a tactical victory.
demographics is an interesting one as that’s unfortunately probably one of the greatest drivers for a future war. But if that war is before or around 2030 it will play diddly squat in the equation…if you look at the Chinese demographic timebomb it really hits from 2035 to 2050…that’s actually a very big problem for the west..when does your enemy attack ? when it knows it will only grow stronger or when it knows it just about to hit the high tide of its power…just look at the drivers of WW1..it did not ignite because the central powers thought they had time on their side..they saw they timetable of there strategic power slip and stuck.
As for the west being good at Political warfare..are you actually joking, we have constantly failed abysmally at it over the last 30 years. Yes we were pretty good at it during the Cold War, but since the west got fully enamoured with the Paradigm of the “end of history” and last man we have been appalling..we have lost groups across the globe with a significant and increasingly large set of neutral states that are not enamoured of the west…even our own political dialogue has gone to shite..the US is the most divided it’s been in modern times..with essentially no democrat trusting the word of a republican president and no republican trusting the word of a democrat president…that is a very poor climate in which to fight a world war.
tonnage of the U.S. navy…yes it’s bigger by around 1.6 million tonnes..but all of that extra is made of carriers and amphibious vessels..in regards to numbers of surface combatants china has the greater numbers…this is important because the initial campaign will be within the first island chain..within Chinese land based air cover…i agree if china decided to fight the USN in the mid pacific it would be eaten alive and spat out because of those carriers…but the key battle will be around Taiwan and the china seas and those US carriers will be needed just to balance out Chinese land based air power…they will not provide the overwhelming advantage in the first island chain that they will if the battle was around the second island chain.
we also have to look at trajectory..by 3035 if nothing shifts the PLAN will be over 50% larger than the USN..the war is not going to be tomorrow but I’d it happens it will be some time between 2027 ( when Xi has told his nation to be ready for war) and 2035 ( when the democratic timebomb kicks hard).
i noted what you said about beating another ideological enemy…yes we did, but to do that we spent 45 years at essentially war footing. Spending between 5-7% of GDP per year on the Cold War….and guess what percentage GDP China is spending..7.2% what are we spending…2.5-3%…
Yes we can win, yes we can prevent a war, but not if we sit on our arses saying over and over “ the west is best, the wests military can kick arse” while at that same time spending sod all on defence and inspecting our own behinds.
“neither the U.S. or china could overrun the other”
Why are you so sure about this? Maybe overrun is too strong a term here but I really don’t understand why you think that they would fight to a stand still.
“Taiwan to china is a part of its nation held by another power..what is it to the average U.S. voter who will suffer economic hardship and see reports of many thousands of US servicemen dead.”
Taiwan in itself not so much but walking away from Taiwan would signal an embarrassing retreat from the pacific and the world stage for the US. I have not seen any indication in the US government, military or most importantly, the american people that they are willing to do that. There is actual polling on this that you can look at.
“Let’s be really clear the last war the US and Uk were involved in they lost, soundly and completely, their military dominance squandered, china knows that.”
They lost politically but not militarily but that doesn’t really mean much since China doesn’t really have too much to boast about regarding it’s military history.
“the US is the most divided it’s been in modern times” Absolutely true and yet they still remain the most influential country on the planet in soft and hard power.
It is often said that China just needs to blockage Taiwan to secure a victory but I’m sure the US and for sure the Chinese have considered what would happen if the USN blockaded China. The PLAN would have to come out beyond the first island chain to try to break it which would be suicidal. Again, block the Malaca straits and see how long China can hold out. China recognizes this massive vulnerability and are trying to mitigate it but good luck to them with that.
“while at that same time spending sod all on defence and inspecting our own behinds.”
You did get a chuckle out of me with that. Just to be clear I’m not dismissive of China at all. If you go back a few years and look at my posting on this site you will see me constantly banging about the rise of the Chinese military. But there are some significant steps being taken by the west and the US in particular. Many that don’t make the headlines but will play a critical role if the shooting ever starts.
They won’t be building any warships if they take on the USA & allies so their shipyards are all destroyed.
And how will the US do that ? When china flattens every major base in the western pacific..?
