Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Are you not reading too much into the article? It is about Chinese strategic thought, not about Chinese strategic success. Col Thomas is one of those who wants to know how his subject matters think. If you have not already, I do recommend you read more of his articles. They do dwell into the culture of the militaries he studies.
|
Col. Thomas among others makes the claim that the Chinese play thier crds a certain way. I went looking for evidence of that claim only to find zero.
Quote:
|
The Spratley claims dates back a long time and whether you agree with the stance or not, the Chinese had initiated force to claim the area back in the 1970s against at the time South Vietnam. They won that skirmish as well as a latter one against Vietnam in the 80s. So, the claim must be viewed in that context. They've won the right to claim through military victories long before the current challenges.
|
It angered and inflamed the areas other nations- good for arms dealers bad for China, specially as China refuses international arbitration on the issue. if nothing else the Spratly dispute tells everyone in Asia that the Chinese dragon is looking for empire and vassal states once more.
Quote:
|
I would've thought the 4 Party Talks concerning North Korea was a Chinese success. It was the Chinese who forced the North Koreans to come to terms with South Korea and the US.
|
The results could have been much better for China. The US and South Korea got what they wanted- China still has to bear the bulk of the economic burden to keep Kim happy and playing with light sockets.
Quote:
|
Was there any other way for an emerging power to behave otherwise?
|
With thier own papers talking about the danger of a Sino-American rift (attributed to the Japanese) they knew not to take unnecessary action to anger the US. But anger they did and they did so on purpose and no one has supplied the why.
Quote:
|
With the collapse of the USSR, China lost the strategic balance that made her so attractive to the US.
|
more than offset by the increasing economic ties, if not for the PLAN/PLAAF going bonkers relations between China and the US would be great and the lead paint issue would only be bad PR and not seen as one more reason to not trust China.
Quote:
|
The same thing happened in Afghanistan when the Mujahadeen was no longer useful to the US. Instead of the US telling her Asian interests to shut the hell up vis-a-vi China (ie, Taiwan independence, the Philipines arresting Chinese fishermen, and Japan keeping her military out of disputed areas), Chinese interests were all of a sudden left to fend for herself.
|
Ya, ramming an American EP-3 in international waters, denying ports of call and ports of refuge, issuing inflammatory statements sure did a lot to alleviate China's external pressures.
China has not to the best I can deduce followed a coherent policy aimed at advancing her objectives. Such a scatter plotted and uneven set of actions and policies precludes China having a type of unigue super duper "Chinese" strategem.
Quote:
|
New player still trying to learn the game.
|
Again that precludes the notion of some sort of Chinese master-game.