Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

[Double Edge]

^Ah, interesting

Taiwanese, Japanese warships track Chinese frigate | Taiwan News | May 03 2021

Source for this story is the below tweet

https://twitter.com/August20190831/s...58271233560580

Does not say they are collaborating just that they were spotted together in the vicinity. The Japs were trailing the Chinese ship.

The article makes its own conclusion that it was a joint patrol.

I would think chances of ships from Taiwan & Japan in the same vicinity would be a regular occurrence as the Chinese patrols deliberately choose routes where neighbours have disputes.


Suga Denies Possible Military Involvement over Taiwan | Nippon | Apr 20 2021

What was the need to issue this clarification ? Now what will Japan's stance be then if there is a confrontation with Taiwan.

Tokyo, April 20 (Jiji Press)--Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on Tuesday denied that the reference to Taiwan in a recent joint statement with U.S. President Joe Biden takes into account the possibility of Japanese military involvement.

The reference to Taiwan in the statement, issued after Suga's meeting with Biden on Friday, "does not presuppose military involvement at all," Suga told a plenary meeting of the House of Representatives, the lower chamber of the Diet, the country's parliament.

He was responding to a question from an opposition lawmaker over whether Japan would be militarily involved in issues related to the Taiwan Strait in line with the U.S. military strategy to deal with China.

[Double Edge]

Never figured that France and China could possibly have a territorial dispute but that remains true until that last referendum is held.

China’s shadow looms as New Caledonia decides whether to leave France | SCMP | Sept 30 2020

New Caledonia agreed with France back in 2018 to hold three independence referendums. The French have won two already and decided to give it back to China

French Senate's Taiwan vote triggers Beijing's anger again | RFI | May 07 2021

A vote by the French Senate in favor of a resolution backing Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization (WHO) and three other major international organizations has triggered an angry response from China. In response, Beijing is blocking Taiwan's entry, arguing it is not an independent state.

The Senate passed the resolution by a vote of 304 to 0 and 19 abstentions. The resolution called for the participation of Taiwan in the WHO, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The again refers to the earlier plan by French senators to visit Taiwan some time this year. Senator in question already visited Taiwan back in 2015 & 2018 so the precedent here will be to take more senators on the visit.

[Double Edge]

Almost four years after this thread was created Bhutan is still holding firm

Boundary Talks: Bhutan Refuses To Buckle Under Chinese Pressure | SNG | May 03 2021

The Chinese delegation had decided to adopt an aggressive posture right from the beginning of the talks on April 6, sources said. It accused Bhutan of changing its stance on Doklam at India’s insistence, and allowing Indian troops in south Doklam. China also officially laid its claim to the Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary in Eastern Bhutan—bordering West Kameng district in Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh—for the first time. StratNews Global was the first to report China’s new claim in Sakteng (https://stratnewsglobal.com/china/ch...ordering-india) which does not even border China.

Bhutanese officials, however, responded to Chinese aggression calmly and with firmness, pointing out that Sakteng was never a disputed area. They also denied the presence of Indian soldiers in Bhutanese outposts that guard the China-Bhutan border. Realising that the Bhutanese delegation was not intimidated by their pressure tactics, the Chinese changed tack and reportedly offered to drop the claim on Sakteng provided Bhutan accommodated its demands in the western sector. Clearly, the Chinese are more interested in getting their way in Doklam area.

China makes a fictitious claim to an area that doesn't have a border with China then offers concessions in order to change the terms of agreement. Bhutanese refused.

Sources said the Bhutanese officials pointed out to their Chinese counterparts that the boundary between Bhutan and China in the western sector starts at the confluence of two streams coming from Zompelri Lake and Doka La, and running along Torsa nallah and not at Gyamochen as the Chinese want. The Bhutanese delegation also resisted Chinese attempts to claim areas east of the Amu Chu (river).