Actually we are fitted for but not with a twig.
We need to get to the ROOT of the problem and then BRANCH out with all our services but our politicains are all such SAPS…😉
FFBNEW small twig.
We do have a gun boat there presently but we are also just about to send an aircraft carrier four missile boats and a nuclear powered monster to the SCS.
Not many can do that.
There is no way that the UK could sustain a carrier group east of Suez. It doesn’t have the escorts, it doesn’t have the aircraft, it doesn’t even have the sailors to do that. For the past twenty years, Britain has cut its defence capabilities. It is amazing how, as capabilities have been cut, Britain’s rhetoric has become ever more shrill.
I don’t think that’s true. Britain could sustain a carrier group east of Suez, but it would require a tremendous shift in resources away from the Atlantic and Europe leaving us very vulnerable
Yes, we easily could, albeit not while maintaining standing NATO commitments. However, given the A2/AD environment China has created and the limited range of carrier aircraft and their ordnance, I’m not sure how useful it would be in an all-out war.
in reality there will be a couple of theatres of any china US war, one of those will be the western Indian occean theatre as china attempts to cut the Euro pacific shipping lanes as well as keep its own lanes to the gulf and Africa open.
As the pacific is a very long way from Europe and the U.S. is a long way from the western Indian occean, the most sensible approach would be for any UK carrier battle group to take the western Indian Ocean focusing on combating any Chinese surface action groups, subs or even a carrier battle group that may be sent to the western Indian Ocean, also keeping Iran in its place. ..this would free up a U.S. carrier battle group into the pacific..a far more useful and effective division of resources and a job the RN is well suited to.
We have two, we can sustain one anywhere we want but what would be the point in sustaining one east of Suez?
Are we desperate to get involved in more Middle East wars? Perhaps we see an opportunity to get ourselves glassed to protect the oil extraction rights of dictatorships in south east Asia.
See Jonathan’s reply above
Why would you need to sustain a carrier group east of Suez? We have several massive air bases scattered through the region and almost no interest past the Arabian gulf.
Why would you think a country in the North Atlantic would either want or need to have a super carrier (1 of 13 such vessels that even exist on planet earth) in an ocean on the other side of the planet.
Because it has overseas territories in that ocean, and Allies whose shorelines are also on that ocean.
Yep. Next year for a tour and then out again for another three or four years, if not forever. Xi must be quaking.🙃
If only there where four other countries with our capability then we could all just rotate.
Neither China, India or Japan keep a carrier in the Atlantic, why would we think to keep one in the pacific or Indian Ocean.
The USA can only do this because it has a two ocean coast’s.
We could do this and had to when we controlled most of the countries boardering the Indian Ocean.
Now we just have Diego Garcia, where is the interest for the UK in defending the region?
Most of the countries in this region are either blatantly supporting Russia or offering tepid support to Ukraine.
Japan and Australia are about the only exceptions.
You may be right Jim, assuming we pull back to being a Euro orientated country AGAIN…. I don’t know whrer we are with policy any more European, Indian Ocean, Asia Pacific. Having spent thirty years making a complete “pigs ear” of defence I’m not sure if we even have the right kit.
I think we essentially pulled back to being a Euro orientated country in 1904 with the signing of the Entente Cordiale.
Europe is where most of the good stuff is anyway and not much useful is happening outside the North Atlantic area.
We are rapidly getting ourselves off of middle eastern oil, once we do should we really care that much about anywhere outside of the Euro Atlantic Area. Having global supply chains in Asia is doing us no favours.
None of these countries seem to like us much, many of them wanted independence from us and f**k all to do with us after, we should perhaps pay heed and stick to our own region.
There’s truth in what you say. I’m in two minds myself about what we can sensibly do. With the Med. taken care of and the U.S. moving even more to the Asia/Pacific the North Atlantic is our patch really, along with the JEG countries. AUKUS and now our links with Japan need to be protected but to what extent?? We’ll have to wait until next year I suppose for the new political types to make up thier mind.
All it will take to sink the carrier group is 3 waves of 48 cruise and ballistic missiles fired in 5mins intervals. The chinese already ran that simulation 4 years ago. Big boats and aircraft carriers are 20th century tech meant to intimidate low tech militaries.
