Chinese strategy can be hard to grasp, with wildly different views from politicians and analysts, lots of scary headlines — lots of letters and numbers like the J20, THAAD or the F35 — as well as a certain mysterious quality and lack of knowledge about Chinese history.

But it isn’t as intimidating when you keep in mind a few key concepts.

China’s History Holds Crucial Clues

China boasts a history dating back thousands of years and has arguably the longest continual cultural tradition on the globe. But you don’t have to memorize the names of dozens of dynasties. (Perhaps if you really want to impress the ladies you could). The most important summation of thousands of years of history is to realize that they were the dominant power in Asia for much of their history and the government references this frequently in modern policy discussions.

The most important parts of modern Chinese history include two specific periods. From 1843 to 1949 China entered a period of weakness and civil war that only ended with the Communists taking power under Mao Zedong. During this time, the dynasty was largely helpless to stop Western intrusions. Chinese textbooks still cite the Opium War fought by the British. Various Western powers carved up spheres of influence. The US was the least offensive of these powers, but they still demanded and received open trading ports.

Matters became worse after the last leader of the dynasty fell in 1911 and the result was a general perception of weakness in contravention to much of Chinese history and an earned, but overused complaint of being victims. (See point #3.)

China’s Geography

That weakness made the second period, from 1949 to the present, much more pressing for China.  When they finally had a strong government and unified country for the first time in 100 years they set about reasserting their dominance. China has fought offensive preemptive wars with every one of their neighbors to settle territorial disputes or (re)assert their primacy. Many of these events tried to change the terms of what they call, unequal treaties, made with imperialist powers during their period of weakness.

The border with India was established when the British ruled there, and China tried to change the terms of the Sino Soviet Treaty of Friendship made when China was the much weaker partner. Regions like Mongolia, the Taiwan Straight, and Korea and Vietnam also represent historically important areas to China they considered part of their strategic interests.

The Difference Between Rhetoric and Reality

Points 1 and 2 combine to form this point. While China seems to be acting in a manner that recalls the traditional vigorous and expansionist early stages of dynasties, they do so under the old Confucian rhetoric which claims China is beset by foreigners and simply asserting their national rights against bullying imperialists. Knowing the simple difference between the rhetoric of being a victim, and their assertive and even aggressive actions explains their defense of those actions.

For example, the last time the US affirmed international law by sailing in international waters the Chinese claimed they fired two missiles as a defense against US aggression. The difference between true defensive measures and aggressive claims such as those in the South China Sea is that China violate maritime law to expand territory, while the US affirms international law to make sure territorial claims aren’t settled by force — which would naturally favor Beijing since it is the biggest power in the region.

China’s Mastery of Technology

Rhetoric verses reality also applies to weapon systems. The most common way Americans learn about China is some fearmongering article that promises to be a game changer, make the carrier obsolete, or expose a fundamental flaw in US strategy. The Chinese are fielding numerous impressive planes and plan to swarm US forces with overwhelming amounts of missiles.  But missiles are not a new technology. They might be faster, and harder to track, but the US defenses are also upgrading their tracking technology, adding numerous, low cost defensive layers like lasers, and obtaining better interceptors.

This is a response and counter response between China and America, not innovative game changing technology from one or the other. But newspapers are much like politicians, and find that scary, breathless articles get more clicks than nuanced analysis.

As far back as Santa Anna’s Mexican army invading Texas and as recently as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, there have been supposedly large and advanced armies promising the mother of all battles only to evaporate upon contact with the US military.

Challenges to Chinese Power

That leads to the final point: any potential conflict between the United States and China won’t be fought by weapon systems. Thousands of years ago the classical Confucian scholar Guanzi advocated for a “broad knowledge” of history instead of simply focusing on weapons. Even the robots of the future such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and subs often have a human driver.

China faces similar problems to many of those in Western countries plus a few that are unique to them. Recruits from a sedentary and urban society on average are larger and have more breathing problems. Because of the one child policy many Chinese adolescents have also been spoiled and have what is called little emperor syndrome. One a larger scale, the one child policy is creating a demographic time bomb.

Like other Western countries, China relies on immigrant labor to fill key gaps in the economy, though unlike the West China puts many of them in forced labor camps. Thus, even if it has the best weapons Beijing may not have the best economic foundation or skilled soldiers to fight an actual hot war.

Conclusions

This basic primer on history, geography, rhetoric, technology, and broader knowledge should prepare you for the next breathless article about a mysterious Chinese weapon system, their supposed victimhood, or another flare up in the South China Sea.

L'articolo Five Keys to Understanding Chinese Strategy proviene da InsideOver.

US Secretary of defense Mark Esper recently announced that the navy will seek a future fleet of 500 ships. While this includes an increase of many smaller ships ranging from destroyers to frigates and littoral combat vessels – and perhaps even a reduction in the amount of Nimitz and Ford Class carriers – the increase will mostly come from 140 to 240 new unmanned vehicles and vessels.

Most of the resulting debates and chatter have been about the relative importance of the carrier or the ability to have that many ships when the navy seems to keep shrinking, little discussion includes the numerous unmanned vessels and vehicles that will create the increase and the impact this will have on American operations.

