# Russia and China To Hold Joint Military Exercises



## Cloud Cover (27 Dec 2004)

This development has been a long standing concern to the USA, Australia and Japan. The ressurection of the joint USSR/China pact in Asia will surely trigger reciprocal military reactions througout the region if these two turkeys can make their forces and equipment work with each other.


 http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/12/27/china-russia041227.html?print 

  C.B C . C A   N e w s   -   F u l l   S t o r y : 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Russia, China to hold 2005 war exercises
Last Updated Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:05:15 EST 
MOSCOW - Russia and China will, for the first time, hold joint military manoeuvres next year, Russia's defence minister said Monday. 

The manoeuvres will take place on Chinese territory in the second half of 2005, Sergei Ivanov said, according to ITAR-Tass. 

The exercise will be "quite large," involve both countries' air forces and navies and will include submarines, he said. 

The new co-operation between the two countries is "not targeted at any third party," Chinese Defence Minister Cao Gangchuan said earlier in the month. 

He said fostering military ties would serve the interest of regional peace and help the two armies learn from each other. 

Beijing and Moscow have built up military and political ties since the Soviet collapse in 1991, driven in part by a joint desire to counterbalance U.S. global dominance. 

Written by CBC News Online staff

Copyright ©2004 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Dec 2004)

Well, no worries, this will not stop them from squaring off, now and again, and holding joint, two sided live fire 'exercises' up on the Amur River.

China is Russia's worst nightmare.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch ...


----------



## aesop081 (27 Dec 2004)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Well, no worries, this will not stop them from squaring off, now and again, and holding joint, two sided live fire 'exercises' up on the Amur River.
> 
> China is Russia's worst nightmare.
> 
> Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch ...



Let's think about that for a sec....2 countries with nuclear weapons squaring off with each other......thats supposed to be a good thing ???


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (27 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Let's think about that for a sec....2 countries with nuclear weapons squaring off with each other......thats supposed to be a good thing ???



they arent fighting each other , and if they ever wanted to in the future, they definately would not hold co-operative wargames in which they would have direct access to their strategies and the way their armed forces operates.


what you should be more concerned about is the worlds next military superpower and one of the worlds former ones looking to hold onto a relevant place in world politics holding joint wargames against an OPFOR that uses NATO tactics. "joint wargames against an OPFOR that uses NATO tactics."


----------



## Spartan (27 Dec 2004)

> BBC News
> Russia and China plan war games
> 
> Ivanov has just returned from defence talks in China
> ...


Perhaps a more real reason for the exercises- Weapon sales.
and this last line I found incredibly interesting


> Mr Ivanov said that in 2005 Russia would also hold joint exercises with other former Soviet countries, Nato and, separately, with France.


Trying to play with everyone for what purpose?


----------



## Torlyn (27 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> what you should be more concerned about is the worlds next military superpower and one of the worlds former ones looking to hold onto a relevant place in world politics holding joint wargames against an OPFOR that uses NATO tactics. "joint wargames against an OPFOR that uses NATO tactics."



So why wouldn't they?  I mean, the Americans run war games with their allies, why shouldn't Russia and China?  I dunno, this doesn't seem to be that great a concern to me.  Can someone enlighten?

T


----------



## aesop081 (27 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> they arent fighting each other , and if they ever wanted to in the future, they definately would not hold co-operative wargames in which they would have direct access to their strategies and the way their armed forces operates.
> 
> 
> what you should be more concerned about is the worlds next military superpower and one of the worlds former ones looking to hold onto a relevant place in world politics holding joint wargames against an OPFOR that uses NATO tactics. "joint wargames against an OPFOR that uses NATO tactics."



I know ther are not fighting each other...I CAN READ !!   I was commenting on an earlier post...........China and russia have a long history of hostility towards each other.....i can only assume you know that.   This is not the first time as well that they hold some kind of military cooperation........


----------



## Storm (27 Dec 2004)

Symchyshyn said:
			
		

> Trying to play with everyone for what purpose?



How about make as many friends as possible, learn about the way others operate, and be able to operate either with or against as many different forces as possible? Seems they're just trying to keep options open, and training as militaries do. The west doesn't have a monopoly on joint training.