Yes, it’s been like that since the 1960’s which is why we got rid of aircraft carriers in the 70’s. Trouble is 99% of the time intimidating lower tech militaries is exactly what you want to do with your military and not having carriers leads to national embarrassment (see Falkland Islands 1982 for more details)
Believe it or not the USA and the uk combined could cripple chinas economy overnight if it wanted to not everything has to be a military answer
I do believe it. I’ve been on about it for years. It’s as if we decided in the 1930′ to buy everything from Nazi Germany so they could afford to re-arm.
Exactly and sooner or later the USA is going to get sick of China and it’s going to pull the plug on China and we will follow suit and the military won’t have to fire a shot
Well, it’s taken us thirty years NOT to do it Tim, but I hope you’re right and it’s not too late.
To be fair chinas military isn’t a match for the USA but it’s getting more of a threat and could give it a headache but it couldn’t defeat the USA China is also rotten to the core with corruption
…. and America isn’t?
No not compared to China no it isn’t don’t mistake corporates padding our military contracts as the same as Chinese troops selling rocket fuel or generals selling officer positions or troops selling off anything they can lay there hands on it’s just laughable to even try and claim the u.s military is as corrupt as China
It is laughable to think the US military is less corrupt than the chinese. At least in China you go to jail or face the death sentence when found guilty even if you are the chief of army staff. I am yet to see any high ranking military personnel convicted of corruption in the US. Except you want to tell that almost $900 billion yearly is spent judiciously without any high level corruption.
Behave will u
I didn’t say anything about the U.S. miltary being corrupt. I’ve actually met a good number of them. It’s the likes of the two parties, the unions, the crime bosses, the property fiddles and I could go on. That is where the problem is. A great chunk of the U.S. is living in poverty
Ok then we were talking about the military but ok then, so u think the Chinese government and country is less corrupt than the usa, again that is absolutely insane, China is the most corrupt country me and my wife have ever had the misfortune to have had dealings with they literally fake food on an industrial level
I did’nt say that either Tim. Let’s leave it be .
Well… I doubt that, considering the US has not really won any war its been in since 1945. With all the shiny military gear, they left Vietnam and Afghanistan humiliated, and that’s against sandal wearing militias at best. What chances does the US have against China with their industrial capacity ? The collective west cannot even supply enough ammunition to Ukraine. Just 1 Chinese automated factory can literally manufacture over 200 engines for cruise missiles in 1 day, the collective west might manage that number in 1 month. The Ukraine war has taught us that big military hardwares like tanks and aircraft carriers are so vulnerable in Modern battle fields. The number of carrier groups you have means nothing if your adversary can put a thousand missiles in the air at once and have unlimited number of air, land, sea and undersea drones to field in a conflict. This will not be like the middle-east where the US can just show up with their fancy gears and roll their tanks on the streets of Baghdad unchallenged. No single American vessel will be able to make it to the shores of China mainland without sinking. You need to educate yourself on Chinese tech and capabilities.
You clearly don’t understand that missiles need to know where ships are to hit them and China hasn’t got a chance in hell of getting anywhere near a u.s carrier group in the event of a war and why would the USA want to get to the Chinese mainland ? The USA would destroy chinas economy first then strike from the air it wouldn’t need to land troops lol and I’m guessing u don’t read much if u think the USA hasn’t beat anyone since ww2
You are clearly not following recent events. Why do you think the chinese have these fancy satellites system Beidou which is proven to be more advanced than the GPS. They’ve literally been able to track US warships across the globe using artificial intelligence powered satellite since 2021. They can even track US naval assets on US mainland, how much more in the SCS where they have a concentration of radar systems and censors.
And yes, the US lost most wars its been in since WW2. If you don’t think so, please do enlighten us on what wars the US have won since then…..