Virginia Class

The Virginia class submarines aren’t unmanned ships run by artificial intelligence. But they are a huge part of the new naval force. Secretary of Defense Esper called for increasing production from 1 to 3 ships a year. Their stealth makes them some of the most survivable ships in the fleet. They can insert special forces, conduct surveillance, and most importantly – in a potential conflict with Russia or China – they can control critical access points and launch a barrage of missiles without losing much or any of their stealth signature.

The cruise missile tubes are also being tested to launch unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV). Operated from two laptops in the submarine, they can perform counter-mine patrol, sonar or other intelligence as well as surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. They give already hard to detect, deep penetrating submarines a way to infiltrate even deeper at less risk to submarine crews. Unlike the F35s, which are notorious gas guzzlers and thus invite juicy refueling planes as targets, the Virginia class submarines have a life as long as the ship’s nuclear reactor (40 years!), and their only logistical restraint would be the food needed for the sailors onboard.

Should the US face a conflict with Russia or China where the latter rely on missile and drone swarms to deny American entry into the conflict, the submarines would use their impressive skills to breach the swarm. With assistance from their UUVs, they could collect sensitive data on anti-aircraft missile batteries, drone launches, advanced warning on any launch, and transmit the precise targeting data to unmanned or long-range aircraft (see below.)  In short, they would significantly degrade the enemy’s ability to launch missiles and the danger to US aircraft in a relatively short amount of time.

Sea Hunter

In describing Battle Force 2045 Esper specifically mentioned the Sea Hunter prototype. It’s a 132 feet long anti-submarine, counter mine system operating at a small fraction of the cost of a destroyer: $15,000-$20,000 per day compared to $700,000 per day. In short, the Sea Hunter operating in an Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) environment would cost less money and risk fewer soldiers while freeing up other assets to focus on other threats.

The Navy plans for multiple classes of sea vessels based on size (SUSVs, MUSVs, XLSVs). The Navy wants them to be low-cost, high-endurance, reconfigurable ships that can accommodate various payloads particularly ISR and electronic warfare systems. The prototype contracts are only now being awarded so its tough to describe what they can do. But we have multiple examples of future tech run amok including the technical issues that plague the Ford Class Carrier and F35.

For example, the Zumwalt class destroyer was designed as a revolutionary new littoral combat warship, the exact kind of ship the navy plans to increase in the future force plan. The Zumwalt class ships were designed to be modular, lightly manned, and survivable which again match the promises of the new unmanned vehicles. But it delivered on none of them. The specialized main gun required prohibitively expensive shells of almost a million per round, the ship had design flaws, delays, and mission modifications that required expensive and poorly fitted upgrades to the point that the ships cost 26 billion for three vessels. This is far from the low cost, high tech wonder weapons the Secretary of Defense is promising.

Drones

Drones and other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) are nothing new. They have been used extensively in the War on Terror since they have the advantage of longer range and being able to provide continuous in theater surveillance.

Models vary in both size, armament and weather they are fully autonomous or can be piloted remotely. Future drones like the Skyborg are expected to be cheaper than fighter jets but advanced enough to survive long-term on the battlefield. It could have AI that ranges from simple coding to manage flight all the way to complex battle tasks such as acting as a wing man for manned aircraft.

The Valkyrie will be a combination of the U2 reconnaissance plane and B52 long range bomber. It will cost about 2 million per drone, which a fraction of the 100 million cost of the F35 and is less than cost of the cost just the missiles on an F35. The Valkyrie can penetrate enemy airspace and – using information from the uuvs of the Virginia class sub – it can target missile sites or communication centers. Or it can transmit the data back to F35s, which in turn act as a quarterback for a vast array of traditional fighting platforms.

What Does the Focus on Unmanned Tech Mean for the Future of the Navy?

The focus on unmanned technologies means that the navy is actually spending less money on procurement for a bigger and more capable fleet, averaging about 15% less than previous budget requests. They have weapons systems in development that will provide low cost, survivable, lethal, and efficacious weapon platforms that can counter advancing Russian and Chinese aggression at little cost. However there are still valid concerns that the military could become overly reliant on wonder weapons and end up with expensive and useless failures.

L'articolo Meet the Robots of the Future proviene da InsideOver.

Two recent articles about China published on the same day are a good example of the difference between facts and analysis, as well as the importance of doing your own critical active reading.

Is China Old News or the Next Big Thing?

The first author provides a model of a failing contender to say that China has reached its apogee and will soon fall behind the US putting them in the same dangerous position as Germany in 1914 and Japan in 1941. The second author says that China is more belligerent due to the insular concerns of its dictator, and that the US will only be able to retain its military balance of power for the next 5 to 10 years against China.

Which is it? Which model provides the best evidence? How can they take the same data and come to different conclusions? What difference does the model make in determining the analysis and conclusion?

Which Article is Right?

They both have flaws. The first article doesn’t explain in detail how any power was considered a faltering contender. Some primary sources like leaders explicitly considering their relative position via other powers is a good start. The raw data concerning population, industrial capacity, would have been the optimal second step.

The article includes a reference to a secondary book that is a good, but the article could have used more. Moreover, the cause of the World War I is the subject of endless debate from the moment the war started. It’s tough to use one secondary source to then say that all the competing and contributing factors – nationalism, the alliance system, German militarism, mobilization timetables, the cult of the offensive – were superseded or directed by that one factor. In short, it’s tough to believe his cause for World War I is correct or compelling.