I don't see it as a big deal if their OPFOR is using NATO tactics. If there's a powerful alliance that you're not a part of, whether you're on good terms with it or not, it would be sheer negligence not to train against its tactics. It doesn't mean they're planning an invasion or anything, just training for "what if" scenarios.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (27 Dec 2004)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> So why wouldn't they? I mean, the Americans run war games with their allies, why shouldn't Russia and China? I dunno, this doesn't seem to be that great a concern to me. Can someone enlighten?
> 
> T



yeah we all have allies we practice wargames with, except the guys on the other end of the world are practicing on the idea of fighting AGAINST us, not with us.Considering China is quickly becoming the worlds biggest military powerhouse (its projected within the next decade that they will equal and surpass the United States in terms of military strength) this is not a comforting idea.

Who cares who china is playing wargames with... who ARENT they playing with?

The United States.


----------



## JBP (27 Dec 2004)

> yeah we all have allies we practice wargames with, except the guys on the other end of the world are practicing on the idea of fighting AGAINST us, not with us.Considering China is quickly becoming the worlds biggest military powerhouse (its projected within the next decade that they will equal and surpass the United States in terms of military strength) this is not a comforting idea.
> 
> Who cares who china is playing wargames with... who ARENT they playing with?
> 
> The United States.



Umm.. I'm not normally one to stick up for the US of A, but take a look at this simple fact and it'll scare you. Sure China will have a gigantic military in a decade or so, but would they really be able to support and feed all those troops and equipment?

Rank Country Military expenditures - dollar figure  Date of Information 
1 United States  $ 370,700,000,000  March 2003  
2 China  $ 60,000,000,000  2003 est.  
3 France  $ 45,238,100,000  2003  
4 United Kingdom  $ 42,836,500,000  2003  
5 Japan  $ 42,488,100,000  2003 

The USA spends the most money by FAR on military expenditures... A whole entire digit more. Try this website, quite abit of information...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

Anyway, my two cents. The USA will probably still have the best ass-kicking army a decade from now with the most high-tech toys and equipment and better trained troops.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Considering China is quickly becoming the worlds biggest military powerhouse (its projected within the next decade that they will equal and surpass the United States in terms of military strength) this is not a comforting idea.



I don't think so. Got any evidence to back that up? Their objective may be to dominate the region, but they don't have a farts chance in a windstorm of overtaking the USA in terms of force power. I would also think the second most powerful surface fleet in the world [Japan] might have something to say on the matter as well. Without Russia, China is thankfully isolated.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Dec 2004)

China is a major _regional_ power; soon â â€œ maybe as soon as a year â â€œ China will displace the USA as Japan's leading trading partner: that limits Japan's strategic options.

China and Russia are ancient and natural enemies.   China needs resources â â€œ huge amounts and soon; Eastern Siberia, just across the Amur River is a resource treasure house and has a bit of _lebensraum_, to boot.

China welcomes closer and closer ties with Russia â â€œ why not?   China has nothing to lose     ... Russia buys time.


----------



## pbi (27 Dec 2004)

Keeping in mind that this is just a single gesture, how long did we think it would be before there was a serious attempt to challenge the unipolar world concept? Neither the Russians nor the Chinese, I'm pretty sure, are enamoured of the idea of  playing second fiddle to the US. IMHO we should be careful of assumptions about China's military capabilities that are based on its economic situation today: IMHO that situation is changing, and as in any authoritarian state, a disproportionate amount of resources can be diverted to technology and military production as opposed to quality of life stuff. As for the past issues between the two powers (Amur-Ussuri, etc)  I woulod suggest that countries do not have to like each other (or even trust each other...) to team up: look at the USSR and Nazi Germany in the 1920s and 30s, or the USSR and the Western Allies in WWII. China may only be a regional power now, but that is the way all world powers begin. The world changes, and noone sits on top forever. Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2004)

Add another ingredient to the mix.  Chirac is desperate to get Europe to allow him to tranfer technology LEGALLY to China as part of his grand plan to counter the American cowboys.  Case in point is the Galileo counter-point to the American GPS system.  Europe and China are sponsors of the Galileo system already.

Based on track record in Iraq, what odds that Chirac hasn't already sold technology to China?  He is also very fond of Vladimir Putin.

What odds that Canada at some time might have to fish or cut bait and make a decision as to who our friends are for real?


----------



## JBP (27 Dec 2004)

> Add another ingredient to the mix.  Chirac is desperate to get Europe to allow him to tranfer technology LEGALLY to China as part of his grand plan to counter the American cowboys.  Case in point is the Galileo counter-point to the American GPS system.  Europe and China are sponsors of the Galileo system already.
> 
> Based on track record in Iraq, what odds that Chirac hasn't already sold technology to China?  He is also very fond of Vladimir Putin.
> 
> What odds that Canada at some time might have to fish or cut bait and make a decision as to who our friends are for real?