The amount of wishful thinking going on in the comments here is baffling. It almost feels like everyone on here is living in the 80s and early 90s. You talk about crippling the chinese economy without factoring in the blowback effect on US and especially the European economy. Any all out war with China will have the European economy on its knees way before the chinese simply because the produce everything and do business with most of the world. They will take massive pains losing the western economies(whom themselves will be unable to take the pain)but that still leaves the whole of Asia, Latin America and Africa to do business with. Just in Asia alone, trade between China and ASEAN is approaching $1 trillion yearly. On the military side of things, the UK is just an errand boy for the US and has a navy the size of one Chinese carrier battle group, and most of china’s military assets are concentrated in the Asian Pacific. The US has all these bases around, but in an all out war with China, all those bases will be toast in the first 3days of shooting. Even the US admits that China is ahead of them in missile tech. We in the west should recognise that the world is no longer our field to play as it was in the 20th century and show some humility while talking to other major economies.
They really don’t have a clue of the hole we are in unfortunately. They are incapable of looking at deconstructionist post marxist culture that permeates all western countries.
Where making things are punished, but being a paper mover political bureaucrat/journalist is not.
So u actually think China could defeat the USA in a war are u really saying that just so I know ?
In a shooting war in the SCS or Taiwan strait, China has the home advantage. Most of their military assets are around the region and can be used and rearmed at a moment notice. How long do you think it’d take the US to rearm a Carrier strike group in an all out war ?
How long would it take to rearm it’s got 10 carriers it could have a group on station permanently and do u think the USA would just operate off the coast of China and let them have the advantage lol China would want to take Taiwan the USA could lay off the coast and shoot down anything China has the minute China tried to land forces it would be destroyed not that it would get to that stage as the USA could have chinas economy destroyed in 6 months if it wanted too you clearly don’t understand how powerful the USA is
And you clearly underestimate the opponent you have in China. The US have been trying to destroy China’s economy since 2014 yet China keeps making new strides in sectors the US are struggling to compete in.
The US can have 20 carriers and it won’t make any difference in an all out war with China. They already ran that simulation several times and know its not a war they can win. China can track US war ships even in US mainland with artificial intelligence powered satellites and can sink a carrier strike group with several waves of ballistic missiles. Now does the US have the capacity to rollout missile systems are quick as the chinese ? 2 years ago just one automated factory in China rolls out 200 cruise and ballistic missile engines in one day, and that is at peacetime. Imagine what their production capacity can be in wartime. Your carrier group means nothing if your opponent can put a thousand missiles in the air at once. You want to think of China as the usual insurgents and less sophisticated forces the US military have grown so use to smashing from the air and the comfort of their big boats. This enemy also have big boats, fancy equipments and the industrial might to outproduce you in every domain of war.
Firstly the USA hasn’t been trying to destroy China since 2014 lol and I’ve already told u on day one of a hot war between China and the USA China wouldn’t have any satellites to track anyone and u seem to have really bought into the Chinese propaganda of what there military is capable of they only had a combined HQ for all its forces in the past 5 years and don’t have a blue water navy yet u think they can go head to head with the USN ha ha ha don’t make me laugh
For a military that could not defeat the taliban or Vietnam farmer militias, you seem to be the one buying into the Hollywood propaganda. So somehow you believe the US have all these capabilities that is yet to be tested by any sophisticated military. Carpet bombing a country with barely any airforce is different from being in a conflict with a peer competitor. We saw how good the so called cutting edge stealth F-117 nighthawk was when it got shot down in Kosovo using old soviet missile system, and also how the much vaunted sentinel drone was hacked and hijacked by Iran. The US tech is as untested in an actual peer battle as the chinese tech.
Right now in Ukraine the US tech isn’t
making much difference is it ?
As for Blue Water navy, that is US’s priority. Just cos you want to patrol the world and get into other people’s business does not mean the chinese have to want the same. Their navy is built to protect their territorial interests not to be like the US. A blue water navy isn’t needed if your priority is the Asia Pacific. The chinese aren’t planning to go fight the US in the western hemisphere, it is the US who is planning on fighting in the Taiwan strait and SCS. So I don’t understand your emphasis on a blue water navy…
We’ve got a tiny River OPV with a pea shooter in the region. They’ve got the largest fleet in the world, still rapidly growing. Thankfully most other main nations in the region have also been expanding their fleets accordingly rather than cutting to oblivion like we have.