Yet that single cause becomes the model by which we are supposed to understand Chinese behavior.  The author listed many items that sound persuasive. Yet, as with his historical examples, the author didn’t present any hard data such as relative growth, GDP, or size of the military forces to make the case for a faltering contender. Thus, the author’s analysis relies on his examples doing the heavy analytical lifting.

The readers are supposed to assume that China is like 1914 Germany and 1941 Japan on the precipice of war.  Yet we could just as easily conclude that China will survive its black eye from the COVID-19 crisis, abort Hong Kong’s special rights without long term consequences, end their clash with India, and weather their economic storms to continue massive long term growth. Again, without specific metrics their status as faltering contender is debatable.

The second article’s major flaw was that he said that Chinese leader Xi Jinping was a cipher that nobody knew much about. This is true in most secretive but powerful organizations to the point that discerning their intentions and goals is often called “Kreminlology.” But then author went on to provide a single model for Xi’s decision making. Xi is supposedly scarred by his family being purged in the cultural revolution and then takes 21st century Leninism into the era where state tools are so much more powerful.

The author doesn’t consider a variety of long-term factors such as economic models and population growth that can drive political economic and military decisions. As you’ll notice, Xi’s traumatic childhood doesn’t have much to do with military dominance. I don’t have any indication for the sources the second author used to make that statement. The latest defense report indicates that China will not have a “world class” military until 2049 and though China has achieved superiority in some areas like ship building and land based missiles, “major gaps and shortcomings remain.”

Getting to the Truth About China

As I’ve written extensively, including in my book Dragon’s Claws With Feet of Clay: A Primer on Modern Chinese Strategy, I think China has many wonder weapons that make the news and sound scary. Those are the dragon’s claws. But borrowing from the vision of Daniel in the Old Testament, they have feet of clay. Economically their command-driven economy has created a bubble that will dwarf the 2008 housing crisis, a one child policy that creates demographic challenges, no war time experience from the top down to the bottom inducing staff officers and NCOs. (Notice how this is more detail about the Chinese military than either author provided.)

As a result, there is reason to be concerned, but little reason to believe they will outpace the US in 5 to 10 years. The second article seemed a bit more like Australian insider baseball musings.

Using these writings as case studies readers should have a much better grasp of how to assess pieces on their own. This is a good example of how two people can talk about the same subject and reach wildly different conclusions by using different analytical models that drive their thinking.

One relied on some historical examples to provide a modern model, but both sides of the equation lacked clear data and the example did the heavy lifting which is never what you want to have happen. The second author provided even less data to support his analysis, which is even more damning consider he was trying to divine the inner workings of Xi Jinping.

L'articolo Faltering Contender or Military Dominance: a Tale of Two Chinas proviene da InsideOver.

International lawmakers recently nominated President Donald Trump for the Nobel Prize. This has inspired a great deal of ridicule and mocking from elites around the world. But when a person takes out their emotions and perceptions, and instead considers Trump’s record compared to other Nobel Prize winners like Barrack Obama a strong case can be made that Trump deserves the prize.

Trump’s Peace Brokering Record

We can begin with Trump’s record. Many people who follow and comment on politics can’t get past his rhetoric. But his blunt style is an important part of cutting through palavering elites that have produced a failed status quo.

Most recently Trump has achieved breakthroughs in Arab-Israeli deals and in the Balkans. These are the events that earned him the nomination. Critics use various arguments to say these don’t matter. The United Arab Emirates isn’t the biggest country and isn’t even a regional power. They contend that Trump accidently gets a few things right including fixing relations between Israel and the UAE. But this is only the third instance of a country recognizing Israel, and it was quickly followed by a wave of change.

There seems to be real progress in the Middle East towards peaceful relations.

Likewise, critics of President Trump criticized the Serbia and Kosovo deal because it was only a pledge with details that need to be followed up upon later. Yet if the deal was so meaningless or just vague pledges it shouldn’t have been difficult for previous Presidents to obtain it.

This isn’t the first breakthrough in the region. Greece has long objected to Macedonia’s name, as Alexander the Great is considered the most famous Greek from Macedonia, and the modern country of that name is not Greece. When Macedonia joined NATO they solved a decades long impasse by becoming North Macedonia. Again, critics assailed these events as unimportant, but if it was so easy it shouldn’t have taken 20 years and been shepherded by a supposed ruffian like Donald Trump.

All of this doesn’t mention Trump’s relative success with North Korea. This one has a stronger case about failing to follow through. Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Il Sun had two summits, produced a proclamation that would eventually lead to denuclearization, but then nothing happened.

Yet, North Korea is a particularly difficult problem to solve as the US has limited leverage and North Korea often bides for time. But Trump still seems to have a good personal relationship with Kim, which is an important element in negotiations. Considering many analysts thought there was a 50/50 chance of war during Trump’s term, the relative calm is a modest success even if the promises of the summit haven’t been achieved.

Trump’s Military Actions

Even Trump’s military actions have better chances leading to peace. Critics accused Trump of almost starting World War III with his drone strike against Iranian leaders. For a time, things were incredibly tense, though the media seemed to exaggerate those aspects for ratings and to bash Trump. Long term, Trump’s strike and Iran’s ineffectual response reestablished deterrence against Iran and provided a stronger negotiating position to stop their nuclear program. It is one of the logical ironies of warfare that being willing to go to war, can convince other powers to negotiate and thus avoid war. While disavowing warfare lessens a country’s leverage, and thus makes war more likely.

