The Chinese - not a great bunch of lads

If they're attributing the sailing of both vessels to the effects of COVID19 then they're engaged in wishful thinking. PLAN always intended to work up to deploying these things as mutually-supporting fleet vessels. They'll be doing multi-ship exercises once the new ones are commissioned, too. It was the original aim when they decided to build them.
And in typical Chinese fashion, they set a long-term goal, and have enacted it. If you have access to the PLAN long-term training cycle, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be very interested to see it.
 
I'll see if I can dig out a translation or an analysis in English.
 

Yokel

LE
And with the Economic LoE comes the Military one.

'Chairman Xi Jinping has lost patience. His nation’s economy is suffering. COVID-19 has strained the seams of his credibility. He needs a win. So he’s doing what strongmen do best – upping the military ante.

'Both of Beijing’s new aircraft carriers are deploying together for the first time. They’ve been warming up in the secure Yellow Sea. Soon, they’ll be headed south. The People’s Liberation Army navy (PLAN) Liaoning and Shandong are engaged in combat readiness training in the tightly controlled Bohai Bay. It’s just the second week of an intensive 11-week simulated conflict that will eventually reach deep into the South China Sea.

'And it’s just one of a barrage of military and diplomatic moves – extending from Japan across Asia to the mountain borders with India – that are escalating international tensions. As a result, “the risk of a military confrontation in the South China Sea involving the United States and China could rise significantly in the next eighteen months,” warns a new report from the US think tank Council on Foreign Relations.'


Surely military exertions combined with an ailing economy and a discontented population is what brought the Soviet Union and East European Communism to an end? The cities might look very modern, but what is life like in rural areas, small towns, and villages?

The strategy of combining hostility to near neighbours such as Australia but building links with Italy (the soft underbelly of Europe?) seems odd? Perhaps How To Win Friends And Influence People never got translated?

And in typical Chinese fashion, they set a long-term goal, and have enacted it. If you have access to the PLAN long-term training cycle, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be very interested to see it.
I suspect other Navies who have built, or had to rebuild, a carrier task group capability will have a pretty good idea.
 
Last edited:
If they're attributing the sailing of both vessels to the effects of COVID19 then they're engaged in wishful thinking. PLAN always intended to work up to deploying these things as mutually-supporting fleet vessels. They'll be doing multi-ship exercises once the new ones are commissioned, too. It was the original aim when they decided to build them.
Are you an official spokesman for the PRC?
 
A completely useless book.
Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance would have been more useful, and that's entirely fictional
 

Yokel

LE
Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance would have been more useful, and that's entirely fictional
I think the Chinese Communist Party must have read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four and not realised that it was a vision of a future dystopia. What would Orwell have made of the use of technology for surveillance and social control, and the system of social credit?
 
Executed criminals fine, no problem.

Taking organs from living people without Anaesthetic or post-operative care, absolutely, fundamentally not ok.
Wonder if they got that idea off the Nips.
 
What would Orwell have made of the use of technology for surveillance and social control, and the system of social credit?
Like any other tool, it depends on what it's used for and how. On the one hand, dissidents can be isolated and group protests crushed before they begin; on the other, anti-social behaviour can be stamped out, crime is easier to deter, detect and punish, and self-isolation in the current pandemic easier to enforce.

A scalpel can dismember a corpse and hide a serial killer, or it can cut out an inflamed appendix and save a life.
 
Are you an official spokesman for the PRC?
I'm a wholly unofficial and voluntary spokesman for things which actually happened.

You've no idea the difficulties that job presents on here.
 
I'll see if I can dig out a translation or an analysis in English.
The closest I've been able to find that's accessible and in English has been an old (2004) piece of analysis tracking the early developments of the PRC carrier programme. It hints rather than asserts that the end goal is to be able to conduct maritime operations up to multi-carrier fleet level but as it's pretty useful in its own right I thought some people might be interested.

Most telling is the section on the resistance carrier advocates faced from RMA-enthusiasts and how the carrier programme proceeded in fits and starts, rather than as a single sustained objective.

With the retirement of Liu in 1997, however, the aircraft carrier lost its champion in the Chinese navy. At the same time, the need to control the South China Sea as a strategic priority was downgraded as reunification with Taiwan hurtled to the top of Beijing’s agenda. In that context, given the relative closeness of Taiwan and improvements in the capabilities of the Chinese air force and missile arsenal, aircraft carriers are not now considered vital. Moreover, the costs associated with building and operating aircraft carriers, the technical difficulties involved, and the likely adverse reaction of neighboring countries all argue against a Chinese carrier battle group for the moment.

However, the PLAN has not abandoned the idea altogether—merely shelved it.
 
Like any other tool, it depends on what it's used for and how. On the one hand, dissidents can be isolated and group protests crushed before they begin; on the other, anti-social behaviour can be stamped out, crime is easier to deter, detect and punish, and self-isolation in the current pandemic easier to enforce.

A scalpel can dismember a corpse and hide a serial killer, or it can cut out an inflamed appendix and save a life.
All good stuff there. The sooner liberal democracies start isolating, crushing, stamping out and enforcing the better.
 
Presumably, the PLA Commanders before this weren't going to do anything and Beijing was never under any circumstances going to order them to?