Bhutanese rejected the next two Chinese offers as well and then countered with their own

As the next step, Bhutan formally proposed three amendments to the TSR put forward by China. They are:
- Removal of any reference to Gyamochen and Sakteng;
- Acceptance of starting point of the boundary from the confluence of the two streams along the Torsa nallah; and
- dropping the clause that seeks removal of the guiding principles agreed upon between Bhutan and China in 1988.

China was also told that diplomatic relations between the two countries can be established only after a final boundary settlement is arrived at and on-ground demarcation is completed.

Taken aback by the Bhutanese response, the Chinese delegation said it will have to refer the matter back to the higher ups since it does not have the authority to agree to any amendment proposed by Bhutan.

Bhutan will not get into any relations with China unless the boundary is settled. Hehe. Why didn't India do that right from the start.

China then tries to bait them with some thing else and fails again

Perhaps as a final attempt to salvage something out of the Expert Group Meeting, the Chinese delegation leader asked what would be Bhutan’s ‘bottom line.’ The Bhutanese delegation leader apparently once again reiterated that for Bhutan the starting point for demarcation of the boundary must start at the tri-junction located at Batang La in the western sector. Without the clear demarcation in the western sector, there cannot be any progress in the central sector, the Chinese were told. During the discussion on this point, the Chinese delegation hinted that it is willing to drop the claim on Sakteng, if Bhutan does not insist upon starting the demarcation from the confluence of the streams near Batang La but leaves it open ended.

Bhutan, however, refused to rise to the bait and stuck to the points it had made earlier, sources with detailed knowledge of the discussions said.

The PR value of smaller nations standing up to China is worth more than bigger nations.

People say we cannot depend on Bhutan for long as it is so small and cannot possibly hold out.

Ever heard of Taiwan

[Double Edge]

The war of words is starting

China’s media mouthpiece threatens ‘long-range missile strikes’ on Australian soil | 7 news | May 09 2021

China’s media mouthpiece has issued an ominous warning amid deteriorating relationships with Australia.

State-run outlet The Global Times on Saturday published an editorial from its editor-in-chief Hu Xijin.

It was headlined: “China needs to make a plan to deter extreme forces of Australia.”

“Given that Australian hawks keep hyping or hinting that Australia will assist the US military and participate in war once a military conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Straits, and the Australian media outlets have been actively promoting the sentiment, I suggest China make a plan to impose retaliatory punishment against Australia once it militarily interferes in the cross-Straits situation,” Hu wrote.

“The plan should include long-range strikes on the military facilities and relevant key facilities on Australian soil if it really sends its troops to China’s offshore areas and combats against the PLA (People’s Liberation Army).”

I think the whole world should hear about this. Hope it gets repeated in the world's dailies.

What is the game here ? Ramp up pressure enough so the Aussies kick ScoMo out next year ?

Or piss them off enough so he returns with a bigger mandate.

That's the thing about democracies. The people get to decide.

Who knows could there be a similar plan to topple Modi as well and every other bothersome leader who puts country first.

1) Ask the Americans whether they repudiate or still support the Shangai communique

2) Go to the UN and ask the 193 countries there how many support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Taiwan

Good suggestions by the Prof

[Double Edge]

Biden's plan to downplay the military aspects of the quad and broaden its focus appears to be working.

Slowly build up support for the idea in the region. Chinese know this and are working to counter it.

Bangladesh rebuffs China on Quad warning | The Hindu | May 12 2021

"Obviously it will not be a good idea for Bangladesh to participate in this small club of four because it will substantially damage our bilateral relationship,” Mr. Li, China's envoy to Bangladesh said at a meeting organised by the Diplomatic Correspondents Association on Monday, the Press Trust of India reported from Dhaka.

The comment brought a sharp response from the Bangladesh Foreign Ministry, which said in a statement that Foreign Minister A.K. Abdul Momen told reporters "as a sovereign country, Bangladesh will determine the course of its foreign policy in the interest of its people” and "urged foreign envoys in Dhaka to maintain decency and decorum while speaking in public."