Finally, Trump hasn’t started any new wars. He has resisted calls to expand America’s footprint in Syria and Iraq. In contrast, he has resisted calls from within his own administration and instead scheduled troop withdraws from both countries that make our long-term commitments more manageable. He has also reduced the level of Trump’s serving in Afghanistan and there are tentative peace talks and short-term cease fires and reductions in violence that suggest America’s commitment is coming to an end.

In short, if a random president was described as achieving breakthroughs between countries in multiple regions, lessened the near certainty of war into a non-story, achieved leverage to negotiate, and drew down troops in some of America’s longest wars and complicated countries, that person should received credit.

The Case Against Obama

And this is before we contrast President Trump’s nomination with President Barack Obama’s award. Obama was granted the award in 2009 in the first year of his presidency. This made for the rather awkward situation for the rest of his presidency as it meant that every military action was done by a peace prize recipient. Soon after winning the prize Obama dramatically expanded the war in Afghanistan that eventually totaled 100,000 soldiers. He pursued relentless drone attacks and seemed to brag to newspaper reporters about his Sophoclean wisdom as he considered (really micromanaged) targets.

This puts elites in the awkward situation of supporting a Nobel Prize recipient that did little to deserve it but talk, and dramatically expanded America’s longest war and what many called unethical drone strikes. At the same time, they laugh at the nomination of someone who has actually achieved significantly breakthroughs and limited or diminished American involvement around the world. Not since Woodrow Wilson ran for president as the man that kept America out of war, and then joined the slaughter of World War I have the elites been so hypocritical.

L'articolo The Case For Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize proviene da InsideOver.

China has historically maintained an air of mystery and the nation is a potential competitor to Western power in our day, resulting in many fearful speculations about Beijing’s strategies and capabilities. But a careful analysis of Chinese strategy and US counter responses suggests that US is fairly well-prepared in its defensive maneuvers.

What is A2AD?

Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) is a strategy used to prevent or severely restrict, slow down, or endanger the opponent and prevent their ability to operate in each area. This strategy would include tactics like blacking out American satellites, disabling launch codes on destroyers using hacking, forcing Americans to steer their own ships through difficult straits and shallow shoals, and then sending massive amounts of newer, faster, and deadly missiles including one called the carrier killing missile (which was just tested in the South China Sea.)

In the case of conflict this would mean that US forces would be unable to enter the theater of operations until they degrade those massive numbers of missiles and weapon systems.

The theory then goes, that by the time the US fights its way through that A2AD bubble China would have already seized disputed territory with Japan, Taiwan, or in the South China Sea. They would essentially dare the US to liberate the territory in the face of what would likely be negative world opinion and dropping public support. Hearkening back to Chinese military theory, they use new and unexpected technology to achieve their goal to win without fighting, and maybe without a single death.

US Army Doctrine

But the US isn’t standing idly by as they let China (or Russia) dictate a strategy that gives them a free hand for their imperialist land grabs. The war could be over before the US takes months to build up its forces and is ready to response.  Moreover, adversaries like China would ostensibly seek to use that window to win a short, quick war or seizure of territory. In fact, a short, preemptive war to seize territory has been their strategic signature since 1949.

To counter this strategic blind spot and be able to operate in the A2AD environment the US wants to have forces ready to either survive in theater or be able to project force into the theater. In terms of doctrine, the US Army has called this “multi domain operations.” They emphasize using all assets-land, maritime, air, space, cyberspace- to become a “forward presence and expeditionary [force] to deny enemy objectives within days and achieve an operational position of relative advantage within weeks.”

There is concern about what these forces and the rest of the US military will do in the event a short war turns into a protracted conflict but it remains critical to meet the danger of a short, quick war.

US Navy Changes

In pursuit of this strategy the US Navy is looking to adopt a greater number of smaller and unmanned vehicles (UV). These UVs will present a swarm of low cost counter missile batteries. They could use rail guns which use high velocity projectiles instead of explosives to counter missiles. (They are shot so fast that they can explode the warhead.) Another alternative consists of lasers which new technology has made portable enough for deployment on a variety of air, land, and sea platforms.

The problem with US technology is that many of their missiles cost a million dollars, and their ships billions of dollars, while the swarms the Chinese will use, such as drones, cost as little as 50 dollars. Even if no missiles strike capital ships, the US would have spent billions of dollars in munitions to destroy plastic drones. But rail gun ammunition is extremely cheap, and lasers can fire all day if the power is running on the ships.

Having no (or in some cases limited) crew and a cheap design will make any potential engagement less costly. Some analysts claim this means the Navy is admitting the carrier is obsolete. But the unmanned vehicles will allow the carrier battle group to project power against more selective targets. As the doctrine stated, “to achieve advantage within a few weeks.”

Marine Corps Changes

Ships aren’t the only item to help. The US Marine Corps is also changing their force structure. They don’t want to be a second land army and thus are moving to eliminate tanks, helicopters and some MP battalions. They do want more and lighter amphibious ships that will better survive inside an A2AD environment, and as well as long range missiles that can project power into the A2AD theater. The Marines will also get unmanned air, land and sea platforms. In particular, the leaders envision a Marine force that can survive in a garrison that can headquarter in Okina, Japan but be stationed in small groups across the Pacific with enough weapons to form a bubble that can degrade enemy A2AD operations, or provide their own A2AD space.