I guess it must have been 'Two Countries, Two Systems' up to now. Oh, wait...
 

Yarra

Old-Salt
And in typical Chinese fashion, they set a long-term goal, and have enacted it. If you have access to the PLAN long-term training cycle, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be very interested to see it.
I dialled in to a v interesting IISS chat last week, where one of the academics described China’s current situation as analogous with that of Japan in 1929.

The rise of a more overt militarism is likely to be accelerated by the pressure exerted by a newly focused ‘Western’ alliance, which finally rejects China as a ‘responsible partner’. The ‘West’, led by the USA and supported by a collection of like minded medium sized powers will re-shore economic interests outside of China, to the detriment of the Chinese economy. The UK to divest itself by 2023 is a v hard target. I think that some within the 5eye community thought they could play a clever long term game with the Chinese. But CV 19 has chucked that game board into the corner.

Cold War redux it is.
 
where one of the academics described China’s current situation as analogous with that of Japan in 1929.
I'd say it was a very loose analogy. Japanese militarism rose primarily from the retrenchment of the positions of influential families attached to the Meiji. The armed forces were more or less extensions of those families' powers and not under any form of centralised control. That's very definitely not the case in the PLA, which is firmly under CCP control.

The other weakness in te analogy is that the PRC isn't an island and it's not resource-poor. It's a continental power with extensive transport links and is at the centre of trade links with its neighbours which limit the scope of external threats such as the Japanese preoccupation with being cut off from supply.

For my money, the better analogy for the international scene is actually the early-mid 19th century USA - a suddenly-arrived, disruptive player with an interest in tying its neighbours into trade networks centred on itself and deriving the political power that generates.

Other parallels are the use of rapid industrialisation to fuel economic growth, (ironically) the rampant IP theft and the use of cheap labour to undercut competitors.
 

Yarra

Old-Salt
I'd say it was a very loose analogy. .. it's not resource-poor. It's a continental power with extensive transport links and is at the centre of trade links with its neighbours which limit the scope of external threats such as the Japanese preoccupation with being cut off from supply.

For my money, the better analogy for the international scene is actually the early-mid 19th century USA - a suddenly-arrived, disruptive player with an interest in tying its neighbours into trade networks centred on itself and deriving the political power that generates.....
Hmmm? ..one man's meat etc.

I think Rio Tinto and sub-Saharan Africa might argue the point about whether China is, or is not, resource poor. China is a hungry beast that needs to feed the economic engine at its centre, by demand generated from those very trade links that it is currently trashing, or threatening to trash. Not a particularity wise move, if it wants to keep its new middle class, or indeed, its masses happy.

I agree that China has been very successfully disruptive for some time. However, unlike the US, who were able to wrestle the Baton from the British over the opportunity presented by two World Wars, with the veil of Pax Americana, the Chinese have just shot themselves in the foot with CV19. Not that they really understood divide and rule. The irony is, if they had taken the time to really understand how the British played divide and rule, then they wouldn't find themselves at the top of a rather large cliff.

Then again, an Orwellian single party state, run by a virtual dictator is always going to struggle, in a long game, against a more agile, collegiate of like minded nations, anchored in Common Law and free (ish) trade.

I stand by my first post; KCL academic, or no.

Y
 
I think Rio Tinto and sub-Saharan Africa might argue the point about whether China is, or is not, resource poor.
The PRC has the resources it needs to sustain itself in most respects and has several commodities which are in great demand outside, so in that respect it's not resource poor. It's certainly nowhere near as dependent on outside sources as pre-war (or indeed present day) Japan and can fall back on its own supplies to a far greater extent. That means resources are not a matter of national survival in the same way, which is why I believe the motivations behind Japan's actions of the time are not present in the PRC. For one thing, Japan's actions were to try to seize resources on the Chinese mainland - 'the lifeline in Asia' - whereas the PRC already has them.
China is a hungry beast that needs to feed the economic engine at its centre, by demand generated from those very trade links that it is currently trashing
Actually, domestic demand makes up a higher proportion of GDP than export does and if external demand from trade goes down then logically so will internal demand for raw and unfinished material imports. That's again not a matter of survival in the same way that pre-war Japan had to e.g. secure rubber and oil or collapse back to an agrarian economy.
Not that they really understood divide and rule. The irony is, if they had taken the time to really understand how the British played divide and rule, then they wouldn't find themselves at the top of a rather large cliff.
I think their current strategy with regard to 'the west' and in particular the various trade blocks within it shows that they understand divide and rule very well.
 
[DRIFT]

the "right to life, liberty, or the security of persons" . . . . in Xinjiang.

Is this a new definition, that I am unaware of?

I understood the original to be:

the "right to life, liberty, and happiness",

. . . to which I always railed against!

Happiness is such a subjective condition; consequently NOT something which can be legislated for; and, not a "right" but something that has to be worked for and earned!

My preferred version would have been/still is,

the "right to life, liberty and security".

But, I can "live with" the version from the White House, as more suitable than the original.

[DRIFT]
It's a bone of contention because "security" tends to collide with "liberty". Life, liberty and happiness are carefully selected words with the express intention of limiting the power of the state.
 
Top