"We're an independent and sovereign state. We decide our foreign policy. But yes, any country can uphold its position,” Mr. Momen was quoted as telling the media.

If its a "small" club why the fuss ?

[Double Edge]

As Japan is the quad member closest to China i expect them to be a bit more keen than Col. Newsham makes out here

Suga–Biden Meeting: Promises, Promises | Epoch Times | Apr 21 2021

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and U.S. President Joe Biden met in Washington on April 16, and both sides declared the meeting a success. The official joint statement issued afterward was comprehensive and unusually pointed to one particular topic: China.

Suga and Biden stated their serious concerns about Chinese activities in the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait. Beijing’s oppression of Hong Kong and the Uyghurs were also mentioned. Both sides pledged to work together to address the Chinese regime’s aggressive behavior—to include having “candid conversations” with Beijing.

Japan agreeing to such blunt language toward Beijing is no small matter given that China is next door—and Japanese corporations do huge amounts of business in China. This was, in fact, the first time in 50 years that a Japanese leader joined a U.S. president in a statement on Taiwan.

So far so good

However, the thing that most frightens the Japanese is China. And Suga came to the meeting with one main objective: to get the Americans to state publicly once again that they will defend Japan.

Read the joint statement and the transcript of the Suga–Biden post-meeting press conference and Tokyo might be thinking “mission accomplished.”

From the joint statement:

“Japan resolved to bolster its own national defense capabilities to further strengthen the Alliance and regional security. The United States restated its unwavering support for Japan’s defense under the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, using its full range of capabilities, including nuclear. It also reaffirmed the fact that Article V of the Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.”

So, it seems that Japan made what looks like a promise to strengthen its military, in exchange for the services of the world’s most powerful military—to include its nuclear weapons.

But when evaluating these sorts of summit meetings, it is best to consider what’s said—and then wait a while and see what actually happens. This is especially true given previous U.S.–Japan meetings have agreed to pretty much the same things that were announced on April 16.

Here’s the problem: Americans tend to assume that Japan’s promise to “bolster its own national defense capabilities” means that Japan will push the limits and improve its long-standing defense shortcomings.

However, Japan often seems to regard its promise as meaning it will do nothing more than what it’s already doing—while expecting the United States to use everything in the arsenal on Japan’s behalf.

So, when it comes to Japan keeping its part of the bargain and improving defense capabilities, let’s wait 90 days and see if Tokyo moves to do any of the following:

1. Increase defense spending. It’s still much too low—even at about $50 billion a year. What’s needed are 10 percent increases each year for the next five years—spent properly. This means spending on personnel—to address 25 percent yearly recruiting shortfalls—and then spending to ensure forces can train adequately. Only then consider buying more weaponry.

2. Improve the capabilities of the three Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) services (ground, sea, and air) to be able to operate in a coordinated fashion—or, “jointly” in military-speak. They currently have only rudimentary capabilities, if that. It doesn’t matter if Japan buys or develops high-tech weapons, such as “hypersonics” or “strike capabilities” if the three services don’t have a radio with which they can talk to each other. Yes, it’s that serious.

JSDF ground cannot talk to JSDF air which cannot speak to JSDF sea (!)

This is wow, like big wow

3. Establish a combined headquarters in Japan where U.S. and Japanese forces work out the planning, training, exercises, and other activities necessary for Japan’s defense. There currently is no such headquarters—after 60 years of the defense alliance.

If these three “bellwether” indicators aren’t addressed, one wonders whether Tokyo is serious about bolstering its defense capabilities—as it promised (once again). It could be that Japan still might think the Americans will save the day—no matter what Japan does or doesn’t do. But that might not be what happens.

A Troubling Scenario


The promise of U.S. support is sincerely made but, paradoxically, it might be easier to carry out if the Chinese regime launches a full-scale assault on Japan. If China follows its current “below the line” approach, Japan—and the region—might get into serious trouble, quickly.