This has the danger of them being overrun if the plan doesn’t work, but it could possibly stop the war by having an island of Marines with the tools to immediately stop enemy aggression.

The details are still being formed and they have their share of criticisms. But the new force structure and doctrine is encouraging news. The United States is taking concrete steps to adapt new technologies, like small unmanned vehicles, and integrate them with a force structure like missiles and existing carriers. They are doing this in order to defend allies against China’s strategic signature moves and any potential window of opportunity Beijing would have for a quick strike.

L'articolo US Military Countering China’s A2AD Strategy proviene da InsideOver.

The leader of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko is undergoing a lengthy series of protests by the people against what they see as a rigged election. Massive amounts of people gathered last week and at the time of this writing there appears to be no end in sight.

Lukashenko’s Loss of Legitimacy

Reports from analysts suggest he has lost legitimacy and will have a difficult time continuing to rule. Lukashenko has ruthlessly suppressed the revolts only to find that his brutality has inflamed the people.

The situation is so intense he may be deposed at any time. The impact of this political chaos has important military ramifications for Russia and Poland as well as NATO and the West.

Looking West

Looking to the west, Belarus is incredibly important. Geographically it flanks the Baltic states from the South and borders Poland from the east. There is a small bit of territory called the Sulwaki gap that separates Belarus and the heavily militarized, Russian-controlled Kaliningrad pocket.

If Belarus allowed the Russian military in their territory it would create a geographic situation like that faced by Poland before World War II. In that case Poland had a hopeless defensive position with attacks that could be launched from Germany, Prussian territory (that is now the Kaliningrad Pocket), or from the flank of newly acquired Czechoslovakian territory. They were further prostrated when Russia joined in the attack.

The new situation doesn’t include a potential attack from Germany, but the remaining threats are no less concerning. In the case of attack Poland and NATO will have to move forces to help the Baltic States. (Which according to war games, could fall within 48 to 60 hours.)  But they would face attack from the east through Belarus and from the northeast from the Kaliningrad Pocket.

Potential for Russian Aggression via Belarus

Modern arms and armament make Belarusian territory even more frightening if Russia can place assets there.  US and NATO forces would likely compensate for the lack of ground soldiers in the area by using air assets to interdict Russian forces and stall their tactical advances. For example, NATO practiced the forward deployment of its best asset, the A10 Warthog. They planned for a seizure of a key highway in Estonia that would allow NATO forces to use airfields in the area.

But this road is only 125 miles from the Russian border and is even closer to the Belarus border. In the event of conflict there would be enough offensive and defensive firepower to render it and all of Estonia off limits to NATO forces for the first days or even weeks of any conflict with Russia.

Troop Levels Should be Increased in Poland and the Baltic States

This is a large reason why I think there should be more and heavy forces stationed in Poland, but also the Baltic states. Current NATO doctrine dictates that use of a US Calvary squadron with Stryker combat vehicles, 150 British dragoons, plus a Polish tank division. According to current training, the force would move from from North Eastern Poland into Southern Lithuania to plug the vital Suwalki gap.

But moving those forces would require significant air cover to negate the Russian anti access area denial forces in Belarus. The air assets would also have to degrade anti air capability and gain mastery of the air before they can operate. And they would have to make tactical strikes against quickly advancing Russian forces.

That is a great deal to ask of the surprised local forces in Poland and Eastern NATO countries with a window of only 48 hours to stop a Russian attack. Making sure Belarus is more closely aligned with the Western camp would lessen this threat.

Looking East

Yet Russia can claim legitimate concerns as well. Russia has a long history of invasion from foreign and particularly Western powers. In describing the origins of the Cold War, diplomat George Kennan wrote in his famous long telegram about Russia’s “neurotic” view of world affairs:

“[Their] insecurity…trying to live on a vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added…fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies” to their West.

They faced invasion from Napoleon and Germany twice within 30 years. Minsk, the capital of Belarus, was the scene of a massive German encirclement in 1941. Russia lost half a million men in less than three weeks. Though we should point out that Russian defenses were weakened because they moved into territory seized from Poland instead of their fortified pre-1939 borders.

If Belarus moves towards the Western camp that could deny Moscow the strategic depth it instinctively seeks.  It would likely result in a similar situation to that in Eastern Ukraine where Russia meddles by supporting rebels and sending soldiers in an unofficial capacity to create a friendly separatist region on their border. Some credible analysts already worry that Russia will pursue a hybrid war in Belarus.

Concluding Thoughts

The political chaos in a far away region filled with hard to pronounce names may not seem like the biggest deal for some Western readers. But this political chaos has huge military ramifications. From squeezing Poland and the Baltic States between the Kaliningrad pocket and a friendly Belarus, or having Western friendly states on the doorstep of Moscow, we need to be aware of the major impact that this nation could have going forward.

L'articolo The Geopolitical and Military Impact of Chaos in Belarus proviene da InsideOver.

The United States has shifted its position in the South China Sea. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that “the world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire …America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law. We stand with the international community in defense of freedom of the seas and respect for sovereignty and reject any push to impose ‘might makes right’ in the South China Sea or the wider region.”