Hmm. Most frightening when you think about it. It's like everyone is slowing (or not so slowly) picking sides. No, more correctly, everyone has picked sides already almost and we're fence-sitting. It seems all is left is a few places to "draw the line in the sand" and see who steps over first...

I don't like the idea of West vs. East. Not good, only strategic way China could beat USA would be nuclear. Just like how when NATO was formed to defend against 20,000 Russian MBT's the only strategic defense was to nuke them too.... Ugly thoughts and points you bring up Kirkhill. 

If France is so agitated by the USA and that defiant and China and Russia already hate the USA, it seems inevitable that at some point some type of confrontation will commence. WW 3 for real?!? The Black Sea? Sea of Japan? All we need now is for Russia+China+North Korea to start having military training and then we'll all know what's going on! 

Even though I'm not a big fan of the USA, I can't deny they've been there for us when we needed them at points and times and haven't let us down that way. Whether it be transporting our troops or rescueing our civilians from Iraq (a thread on here some time ago). I don't see us choosing the "other" side...


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (27 Dec 2004)

The USA spends the most on its military, do you know how much a tomahawk missile costs?

china will have a huge military in a decade or so? they have a huge military NOW. Military service in china is mandatory if im not mistaken.Theyre communists and theyre govnernment could probobly whip up and conscript 100 million soldiers if they wanted to.The population of the country is 2 billion.

Chinas economy is getting better by the second, booming even, alot of the military equipment theyre getting/producing is state of the art.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Keeping in mind that this is just a single gesture, how long did we think it would be before there was a serious attempt to challenge the unipolar world concept? Neither the Russians nor the Chinese, I'm pretty sure, are enamoured of the idea of playing second fiddle to the US. IMHO we should be careful of assumptions about China's military capabilities that are based on its economic situation today: IMHO that situation is changing, and as in any authoritarian state, a disproportionate amount of resources can be diverted to technology and military production as opposed to quality of life stuff. As for the past issues between the two powers (Amur-Ussuri, etc) I woulod suggest that countries do not have to like each other (or even trust each other...) to team up: look at the USSR and Nazi Germany in the 1920s and 30s, or the USSR and the Western Allies in WWII. China may only be a regional power now, but that is the way all world powers begin. The world changes, and noone sits on top forever. Cheers.



exactly.China has been a country for like, what, 2000 years? to the united states' few hundred? their society and culture is leaps and bounds stronger and more unified than ours or the americans.Theyre an ambitious and hard working people, and theyve been steadily increasing their military and economic power and if I didnt know better, it would seem to me theyre looking to take the crown of world superpower for themselves.Like this guy said, they arnet going to play second fiddle to the united states forever, and i dont see why the idea of the united states being overthrown as the biggest superpower in the world is unbeleivable.The United States is losing alot of its influences over other countries due to some of the unpopular foreign policy choices theyre making.Not to mention Bush has put the country more in debt than you would beleive, and he still has years to make it worse, all the while the Chinese are more quickly building and constructing and taking their vitamins so to speak.

Somebody said about how the chinese would pay to feed and clothe their troops, it would be just as difficult, or less difficult than it would be for the united states.China has a hell of a lot more taxpayers than the americans do.Plus theres that whole communist government we can do whatever we want thing going on =p

IMO, in reality, the united states would NOT defeat China in war, for the main reason that, the strength and unity of their society far outdoes ours or the americans.The americans have sufferred 1500 dead and 7000 wounded in iraq, and alot of the country wants them to pull out.Thats without seeing the bodies coming home on tv, since thats kindof a downer .


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Dec 2004)

Even though I'm not a big fan of the USA, I can't deny they've been there for us when we needed them at points and times and haven't let us down that way. Whether it be transporting our troops or rescueing our civilians from Iraq (a thread on here some time ago). I don't see us choosing the "other" side...

how much do you think they would do for us if we werent their biggest trading partner.The American government is about making money and imperialsm and militarization.If we suddenly became a poor, resourcless third world nation overnight, do you think they would help us out just cause we're 'friends' ? Not a chance.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Dec 2004)

WINGNUT ALERT......WINGNUT ALERT


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Dec 2004)

:

I love the inabilty to consider someone else's point of view around here, its so refreshing.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Dec 2004)

I wish I had the time to go through all the holes in your "viewpoint" but I have to go on duty, I'm sure one of the historians will do it in my absence.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Dec 2004)

But you do have time to call people wingnuts and then act as if you cant be bothered.Hilarious.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

A point of view is one thing. Your constant US bashing in almost every post, and context, is what's gotten stale. We know how you feel, no need to beat us over the head with it everytime you switch on your computer. You lose credibility and we stop reading your posts. Shame, we've probably missed some good stuff from you I'll bet.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

You couldn't take the hint last time you got drubbed off a thread.