So this is the interesting bit. grey zone. What is their response

Imagine the following:

Three hundred Chinese fishing boats show up at the Senkaku Islands, along with 25 Chinese maritime militia boats. And a dozen China Coast Guard ships are with them, and an equal number of PLAN (the People’s Liberation Army Navy or Chinese navy) warships as well.

The Chinese armada tells the Japan coast guard on station to “clear out”—and then lands a small team onto one of the Senkaku Islands.

The Japanese navy and coast guard send reinforcements but are outnumbered—and outgunned. The Americans send ships from 7th Fleet—and U.S. and Japanese submarines are lurking nearby.

However, the United States and Japan might be reluctant to sink the invading Chinese vessels—because the PLAN might retaliate—and potentially risk starting World War III.

And Beijing and the PLAN know this and might have launched the invasion calculating that the U.S. Navy and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force wouldn’t retaliate.

At this point, as one observer notes: “It’s check and mate, unless you want to go nuclear.”

That didn't end well now did it

The point of all this?

Conventional capabilities still matter, and Japan hasn’t got what it needs—and is expecting too much from the Americans. The United States is overstretched and spent the past 20 years focused on Iraq and Afghanistan—instead of China.

The U.S. military is, of course, still potent. But the PLA (People’s Liberation Army or Chinese military) outmatches U.S. forces in some areas, such as ship numbers, anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), and a massive PLA rocket force that can hit U.S. bases in Japan and the region—including the U.S. territory of Guam—as well as moving ships.

Japan ought to realize that it can’t rely on the United States as it has done—and apparently still does. Rather, it needs to do much more to genuinely improve its capabilities, and in the process, it will make the U.S.–Japan alliance stronger and more of a deterrent against Chinese aggression.

What is holding Japan back i wonder

When the Chinese show up in the Senkakus ready for a fight, it won’t matter much if Biden and Suga agreed to 5G technology development and to have “low-carbon footprints.” China will be more impressed with warships, aircraft, submarines, supersonic ASCMs, hypersonic weapons—and lots of all of them.

So now that the Suga–Biden summit is over and all the right things were said—and promised—let’s see what Japan actually does about “bolstering” its defense. Because it will take more than summit meetings and joint statements to deter the Chinese regime.

Does Japan’s Constitution prohibit it from doing more militarily?
No. Article 9 that covers the use of force has been reinterpreted repeatedly—almost from the day it was enacted—to allow Japan to do whatever is necessary in its own defense. Japanese officialdom has wielded “the Constitution” and “Article 9” as effective excuses to avoid doing anything it doesn’t want to do.

Does Japan’s financial condition preclude it from increasing the defense budget?
No. Japan is a wealthy country and has all the money it needs for its own defense. It just chooses not to spend it. And it’s easier to rely on the Americans to “fill in the gaps.” The United States has never really complained about this even though it undermines the security of both countries.

Does Japanese public opinion inhibit the Japanese government from strengthening defense capabilities?
Not if Japan’s leaders “made the case.” Public opinion is overwhelmingly negative on China. And a large majority favors forceful measures to protect Japanese territory. If the public knew the reality of JSDF weakness, they would be surprised—and probably none too happy with Japan’s ruling class.

It seems to be a question of political will.

Grant Newsham is a retired U.S. Marine officer and a former U.S. diplomat and business executive who lived and worked for many years in the Asia/Pacific region. He served as a reserve head of intelligence for Marine Forces Pacific, and was the U.S. Marine attaché, U.S. Embassy Tokyo on two occasions. He is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy.

[Officer of Engineers]

JSDF ground cannot talk to JSDF air which cannot speak to JSDF sea (!)

This is wow, like big wow

Why would they need to? Where is the need? The Japanese Consitution forbids expeditonary forces.

[Double Edge]

Why would they need to? Where is the need? The Japanese Consitution forbids expeditonary forces.