The Importance of America’s Actions

This means that while the US officially remains neutral, they have sided with other claimants like Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam against China. This decision comes with numerous implications including the status of Chinese artificial islands, the importance of Freedom of Navigation patrols and the consequences and dangers of an aggressive Chinese foreign policy.  In particularly, it suggests that instead of need for more caution in response to Chinese aggression, there is a block forming against them.

One of the most frequent points of contention in the region involves the artificially built islands and contested claims in the South China Sea. The region has considerable oil and natural gas reserves and includes traditional fishing regions of the population. As a result, the region includes frequent clashes between fisherman and China’s militarized coast guard. China regularly sends oil exploration vessels with armed escorts in what should be the exclusive economic zones of neighboring countries.

Island Power

An artificial island brings with it territorial claims extending 12 nautical miles and, at least according to the creator of the island, an exclusive economic zone. On top of territorial claims to economic resources these islands could be used as launching pads or key defenses in a potential war. These artificial islands include advanced radar systems, anti-air batteries, shipping docks that can handle blue-water ships, submarine bases and large runways that can support their advanced fighters (which are being built using stolen technology from the F-22 and F-35.) Keep in mind they are doing this in the Spratlys and other islands in the South China Sea that are vigorously disputed. (It’s true that other nations have done so as well, but not to the extent that China has and definitely not with the same degree of militarization.)

Because these islands are proclaimed as Chinese territory, Freedom of Navigation patrols are incredibly important. These are legal maneuvers taken in international waters instead of the 12 nautical miles included in the territorial limit. When the U.S. performs a Freedom of Seas operation, they send an important signal of strength and peace. Because the islands are disputed, the US performs these operations to reaffirm the importance of international law. These prevent the de facto recognition of this territory as China’s. Thus, the statement from the United States in some ways is simply an affirmation of what the Freedom of Navigation Patrols already indicate.

The Inchoate Anti-China Coalition

But it is different in more important ways. It combines with other recent events to suggest a new block is forming against China. Presumably, the United States is willing to tolerate and maybe even forgive non-Chinese artificial islands in the region. The statement from Pompeo is a direct repudiation of aggressive Chinese action. This makes foreign policy analysts wring their hands that this will increase tension with China (as though the fisherman of the neighbors don’t already face harassment from the militarized Chinese coast guard), but ignores the long term trends that favor America and its allies.

Analysts say that militant Chinese aggression with India, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Australia have driven otherwise friendly or neutral countries straight into America’s arms. While they are smaller Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam have shown an indication to work with each other and the United States. Australia has so much tension with China that they are increasing their defense spending. They are focusing on longer range anti ship and new hyper sonic missiles. Both of which directly relate to China’s increasing reliance on blue water naval warships and missile systems. Vietnam has hosted American aircraft carriers several times, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt just a few months ago (in between its crew battling the coronavirus.)  While their militaries are still dwarfed by China, there is a growing sense among them that they will individually collapse if they don’t collectively resist and like Vietnam, they have been growing closer to the US.

The result that is most important regards China’s aggression. Many people worry that China will bully its way into getting what it wants, build up island after island until they present the world with Chinese control of the area. But the US newly sided with China’s opponents, the Freedom Navigation operations, and the consolidating block suggests that China has created a wall of opponents around them that will constrain their aggression and adventurism.

L'articolo Sea Change in the South China Sea proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump’s troop reduction in Germany is being criticized for its abruptness and lack of specifics. German officials are upset that Trump announced this without advanced notification and analysts claim this weakens NATO or makes allies unsure of American investment in Europe. These complains miss misses several key points and hallmarks of Trump’s presidency that can actually enhance European security.

Making the Best of Trump’s Decision

The withdrawal covers only about 10,000 soldiers which still leaves a significant garrison of 25,000 soldiers and additional personnel. These extra soldiers could be redeployed with stronger allies like Poland and make them even better as defenders against Russia. Poland has long requested a US base as a way to better deter Russia. Currently, over-optimistic training scenarios would have the US move a single division from Poland to the Baltic States to stop a Russian invasion. Yet they are supposed to do this in the face of intense Russian firepower, while also holding a key terrain feature — the Sulwaki Gap — against nearby Russian allies and intensely-militarized Kaliningrad pocket. The US currently doesn’t have heavy forces, artillery, and air assets stationed close enough to the area of conflict to provide the US with proper deterrence, or with the assets needed in the case of active attacks.

But this can change with a base in Poland that provides the needed heavy divisions to counter what Russia could muster in the case of a quick seizure of land. The US has already added several thousand soldiers in a joint NATO deployment to the Baltics. The base in Poland would be hundreds of miles farther from Russian territory than these deployments. Moreover, the biggest concern for these troops is that they would be more of a speed bump than a proper deterrence. The base and added soldiers in Poland would be an important step in making sure these soldiers are not needlessly hung out to dry and that they have the assets like an armored division to properly deter and resist a Russian invasion.

Trump is Serious About EU Raising Military Spending

The sudden announcement is also Trump’s trademark signature. He announces a policy suddenly, such as when he declared there would be a troop withdrawal from Syria. He is criticized for being too sudden, but it sets a bold tone for negotiation and later events that turn out to enhance the interests of America and its allies. In this case, it signals that Trump means business about raising military spending. Germany’s military is withering away from lack of funding and policy makers from both countries will scramble to find a solution suitable to American interests.

