Is China containing itself?

[Bussard Ramjet]

Until recent past, it was almost impossible to think for a bloc being formed among various other regional nation states to balance or contain China.

No body in the mainstream of US thought was advocating for it. No body at all!

In fact Australians were very concerned about even any perception that might feed into the containment debate.

But, in the last 4-5 years, the reality has changed.

India has grown dramatically distant, with China's open arming and financing of Pakistan, and it's clear encroachment of regions which India considers its backyard.

Indians are now very forthcoming in suggesting military alliances and partnerships.

So is the case with Americans.

This is Robert Blackwill, a very senior person in US diplomacy:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-needs-engage-contain-strategy-china-19791

This piece even calls for an Asian Nato:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/5/north-korea-nuclear-arsenal-should-drive-concern/

Similarly this one:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/is-an-asian-nato-possible/

The Japanese have been calling for a Quad; US-Australia-Japan-India, now for a long time.

In fact the most reluctant party in the possible formation of the Quad, Australia has also jumped on to the brigade:

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/turnbull-s-india-visit-opportunity-revive-quad

Other Australian writers have also begun advocating closer military tie ups.

 

[Srinivas]

There will be a loose block, but India can deal with China and Pakistan protecting its strategic interests.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Until recent past, it was almost impossible to think for a bloc being formed among various other regional nation states to balance or contain China.

No body in the mainstream of US thought was advocating for it. No body at all!

In fact Australians were very concerned about even any perception that might feed into the containment debate.

But, in the last 4-5 years, the reality has changed.

India has grown dramatically distant, with China's open arming and financing of Pakistan, and it's clear encroachment of regions which India considers its backyard.

Indians are now very forthcoming in suggesting military alliances and partnerships.

So is the case with Americans.

This is Robert Blackwill, a very senior person in US diplomacy:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-needs-engage-contain-strategy-china-19791

This piece even calls for an Asian Nato:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/5/north-korea-nuclear-arsenal-should-drive-concern/

Similarly this one:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/is-an-asian-nato-possible/

The Japanese have been calling for a Quad; US-Australia-Japan-India, now for a long time.

In fact the most reluctant party in the possible formation of the Quad, Australia has also jumped on to the brigade:

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/turnbull-s-india-visit-opportunity-revive-quad

Other Australian writers have also begun advocating closer military tie ups.

@cirr @cnleio @TaiShang @Shotgunner51 @samsara

 

[faithfulguy]

There will be a loose block, but India can deal with China and Pakistan protecting its strategic interests.

Since India was a superpower by 2012 or will be one by 2020 or 2030, Indian can easily won the two front war. India need no alliance since it will soon surpass USA in military power. It expect US to come begging to be a partner.


That is the standard Indian mentality. LOL.

 

[cnleio]

@cirr @cnleio @TaiShang @Shotgunner51 @samsara

Indian, they thought India is very powerful ... but the national data looks not beautiful, why Indian always focus on China why not compare with S.Korea or Japan ?

 

[kasper95]

biggest threat to China is not external, it's internal. CCP knows it, there is a reason why China spends more on its internal security than external threats.

Since India was a superpower by 2012 or will be one by 2020 or 2030, Indian can easily won the two front war. India need no alliance since it will soon surpass USA in military power. It expect US to come begging to be a partner.

That is the standard Indian mentality. LOL.

What about your minister statement claiming will crush the Chinese at sea.

 

[footmarks]

Is China containing itself?

you mean like Nazi Germany? not yet. "all weather friendships" with states like North Korea does raise concerns though.

 

[Zhukov]

"India has"
"Indians Are"
"Due to arming Pakistan"

Stopped reading. Another Article written solely for Amusement of Indian masses.

 

[Srinivas]

Since India was a superpower by 2012 or will be one by 2020 or 2030, Indian can easily won the two front war. India need no alliance since it will soon surpass USA in military power. It expect US to come begging to be a partner.


That is the standard Indian mentality. LOL.

who knows, that might happen but not like USA begging India but India becoming a pillar of East !

 

[faithfulguy]

who knows, that might happen but not like USA begging India but India becoming a pillar of East !

Yes, India is a pillar in the East through its ancient tech. I wonder if ancient Indian tech is more powerful or modern Indian bragging?