More to follow, over....


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> The USA spends the most on its military, do you know how much a tomahawk missile costs?



In relative or absolute terms?

Did you ever stop to consider that America can afford its defence budget because it is underwritten by a system that ensures that most of its citizens have an acceptable standard of living?



> china will have a huge military in a decade or so? they have a huge military NOW. Military service in china is mandatory if im not mistaken.Theyre communists and theyre govnernment could probobly whip up and conscript 100 million soldiers if they wanted to.The population of the country is 2 billion.



Don't mistake absolute numbers with quality (or an ability to sustain it).



> Chinas economy is getting better by the second, booming even, alot of the military equipment theyre getting/producing is state of the art.



If you'd bother to look, you'll see that many aspects of China's economy are mythical.   Party nepotism has ensured that vertical political links supplant stronger horizontal economic ones.   Combined with the fact that a good percentage of the key industries in China are wholly owned foreign assets, it gets hard to believe that China's economy is a unbeatable leviathan that could stand "rocking" the international boat.   See the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs for more.



> exactly.China has been a country for like, what, 2000 years? to the united states' few hundred? their society and culture is leaps and bounds stronger and more unified than ours or the americans.



Generalizations.   Tiananmen seems to refute your theory of a cultural (and thus political) monolith.

Iraq has been a civilized society for over 4,000 years and look at how it's doing.



> Theyre an ambitious and hard working people, and theyve been steadily increasing their military and economic power and if I didnt know better, it would seem to me theyre looking to take the crown of world superpower for themselves.



...and the countries of the West aren't?



> Like this guy said, they arnet going to play second fiddle to the united states forever, and i dont see why the idea of the united states being overthrown as the biggest superpower in the world is unbeleivable.The United States is losing alot of its influences over other countries due to some of the unpopular foreign policy choices theyre making.Not to mention Bush has put the country more in debt than you would beleive, and he still has years to make it worse, all the while the Chinese are more quickly building and constructing and taking their vitamins so to speak.



Again, some pretty broad generalizations that don't really seem to be backed up by facts.



> Somebody said about how the chinese would pay to feed and clothe their troops, it would be just as difficult, or less difficult than it would be for the united states.China has a hell of a lot more taxpayers than the americans do.Plus theres that whole communist government we can do whatever we want thing going on =p



This statement represents a clear lack of understanding the fact that:

A) Taxes collected from peasent farmers can't support armoured divisions while those of white-collar investment bankers can.

B) There us an increasing complexity of supporting Information Age forces (it will not be a matter of lurching over the Yalu again).

C)   There is an entire array of sub-state groups that are opposed to the Central Party.   From religious groups to Western peoples who don't like to be tagged as "Chinese" to young democrats to capitalists in Hong Kong to that little thing called Taiwan.   The government may have much more leeway in what it can get away with, but I'd hardly suggest that it can do whatever it wants.   The only thing harder then governing one billion people is pacifying half a billion dissendents



> IMO, in reality, the united states would NOT defeat China in war, for the main reason that, the strength and unity of their society far outdoes ours or the americans.The americans have sufferred 1500 dead and 7000 wounded in iraq, and alot of the country wants them to pull out.Thats without seeing the bodies coming home on tv, since thats kindof a downer .



Considering the fact that the PLA is largely an industrial-age force and is focused upon territorial defence while air and naval forces are relatively minor, backed by the fact that China is saddled with a polyglot society that is disgruntled with the Central Party at the best of times, I think your baseless assessment of the geopolitical situation has no merit.   Better try harder to convince us next time, Kissinger.


----------



## pbi (28 Dec 2004)

Good points, Infanteer, and I also question some of jmackenzie's assertions, but I wonder that perhaps an "evil synergy" of some kind might not be worked out between Russia and China, that could with time offset some of the weaknesses we currently identify in both. The raw potential exists, and there is certainly no shortage of intellectual power or scientific tradition in either country. This may not occur overnight (OK-well.....it won't...) but I do not see it as so far fetched. Even less incredible than a world-dominating Chinese axis of power would be a real and potentially dangerous regional challenge mounted by the two states against the US. Cheers


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Dec 2004)

I'm back, thank you Infanteer.
Now I don't want to hijack this thread but little "J" there touched a nerve with his baseless, useless ranting.
Quote,
how much do you think they would do for us if we werent their biggest trading partner.The American government is about making money and imperialsm and militarization.If we suddenly became a poor, resourcless third world nation overnight, do you think they would help us out just cause we're 'friends' ? Not a chance.