Analysts report that Germany has 93 Tornado fighter jets that need “immediate” and “extensive” upgrades. The planes lack NATO identification and have communications equipment that could be intercepted. That means they can’t participate in NATO missions. Germany only has five transport planes that are deployable, but they can’t operate at night because their cockpit lights are too bright. In a 2015 Syria mission, German officials said only 29 combat planes were ready.

Germany’s Abominable Lack of Military Readiness

The problems extend beyond complex aircraft. The Defense Minister reported that German soldiers did not have enough protective vests, winter clothing, or tents to adequately take part in a major NATO mission. During a training exercise, German soldiers resorted to painting broomsticks black to give them the appearance of machine guns. Soldiers then attached them to tanks and other armored vehicles. The country only has 95 combat-ready combat tanks to face a reported 20,000 Russian tanks. In recent anti-terror operations in Mali, half the tanks deployed reportedly broke down.

At the end of 2017, no submarines were available for deployment. The Germans’ new F125 frigates suffer from design flaws that have continually delayed their commission. Even if they are launched, they lack sonar and torpedo tubes making them vulnerable to submarines, at the very time that Russia is increasing its submarine activities. To fix these concerns Prime Minister Angela Merkel promised that Germany will meet a goal of 2% military funding by … 2031!

Results Matter, Big-League

It’s true that Trump has a grating style that can press on allies, and his insistence that allies spend more can come across as bullying. Yet, under Trump’s insistence NATO has increased spending and his allies closest to Russia appreciate his actions. Poland is lobbying to receive some of the soldiers Trump is withdrawing from Germany and claim it will enhance the security of Europe.

I often contrast Donald Trump with Teresa May. This was the Prime Minister of England who endured endless negotiations while always sounding sincere and kind. But she couldn’t deliver Brexit over the course of 4 years and had to resign. Unlike May, Trump doesn’t strike all the right notes that please the press, elites, and literati. But also unlike May, his tough and sometimes aggressive or grating rhetoric produces results. German officials might not like Trump’s stunning announcement of a Trump drawdown in Germany. But they will end up spending more on the military and be a more active partner in the defense of Europe. The only people who remain upset will be those who like endless palavering and state dinners but don’t seem to care as much about actual results.

L'articolo Trump’s Troop Reduction in Germany is the Right Move proviene da InsideOver.

The US made news recently by sending the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, the USS Russell, through the Taiwan Straits. The destroyer went through the strait right around the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre; for its part, China called the action a needless provocation. Yet despite the controversy, maneuvers such as this remain an important tool in America and the world’s arsenal for preserving peace and needs to be examined.

The Key Importance of the Taiwan Strait

The Taiwan Strait, as the name implies, runs between Taiwan and mainland China. It also brings up a host of issues regarding Taiwan relations with mainland China. When their civil war ended in 1949 the losers under Chiang Kai-Shek fled to Taiwan and established what they called the Republic of China (R.O.C.). This would be like the American Civil War ending and South Carolina remaining its own country called the Republic of America. The mainland Chinese government feels like Taiwan was always a part of China and will be again. In pursuit of these goals they have prepared several times to invade Taiwan. But in 1954 and 1958 they were dissuaded by the threats of nuclear force from America, and the sailing of a carrier group through the Taiwan Strait. To the mainland Chinese then, the sailing of the Russell recalls earlier interference from the US. Beijing sees this as outside involvement in an internal conflict with a breakaway province.

Criticism of the US Presence in the Strait

Critics of this policy point to the above example and Chinese protests of this “provocative” action as a needless escalation with China when there is already a great deal of simmering tension in the region. But Freedom of Navigation patrols has the best chance of supporting peace! China has a long history of simmering tension and provocative actions with its neighbors in almost every direction. Right now, they have a simmering border dispute with India with whom they fought a war in 1962.

China thumbed its nose at the world court ruling regarding against the Scarborough shoal in the Spratly Islands.  As a response they’ve placed even more weapons systems and missiles on the island even though it was ruled as part of the Philippine’s exclusive economic zone.

Immediately after losing the court case they used their new advanced weapons systems in the East China Sea. Near the disputed Senkaku islands they practiced locating and sinking a ship as an obvious message to Japan, which approved of the ruling. Japan has had to launch their fighter planes almost 1000 times in 2019 in response to mostly Chinese provocation. Japanese fisherman, operating legally in international waters or in their exclusive economic zone, has been harassed by Chinese naval vessels.

China’s Illegal and Aggressive Actions

China has illegally built up islands and placed advanced radar systems, anti-air batteries, shipping docks that can handle blue water ships, submarine bases, and large runways that can support their advanced fighters (which are being built using stolen technology from the F 22 and F 35.)  Keep in mind they are doing this in the Spratlys and other islands in the South China Sea that are vigorously disputed.

When the US performs a Freedom of Seas operation, they aren’t suddenly creating tension or another crisis like many drive by analysts would have us believe. They send an important signal of strength and peace. Because many of these areas are disputed, and Taiwan is given de facto recognition by many countries around the world, the US performs these operations to reaffirm the importance and constraints of international law.

These measures then are incredibly important because they prevent the de facto recognition of the disputed territory as China’s.  If international law is disregarded it will be a free for all in this region where disputes are settled by force. As the biggest military power in the region this would naturally encourage more assertive action by China.  If China aggressively controls the South China sea for example, they could easily cut off shipping in the region, through which almost half of the world’s merchant fleet passes.