Indian, they thought India is very powerful ... but the national data looks not beautiful, why Indian always focus on China why not compare with S.Korea or Japan ?

India lost a war in 1962 to China. This shame them so much that they even created a major conflict in 1967 in Wikipedia to revenge against China. So their focus on China is based on insecurity.

 

[dy1022]

inferiority complex = Indian

 

[Genesis]

Until recent past, it was almost impossible to think for a bloc being formed among various other regional nation states to balance or contain China.

No body in the mainstream of US thought was advocating for it. No body at all!

In fact Australians were very concerned about even any perception that might feed into the containment debate.

But, in the last 4-5 years, the reality has changed.

India has grown dramatically distant, with China's open arming and financing of Pakistan, and it's clear encroachment of regions which India considers its backyard.

Indians are now very forthcoming in suggesting military alliances and partnerships.

So is the case with Americans.

This is Robert Blackwill, a very senior person in US diplomacy:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-needs-engage-contain-strategy-china-19791

This piece even calls for an Asian Nato:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/5/north-korea-nuclear-arsenal-should-drive-concern/

Similarly this one:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/is-an-asian-nato-possible/

The Japanese have been calling for a Quad; US-Australia-Japan-India, now for a long time.

In fact the most reluctant party in the possible formation of the Quad, Australia has also jumped on to the brigade:

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/turnbull-s-india-visit-opportunity-revive-quad

Other Australian writers have also begun advocating closer military tie ups.

No, nothing has changed. Something may have changed in people's arguments, but nothing really has changed.

You have to consider what you are saying. You are saying these 4 countries needs to join together to take on the second most powerful nation in the world. Outside of the US, the other three combined has about the same GDP as half of China.

You are asking them to damage their economies, or worse, lose their lives to help against China that really only serve the US.

I have no question that the US will do something, but other than the US, there needs to be a lot more than just a perceived threat to act. China is not Iraq. Even on the losing end, China can cause a level of damage none of these guys can possibly handle.


In terms of India, China and India will be at least rivals either way, so why not get started now when India has no real way of firing back. By the time India may have something, China would finished with east Asia and India will be in the exact same spot as we were 20 years ago to now.

 

[Jacob Martin]

No, nothing has changed. Something may have changed in people's arguments, but nothing really has changed.

You have to consider what you are saying. You are saying these 4 countries needs to join together to take on the second most powerful nation in the world. Outside of the US, the other three combined has about the same GDP as half of China.

You are asking them to damage their economies, or worse, lose their lives to help against China that really only serve the US.

I have no question that the US will do something, but other than the US, there needs to be a lot more than just a perceived threat to act. China is not Iraq. Even on the losing end, China can cause a level of damage none of these guys can possibly handle.


In terms of India, China and India will be at least rivals either way, so why not get started now when India has no real way of firing back. By the time India may have something, China would finished with east Asia and India will be in the exact same spot as we were 20 years ago to now.

I think you didn't address the thread topic at all. Notwithstanding your assessment of China's power (I am not taking that bait), the issue raised by @Bussard Ramjet is entirely different.

The question is not whether China can take on American hegemony. Maybe it can. People doubted the US when it was rising, insofar as it's ability to take on powerful enemies is concerned. It sprang a big surprise in WWII. So surely China could do so as well.

The question is the quality of alliances. Now undoubtedly, it is true that American incompetence has handed China a very valuable ally in Russia - because the American security establishment refuses to acknowledge the Cold War is over. However, what is the scenario apart from that? Here is a list of the top ten economies of the world:

• United States. ...
• China. ...
• Japan. ...
• Germany. ...
• United Kingdom. ...
• France. ...
• India. ...
• Italy. ...
• Brazil. ...
• Canada. ...

Here is the list of the top 10 military powers:

1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. India
5. UK
6. France
7. Germany
8. Brazil
9. Japan
10. Turkey

Do you see a common trend? No matter how much one denigrates American unilateralism, the fact is that it has powerful allies. And China has powerful enemies. Of these, apart from Russia, only Brazil is neither part of the American security framework or does not have any issues with China. That's a pretty bare cupboard to have. And that is not even taking into account the smaller neighbours around China who each have territorial disputes with it....