Thirty years of stupidity Frank, and I can’t see this lot improving anything.
‘Look at this photograph of a battleship Mr Xi! We have more photographs like that!’
China is like the Brits – only interested in making money. Stop taking about war and get on with trade. Rising power India worries Pekin – I’m old and that’s easy to spell! – more than the U.S. I imagine.
👍😉
I bet Xi is utterly pooing himself.
He’s a complete dictator, so he will employ someone else to do it for him!
The duplicated articles on UKDJ are getting a bit annoying now.
I don’t know what is causing them, but filling the news section with the same repeated article with slight variations is causing important news to disappear in so short a time that I am missing some articles completely.
George et al, pls fix, it’s putting me off checking the website.
Yes UKDJ quality has been going down,
And no article about 2 manufacturers that retired from medium helicopter competition tells me something is going on and do not look pretty for UKDJ.
Wow another strongly worded letter. Wonder if the defence budget can up its stationary purchases to keep up with this.
Yes I bet the PLAN are reconsidering the wisdom of commission 6-10 major warships a year..just incase the U.S. and UK get very upset and well jell.
Jonathan. Mate. You know the US is still the only true global superpower with unmatched capabilities across all domains. The Chinese know this. Ship building numbers are only one part of the puzzle. They don’t have any real combat experience. None. Like the Russians, they are very good at shouting big numbers, and equally good at hiding their many shortcomings. They are not free thinkers. Copy cat technology. No mass production 5th gen capability of any description. Nothing close to the quality of western capability and training. I’d still take an early F16 over anything they call 5th gen. 4th gen at best with crap engines and avionics a decade or more behind the west, despite what the brochure says. When they can’t even design a decent car without copying a European design. I wouldn’t get to excited about the quality of their military equipment.
This this the interesting thing, from the analysis I’ve been reading china knows this as well..and they expect to loss a lot..what china thinks is it can drag the west into a long drawn out war in which it will out suffer the west…essentially if it can gut the USN in the western pacific..hammer the wests Economic model by essentially shutting down world trade for a couple of year of war..it thinks the wests populations, who are rich pampered, split, not cohesive and unwilling to suffer will essentially force its “weak” governments into a peace treaty. Where as china’s population will simply take what comes..because it’s both use to suffering and is controlled by 1.5-3 million internal security personal….for china it’s not about who has the better military it’s about which nation will stay cohesive and stay the course longer…it’s a bit counter intuitive to the west..but china would want a very long war. It’s part of there very paradigm of warfare via the papers “ on protracted war” by Mao..which essentially states even the the most Military and advanced nation can be beaten by a mix of dragging into abject long term suffering and a massive political warfare campaign.
But do normal Chinese citizens and a much larger middle class that want and have a similar standard of living as us have any appetite for such a conflict. I doubt it. They want McDonald’s and Disneyland and holidays to London like we do. China will have seen and felt the impact to the global economy from the war in Ukraine. Surely that has set off alarm bells in Beijing, that economically, any conflict with Taiwan, the Americans or any of its very well-equipped neighbours, would be devastating for them.
Worth a look at china’s demographic problem.
The problem is Robert, china is not the west and they are not a western population, they are a highly controlled population that has lived with generations under a communist regime that is practically a state religion..the population of china is far closer to say the population of the third Reich..they generally believe in the teaching of Mao..( the majority do and those that don’t know to shut up or be re-educated).
what they fundamentally believe and all believe is ..Taiwan is china and the west is bullying their nation over part of their own sovereign soil not only that the west for a century humiliated their nation and they are never ever letting that happen again…the final part of that humiliation is Taiwan..until they get it back they will never be happy..that’s not just a belief of the ruling classes that’s the populations belief ..Xi has promised the population of china he will get it back no matter the cost..not because he’s a land grabbing monster but because it’s profoundly engraved on the nation as a national belief..to not liberate Taiwan from the traitors and the west would be politically suicidal.