Trump is Reasserting Basic International Law

That’s why it is important when Trump says he will stand for the rights to sail in international waters.  He is not picking a fight with China as some people have alleged, (though these Freedom of the Seas operations do have some danger), but simply reasserting basic rights of international law that the China is actively threatening. China has threatened every one of its neighbor, aggressively maneuvers near them, and actively builds bases in disputed territory that can project force. And they could pose a threat to basic freedoms of the see such as trade.  Supporting international law is something most Republicans are accused of ignoring in favor of their cowboy diplomacy. But this is an example that supports international law as an important mechanism in leading to peace.

It’s important to consider how many of the arguments against Trump and American military policy are based on general disdain for American military power and outspoken foreign policy positions, as well as libertarian articles of faith which are not actually based on a sound knowledge of the region. Unfortunately, criticism of US actions in the Strait of Taiwan is one of those cases.

L'articolo US Destroyer Sails Through the Tense Taiwan Strait proviene da InsideOver.

The USS Roosevelt nuclear-powered aircraft carrier came out of quarantine to make a stop recently in Vietnam. This is the second time in recent memory that a ship has visited Hanoi and it signals important changes in the region. Most news stories are about China’s aggression, military buildup, harassing of fishing boats, placement of weapon systems on artificial islands and so forth. But the carrier to the region represents the potential drawbacks to such a policy. This negative is that China could be creating its own set of alliances against their powerful nation.

Why Doesn’t China Have More Friends?

This problem was highlighted by a simple question. After a conference in 2017 where Chinese leadership refused to meet with the South Korean leader during his four day visit analysts asked an insightful question:  “[W]hy is it that for such a big country, there is hardly any neighbor that can be described as China’s friend?” China is a growing power and their military dwarfs their neighbors, but those neighbors are beginning to challenge China’s supremacy and they could form a block that surrounds and contains China. The danger comes from being in a situation similar to Germany before World War One, in that a Chinese fear of being surrounded could create an unstable doomsday machine of alliances and counter alliances that plunge the world into global war.

Parallel: Germany Before World War One

Before World War One, Germany constantly worried they would be surrounded. As a result they aggressively pursued their interests with their neighbors around them. But it often backfired. The First and Second Moroccan Crises sparked international outrage and led to a strengthening of the bonds between Britain and France against Germany. The Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 destabilized Eastern Europe and made Russia even more interested in supporting its remaining ally in the region against Germany and Austria Hungary. The end result of German maneuvers to not be trapped was a strengthening of alliances against them and what Henry Kissinger called a doomsday machine that plunged the world into the catastrophic warfare of World War One.

China claims they are addressing their rights and defending their sovereignty. But they are doing so by aggressively disputing land and maritime territories with most of its neighbors, including South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia. Much like Germany before World War One, these actions end up being counterproductive.

Vietnam Boosting Forces to Counter China

Vietnam is specifically building forces meant to counter Chinese strength and is actively seeking allies that face the same threats from China, including India, Japan, and even the US. The visit of the USS Roosevelt solidifies this trend. With the recent trade war and tariffs between the US and China, as well as the significant disruption of Chinese supply chains during the coronavirus, Vietnam has become a sought after trade partner and welcomes investments from Japan and Australia as well, which leaves China with less leverage than many people think.

But Vietnam also has common cause against China in the South China Sea. By partnering with the US as a “cooperative maritime partner” and receiving equipment like the T-6 trainer aircraft and Scan Eagle Unstaffed Aerial Vehicles, as well as a supply of coastguard vessels. These will help counter balance China’s aggressive use of its coast guard that as recently as last month sunk and detained Vietnamese fisherman new the disputed Parcell Islands. In that dispute Washington firmly sided with Vietnam.

The Future of Vietnam-US Cooperation

Future cooperation will help the strategic calculus favor the US though problems remain. Domestically there is concern that allying with Vietnam will look like the US condones their human rights abuses and is becoming too close to a communist regime. This would significantly upset Vietnamese refugees. Vietnam has a long-standing policy of not allying with one foreign power against a third, hosting any foreign military camps, and refusing to change its nonaligned stance by joining with a superpower.

But the direction so far for Vietnam and almost every Chinese neighbor is one of more cooperation with the US against China. South Korea resisted Chinese pressure and allowed America to deploy Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missiles. These missiles are a key defensive weapon system against China’s preferred strategy that consists of overwhelming amounts of missiles to deny access or destroy American forces. India had a tense ten-week standoff not too long ago in a critical strategic area connecting mainland India to its north eastern states but it was the Chinse that backed down. Japan is looking to move its companies out of China. and seeking new missiles for island defense.

The fear of a string of allied territories surrounding them could temper Chinese rhetoric and lead to more cooperation. But considering Beijing’s heavy handed oppression of Hong Kong protesters such a mellowing of belligerence seems unlikely. If China ends up being as isolated as pre-World War One Germany, they will try to win allies by aggressively pursuing their interests in border disputes, which will end up creating precisely the anti-Chinese block they fear.  Thus, the visit of the USS Roosevelt is incredibly important in signaling the inchoate creation of that block aimed at containing China.

L'articolo USS Roosevelt Aircraft Carrier Visits Vietnam: China Will Notice proviene da InsideOver.