How effective will the JSDF be in the event of a conflict ? forget expeditionary, can they even defend their own land

Never been tested. The Senkakus scenario he mentions highlights the shortcomings.

For an "american" army the degree of joint-ness in the JSDF is surprisingly absent.

As far as i understand expeditionary has been cleared by Abe already, there is no constitutional barrier any longer to coming to the aid of allies.

JSDF does not behave as if that is the case.

What explains this reticence from Japan ?

Are they so sensitive to not appear as the belligerent.

Has China conditioned them not to act in their interest by protesting the slightest improvement they make.

Or is it much simpler. Until China does something they won't move.

Indian defense budget stayed static until the Chinese showed up at the border. It was clear then we could not use diplomacy to manage them and had to start spending.

Let's see what the update is after 90 days.

[Officer of Engineers]

How effective will the JSDF be in the event of a conflict ? forget expeditionary, can they even defend their own land.

Think about it. Why is there a need to co-ordinate between the services? The only possible thing is danger close support but when and where a Chinese army would even come close to Japanese land troops? They have to go through Japanese naval task groups before the Chinese would even see a Japanese bellycrawler, Air and sea? That's extremely simple. Stay above 5000 feet. Anything below that, Japanese naval AD will take care of that.

The Senkakus? That's easy. There's no fresh water and completely exposed. Let the typhoons blow the occupation forces back into the water.

To be clear, Japanese land force is the weakest of the three branches. Their requirements for maneuver force is a brigade to retake home islands. During the Cold War, they were a static defence force reliant on defence lines and fortifications in case of a Soviet attack. Look at Japanese MBTs, they were and are a generation behind us.

The ONLY offensive aide allow by the Consitution is material support and static defence. We're talking company level, not even battalion.

[Double Edge]

Think about it. Why is there a need to co-ordinate between the services? The only possible thing is danger close support but when and where a Chinese army would even come close to Japanese land troops? They have to go through Japanese naval task groups before the Chinese would even see a Japanese bellycrawler,

What i understood is the only reason for joint ops is if there is a ground component. Joint ops is support ground forces via land or sea.

If the Japanese want to land troops on the Senkakus then there's your ground component. If they ever need to do the same on other islands its the same thing.

When i think about it, its like a body with hands and legs moving in an uncoordinated manner.

Such a body is on its back flailing. Not even on its feet.

Is there any magical incantation to get such a body on its feet at a moments call

Air and sea? That's extremely simple. Stay above 5000 feet. Anything below that, Japanese naval AD will take care of that.

This is the part that was troubling. You want air to support sea.

The Senkakus? That's easy. There's no fresh water and completely exposed. Let the typhoons blow the occupation forces back into the water.

Does not work out that way in the SCS. The chinese re-supply these bases.

The net result is Senkakus lost. There's many more for the taking.

To be clear, Japanese land force is the weakest of the three branches. Their requirements for maneuver force is a brigade to retake home islands. During the Cold War, they were a static defence force reliant on defence lines and fortifications in case of a Soviet attack. Look at Japanese MBTs, they were and are a generation behind us.

Does not matter what whizz bang gear the JSDF has if they cannot talk to each other.

The Indian navy is better integrated with the USN than the JSDF is with itself is what i got.

The ONLY offensive aide allow by the Consitution is material support and static defence. We're talking company level, not even battalion.

Is there really such a limitation ?

if they can send a company the only thing stopping a battalion is whether they can spare one.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If the homeland isn't being attacked then fight every where else so it does not get to home.

[Officer of Engineers]

You're not thinking. Is there a realistic scenario wherethe USN allow a Chinese/Russian/North Korean Army to land on Japanese soil? An army as in at least 50,000 men. Anything less is a disaster in waiting. Senkaku can be easily blockade by Maritime forces. Typhoons will do the rest. Yes, joint force operations is the end-all, be-all of modern military thinking but not every country needs it, especially when the odds of a Chinese army marching on Tokyo is slim to none. So, do you waste monies on things you have a slim chance of using? Having the biggest and nicest tanks is great but if all they do is sitting around looking pretty, then why buy them? It's not like Japan can send them around the globe supporting American operations.