imagine a strange situation in which French backed separatists created a civil war in the UK and has somehow for some reason retreated but taken the isle of wight and refused to give it back, do you think for a second the UK population would back away from war even if France flooded the Isle of Wight with weapons and threatened to declared war on the Uk if it tried to take back the isle…would the Uk population go “no we don’t want to defend our nation we want booze cruises across the channel and Disney land Paris”…bollocks would we we would be in a shooting war to the end before you could say “napoleon”
The thing to remember is that Xi has come out and told his population they need to all prepare for a new long march and that it will take a long March to liberate that last of china from the west…and the population have sucked this up and are supportive..to understand the significance you must remember the long March is drilled into every Chinese child throughout their schooling.when the Chinese are told to prepare for the long March they know exactly what Xi is telling them..the army that undertook the long March suffered 90% deaths.
so no the Chinese are not over caring of Mac Donald’s and Disney, they love their nation and are ready and willing to take the consequences of liberating the last of it from the west and at almost any cost…Xi is not unusual..he is a product of the Chinese system that creates true believers and his people believe as he does and generally respect him a lot.. those that doesn’t know to shut up or they suffer what Xi did ( he was brutalised as a child and young adult..his parents imprisoned, cast onto the streets where he watched his sister die, then he was rounded up and sent to a State Farm as a child slave,..he escaped..only to be caught arrested and sent to a hard Labour camp..when he was released he had nothing but a box of books on communism and a drive to lead the communist party and fulfill Maos Vision).
The difference is though, Taiwan has a democratically elected government and is free to rule as it pleases. It has not been overtaken by a western nation, although I do recognise it does have close ties to the US both financially and military. I don’t agree that young Chinese are signing up for these beliefs, and will eventually push back against it’s communist rulers. They look how they are making a royal mess of Hong Kong. A ruling party based more on fear and control will not inspire it’s population to fight to the death for a small island off its coast and risk it’s nations ruin. They would be fighting fellow Asians. Not American or British invading forces. Time will tell. Let’s hope they can keep their sensible hats on, and let diplomacy do the talking. Taiwan may even agree a deal with Beijing in time. Let’s see.
The journal of contemporary china, did a blind study this last year and it found the 55% support the armed reunification of China while only 30% supported only peaceful reunification ( the reunification agenda was 100% supported).
You have to remember that although the CCP have doubled down on reunification even without the CCP china would still attempt to reclaim Taiwan, This is really based on what is essentially a Chinese religion 大一统 or great reunification, to the Chinese wanting to reclaim bits of china is not really a political position it’s completely indoctrinated into their national self belief, governments through history have had the same belief the KMT, Qing Dynasty, Ming Dynasty all the way to Qin Dynasty..it’s literally a 1000 year national obsession…you just have to read the romance of the three kingdoms to get the picture..Taiwan is now seen as part of china and must therefore be unified…its seems ridiculous, but even to a dissident Chinese person who has thrown of the brainwashing of the CCP, the long term cultural brainwashing makes it self evident to that person…it’s like telling a Republican guns are dangerous…to try and convince a citizen of china that Taiwan is not part of china would be the most radical of ideas to them..
on the other side of the line around 66% of Taiwans population believe that china will invade.
Basically when you get down to the two populations that actually know what’s going to happen they will tell you they both think there will likely be a war and on the Chinese side the majority support a war. it’s really only Europeans and Americans that have majorities that believe the war will not happen due in the main to economic reasons.
Issuing stern warnings to China doesn’t carry much weight coming from people who are so spineless that they won’t even let Ukraine use Storm Shadow to defend itself properly for fear of upsetting a country (Russia) with much less military potential than China has.
The UK is simply an errand boy for the US. When the pentagon says jump, the MOD asks how high ?
Not quite that simple Ian,because of the risk of dragging NATO into the war the decision on using Storm Shadow is not really ours alone. Believe it or not permission to use these weapons has to come from SACEUR! The problem with that is he is always American and ultimately guess who he is answerable too?
Looks like Italy will be joining the next CSG.
Unfortunately the only thing that will convince china is if it is 100% convinced it would loss a long war completely. If it thinks it can draw the west into a mutually destructive war in which the peace terms give it Taiwan it will go for it.
The west has in reality only three options open to it.