Now let us look at China's "all-weather" friends - Pakistan, South Sudan, North Korea (?). So barring the transactional relationship with Russia, which may not outlive Putin, we have two basket-case Asian economies with twitchy fingers on the nuclear button and the third is currently the poster child for bad behavior in Africa. Not very reassuring.

Of course, madman Trump may just end up doing something so drastically psychotic that it totally plays into China's hands. Who can predict what he does? But then China also has its own madmen to deal with, namely little fat Kim from NK. Who knows what he will do that might just set China's neighborhood on fire?

You mentioned a 20 year time frame. I think that is just about right. If I had the type of friends that China has, and was thinking of going up against a military-economic Juggernaut that included practically every other country of any consequence, I would disappear for 20 years and re-caliberate my relationships, so that I do not receive the mother-of-all hidings when I decide to confront them.

 

[Genesis]

I think you didn't address the thread topic at all. Notwithstanding your assessment of China's power (I am not taking that bait), the issue raised by @Bussard Ramjet is entirely different.

The question is not whether China can take on American hegemony. Maybe it can. People doubted the US when it was rising, insofar as it's ability to take on powerful enemies is concerned. It sprang a big surprise in WWII. So surely China could do so as well.

The question is the quality of alliances. Now undoubtedly, it is true that American incompetence has handed China a very valuable ally in Russia - because the American security establishment refuses to acknowledge the Cold War is over. However, what is the scenario apart from that? Here is a list of the top ten economies of the world:

• United States. ...
• China. ...
• Japan. ...
• Germany. ...
• United Kingdom. ...
• France. ...
• India. ...
• Italy. ...
• Brazil. ...
• Canada. ...

Here is the list of the top 10 military powers:

1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. India
5. UK
6. France
7. Germany
8. Brazil
9. Japan
10. Turkey

Do you see a common trend? No matter how much one denigrates American unilateralism, the fact is that it has powerful allies. And China has powerful enemies. Of these, apart from Russia, only Brazil is neither part of the American security framework or does not have any issues with China. That's a pretty bare cupboard to have. And that is not even taking into account the smaller neighbours around China who each have territorial disputes with it....

Now let us look at China's "all-weather" friends - Pakistan, South Sudan, North Korea (?). So barring the transactional relationship with Russia, which may not outlive Putin, we have two basket-case Asian economies with twitchy fingers on the nuclear button and the third is currently the poster child for bad behavior in Africa. Not very reassuring.

Of course, madman Trump may just end up doing something so drastically psychotic that it totally plays into China's hands. Who can predict what he does? But then China also has its own madmen to deal with, namely little fat Kim from NK. Who knows what he will do that might just set China's neighborhood on fire?

You mentioned a 20 year time frame. I think that is just about right. If I had the type of friends that China has, and was thinking of going up against a military-economic Juggernaut that included practically every other country of any consequence, I would disappear for 20 years and re-caliberate my relationships, so that I do not receive the mother-of-all hidings when I decide to confront them.

Actually it is about China's power. If China was Iraq, then yea, America has allies. However, China is China. Who's going to go in on China if all they have to gain is nothing, and has the potential to lose half their cities and armies for essentially America's goal of maintaining primacy.

You mention all-weather friends, I believe at this point, that is only Pakistan. We have a defense treaty with NK, but as I mentioned, a piece of paper means far less than the actual situation. China supporting the North is not only in bad taste, but could potentially turn it into something we don't want to get into right now.

As to Russia, they won't move one finger, and Sudan has nothing even if they wanted to do something. Toyotas can't run on water unfortunately.

Let's me ask you this, if India, tomorrow, condemns Assad's chemical attack and decides to go to war, loses maybe 200 men, would you be ok? Someone might question the wisdom of such a move, but the overall impact is not that bad. However, if India goes in on China and won, but gains no territory or anything(Americans maybe a lot of things but giving territories after wars is not one of them) and loses 100,000 men, would you still be cool with it?

I am not questioning America's alliances, or its power, but I doubt the desire of other nations to get destroyed, all for the sake of, btw, destroying their biggest trade partner.

This is true for Japan, Korea, America, Australia, and India for that matter.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

typical Indian POV... I guess some people just never learn.