Lastly, a battalion is more than 3 companies just as a company is more than 3 platoons. Each echelon is greater than the sum of its parts. Japan never needed to achieve this level of effectiveness because again, the odds of a foreign army on Japanese soil would never be allowed by the USN.

[Double Edge]

Is there a realistic scenario wherethe USN allow a Chinese/Russian/North Korean Army to land on Japanese soil? An army as in at least 50,000 men. Anything less is a disaster in waiting.

No, taking Japanese islands can be done with less

Senkaku can be easily blockade by Maritime forces. Typhoons will do the rest.

Now that i think of it there is working solution to this problem.

Gen Curtis Le May v Adm Anderson. Admiral won.

What gave me doubts was their islands list and the lack of American action.

We know the Americans have committed to the Senkakus so a blockade is likely.

Chinese may push things like they did last year but go no further.

Sailed ships near the Senkakus for 111-days straight beginning on April 14 until August 3. Why'd they stop ? Typhoon Hagupit.

Was looking for ways to deter this sort of nonsense.

Yes, joint force operations is the end-all, be-all of modern military thinking but not every country needs it, especially when the odds of a Chinese army marching on Tokyo is slim to none. So, do you waste monies on things you have a slim chance of using? Having the biggest and nicest tanks is great but if all they do is sitting around looking pretty, then why buy them? It's not like Japan can send them around the globe supporting American operations.

Can you really see no scope for improving joint ops with the JSDF ?

I am assuming JSDF work better jointly with the US military. Or does the US have to do EVERYTHING here !!

Lastly, a battalion is more than 3 companies just as a company is more than 3 platoons. Each echelon is greater than the sum of its parts. Japan never needed to achieve this level of effectiveness because again, the odds of a foreign army on Japanese soil would never be allowed by the USN.

Is there anything you would like to see improve with the JSDF or is the current status quo enough to deter China ?

That really is the point here.

[Double Edge]

Containing Japan | The Atlantic | May 1989

Funny how times change

Look at Japan today.

Can't count on this happening to China yet.

[Officer of Engineers]

No, taking Japanese islands can be done with less

How? Any landing force will have to get through Japanese Maritime forces first.

Was looking for ways to deter this sort of nonsense.

Again, why is there no alliance between Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan? They hate each other more than they fear the PRC. Any Japanese military build up will meet with opposition from the other two powers as well as China and Russia. It's a no win scenario for Japan.

Can you really see no scope for improving joint ops with the JSDF ?

I am assuming JSDF work better jointly with the US military. Or does the US have to do EVERYTHING here !!

The US assumed that role once she beatened Japan in WWII. Anti-Japanese feelings are dormant, not extinct. The Pacific Rim countries would rather trust the US as the policeman than to see Japan on the rise again. South Koreans have not forgiven Japan turning their grandmothers into whores.

Is there anything you would like to see improve with the JSDF or is the current status quo enough to deter China ?

That really is the point here.

I want to be able to repel Klingon Stormtroopers with my own Deathstar but there are smart ways and dumb ways to spend military dollars. Preparing to fight a war that would never come while ignoring real military threats is a dumb way to spend dollars.

[Double Edge]

Have not been through this committee hearing for the new commander of US/UN forces in Korea but this short clip has given me an idea

You can't count on Korea being part of the Japan/Taiwan triad because they have to watch their northern border.

A China move on Taiwan presents an opportunity for the Norks to move south unless the South is there to stop them.

Whatever Korea's sensibilities to Japan, they are effectively out of the game.

How much coercion does Korea get from China anyway. Not anywhere as much as Taiwan or Japan.

There is a reason for that. China knows Korea will be otherwise occupied.