1) complete deterrent across all domains of conflict.that includes: political warfare ( willingness of the population to suffer and ability to attack opponents politically ) dominance of world supply chains, industrial output, dominance of raw materials, manpower and military capacity…the war is never fought ( but to do this the west must do as china is doing and piss away hundreds on hundreds of billions and accept a hit of 1-2% to growth).
2) redraw the geopolitical red lines and come to balance with china. So give it what it wants and then redraw the lines…essentially give up Taiwan and allow Chinese dominance of the china seas..but even this would need significant investment in defence as the new red lines are draw and enforced ( noting it’s only the Taiwan question that will every likely draw china into a war to strategic exhaustion).
3) stay the path we are on..simply put china has already made it clear in almost every way possible that it’s going to go to war over Taiwan after 2027..on present trajectory’s that will mean mutual destruction of the PLAN and USN in the china seas..with china able to rebuild quicker..china with an economy that’s been purposeful hardened for war and a population completely controlled, thats also being prepared for war and that has a history of being willing to take pretty unimaginable suffering and is essentially completely controlled..against a west with liberalised industries, very open and fragile supply chains and populations that are not willing to take any real suffering before voting out its political leaders…chinas planning a long war against our political will and fragile supply chains and it thinks it can win that way..even if the west does win..it will still be shattered for a generation after years of war.
The problem is choices one and two are difficult and would require brave honest political leaders..option three requires simply the willingness to do nothing and pretend it’s fine until the world breaks.
But going to war with USA etc will cut off the demand for cheap Chinese products from the USA & Europe, damaging PRC’s industries & economy. Even if China gained Taiwan, it would lose far more as a consequence.
The thing is china is the CCP and for the CCP the single most import thing is reunification..for them it’s the single most important thing…it’s essentially a state religion..they even venerate the idea of suffering to achieve unification…they will suffer almost anything for it as long as they think they will achieve it.
To understand this you really have to read the writings of Mao, consider and then really read up in Xi and realise that he’s not a standard dictator but a man who has been completely brainwashed into the CCP religion of reunification created by Mao..this man was created by prison camp hard Labour, threat of death and political reeducation to become the leader of the thing that put him in prison and killed his sister.
essentially Xi considers its his destiny to reunify china and he will do it any way he can..even if it’s via world war 3.
“The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been”, Maos prolog to the romance of the three kingdoms..
Essentially the CCP believe that china must reunify and that to reunify it must suffer.
I think trying to take Taiwan could actually precipitate the downfall of the CCP. Xi is already 71 so may not last a lot longer & this focus on reunification ignores the other half of the equation/quote, ” long united, must divide”.
I just hope & pray when change comes to China it is peaceful & not at the cost of millions of lives.
“Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
Where there ain’t no Ten Commandments an’ a man can raise a thirst;
For the temple-bells are callin’, an’ it’s there that I would be.”
After letting Russia get away with such grevious “aggressive behaviour” for so long we need to take the brakes off UKR plus give air support. Then our warnings to China might carry some weight. We’ve been doing it all wrong, just pleading without any consequences. WW3 will be over & done & we’ll still be trying to cut further with the “peace dividend”!
I hope this new Labour government is considering the role of the special relationship in Britains foreign policy. It doesn’t necessarily need changing but it does need re-evaluating every so often, like all things.
It would be foolish to let the special relationship become some sort of universal truth, something we take part in just because that’s the way things are, rather than a calculated position for our foreign policy.
The special relationship exists inside government and miliatry circles automatically, politicans on both side of the Atlantic avoid it at all cost.
In Britain the special relationship is politically toxic since Trump came to power and it’s especially toxic for labour since the Blair years.
Look how subdued Starmers meetings are with Biden compared to the fan fair with Germany last week.
In the US politicans don’t even have a foreign policy anymore. No US candidate wants to be seen with any foreign leader as both the Republican and Democratic base are anti foreign.
America closed the door on trade and cooperation, all it has to offer is miliatry engagement for a vague foreign policy direction and a square of against emerging super power rivals.
Best we stay out and focus on issue nearer to home with Europe while selling weapons to countries in the Asia pacific to deal with China themselves.
I’m sure that’ll tell em. Us with our 24 soldiers, 4 tanks and an old Spitfire. Terrifying.
I think we have to rise above this ‘what do we get out of the USA-UK relationship?’ and look at the bigger picture. Yes, the US is protectionist, hovering on isolationist, self-interested and not too interested in the UK, except when we are buying expensive kit from them, supporting them in expeditionary wars, letting US companies take over British ones and turning a blind eye to Israel”s colonisation of the West Bank..
We behaved similarly with our Empire and Dominions when we were top dog, it goes with the territory.
The bigger picture is that the democratic order and international law are facing a major challenge from a clutch of nationalist, expansive dictatorships, led by China, backed by Russia and including a bunch of nutjob regimes in North Korea, Iran, Belarus and the South. They are already taking the war to the West, via a major campaign of sabotage, cable-cutting, cyber attacks, massive economic espionage, a barrage of misinformation, inference in Westetn elections and so on.
They intend to expand their territory, starting with Ukraine and Taiwan, while Iran cheeks us in the Gulf and stirs up the Shia population of the Middle East to cause maximum trouble throughout the region.
The question we and other democracies face is not so much what do we get out of our relationship with the USA, but how do we collectively stand up to this belligerent axis of motley dictators?
The first thing we need to do is increase our military expenditure and forces to send a clear signal that we are ready to fight if push comes to shove. Almost all our allies are doing so, the UK is one of the few not to, committing only to some future increase (maybe) if we suddenly become richer.
Second, the West has to begin to meet any expansionist military moves the axis members make, whether by overt, covert, military, economic or grey zone means. We sat back and watched while chunks of Georgia were annexed by Russia, while Iran and Russia quashed the opposition in Syria and did little when Crimea was invaded or little green men appeared in the Donbas. These days of tepid, nervous reaction have to be over and we are going to have to support Ukraine and any similar to the hilt.
Third,, we need to cut imports from China, which are simply funding their massive military buildup. Every box of consumer rubbish imported from China should be required to carry a large red label stating made in China or “containing significant Chinese components’ and a public and Internet campaign run to wean the public and importers off Chinese goods. It will hurt Western exports to China, that’s life. (However, Chinese consumers would likely pounce on goods bearing a made in Britain/Germany/France/Italy label!).
We basically need to meet fire with fire, countering each and every move the Axis makes, as we are endeavouring to do on the ground in Africa and the Middle East.
The only appeasement we should consider is regarding Taiwan. It is going to be very costly and difficult to defend it against a determined Chinese invasion and the main weight of that conflict, which would be very heavy, would fall on the USA. Their must be a diplomatic treaty solution somewhere. The one nation, two systems agreement we put in place for Hong Kong was a good effort. Except that China breached that massively within a decade, showing that they cannot be trusted. How could some version of that for Taiwan.be framed and guaranteed?
It would of course be appeasement a la Czechoslovakis in 1938, but it would be militarily advantageous to concentrate on bolstering the defence of the island arc from Japan to Malaysia, from which US amd Western forces could pose a threat to China if it sought to expand further.
For the foreseeable future, NATO Europe should form a joint Carrier group, preferably with 2 carriers, earmarked to assist the US and allies in the Western Pacific, and publicly state that it will be deployed in the event of any belligerent military move by China. The UK on its own doesn’t have the ships or aircraft (whether embarked onboard or land based), to play much role in the Indo Pacific, but a joint NATO Europe strike flotilla would be a different matter for China to take on board.
They only have 3 carriers so far, two of them smaller ‘Harrier carriers”, so a NATO Europe carrier group would change the maths and not in China”s favour.
Bravo Cripes, Jim and Jonathon. Can we have a like button please ? Can those excellent posts be amalgamated into a foreign affairs style article by their authors please. How is it that the clear eyed, common sense, utilitarian foreign policy direction we are reading here is not commonly expressed in the mainstream ? Does it appear too left wing perhaps, in the sense it opposes laissez faire globalist trade and that idealogical inertia cannot overule the invisible hand of the market. Whose bastard hands are they, I have a clipboard let’s use it to take names …