Lets see, as I recall from the CBC news on the way in the US is sending 15 million dollars right now for the tsunia victims and promising to help in anyway possible when the need is determined.Good thing none of those countries affected are oops,.....poor, resourcless third world nations. :


----------



## JBP (28 Dec 2004)

LOL!!!...

And I quote from Saving Private Ryan: "Careful you don't step in the bullsh*t!"....

That is directed at the whole conversation really.  



> I'm back, thank you Infanteer.
> Now I don't want to hijack this thread but little "J" there touched a nerve with his baseless, useless ranting.
> Quote,
> how much do you think they would do for us if we werent their biggest trading partner.The American government is about making money and imperialsm and militarization.If we suddenly became a poor, resourcless third world nation overnight, do you think they would help us out just cause we're 'friends' ? Not a chance.
> ...



Very good point indeed. Although many "lefties" and "bleeding heart softies" would be quick to say that the USA is doing such because it's an easy way for them to gain international recognition/merits against all the anti-americanism across the globe at the moment. 

???

On the other hand, the USA knows what it's like to loose MANY of thier own (gee, 9/11 anyone?) so I myself believe they have experienced the horror themselves and know they have the ability to give a decent helping hand and want to. Everyone in the world also knows this is tragic and a huge loss of human life. Any nation whose leaders have an ounce of humanity would do what they could to help out... 

Just pointing out views.


If China and Russia eventually teamed up against the USA, it would be a deadly engagement regardless for both sides. There was a thread on N.Korea where everyone except 1 guy thought it'd be a blood-bath+Vietnam all over again if they went to war with N.Korea. But the 1 guy had some very good points about the quality of Kim's (N.Korea) soldiers. Also how long they'd last before supply lines were cutoff and they were starved. Moral dries up pretty quick with no food or bullets in a war. I think this training excercise can be viewed as a "warming up" of relations between the two Nations, or at least thier attempt at comming close together. Simply that. Co-operation.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Even less incredible than a world-dominating Chinese axis of power would be a real and potentially dangerous regional challenge mounted by the two states against the US. Cheers



That would lead to a stranglehold on Mackinder's geopolitical "Heartland", seeing the replacement of Eastern Europe with a Siberia/China.   Wierder things have been known to happen - that's why politics is so fun: 

_"A victorious Roman general, when he entered the city, amid all the head-turning splendor of a `Triumph,' had behind him on the chariot a slave who whispered into his ear that he was mortal. When our statesmen are in conversation with the defeated enemy, some airy cherub should whisper to them from time to time this saying: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World."

Sir Halford Mackinder, 1919_


----------



## Bert (28 Dec 2004)

Events after WW2 placed the west, Russia, and China on different paths
but they achieved a stable undertanding that is maintained to this day.
Going into the 21st century, politics follows economics and it would be in
no ones' interest to push the envelop of war or extended conflict.  Putin
and Hu Jintao want to pull their respective countries out of the
economic dregs.  Conflict with the US or the US and the EU would
counteract any economic benefit and lead to destabilization.

As what the US has done, what the EU is doing, Russia and China
want to engage the US, reap economic benefits, and feel themelves
as equals.  Yet, the US has maintains a superior economy, 
communication systems, and an advanced military able to project 
power anywhere.  Since Russia and China lack the economic and
technological edge, they will attempt to manipulate the US to
their own end and the US will act to manipulate the world to
their end and thats how the game is played.

As what befell Europe, things change, the French and British
Empire degraded, the Ottomans left a legacy, as did Rome
and everything before them.  Today, China is developing
rapidly and affecting its neigbhors. Russia is feeling the pain
of economic reform and a centre of future European
energy supply.  The US is watching various events and trying to
figure out how to manage regions of the world in order keep
its dominant edge.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Dec 2004)

The potential for yet another European _realignment_ cannot be ignored: France, once again, looks East to offset the power of _perfidious Albion_ and her horrid step-child, the USA in the hands of Texas neo-cons.

France may, yet again, find common cause with Russia but not, I think, with China.

For the moment â â€œ and I must emphasize it is just a _moment_ and may pass unnoticed â â€œ Russia and China seem to be moving in opposite directions.   Russia is drifting, under Putin, back towards comfortable (some would say _natural_) authoritarianism while China is experimenting with economic and social (but *not* political)   _classic_ (19th century English) _liberalism_.

_(As an aside, and representing a personal view, I see the last 50 years as a continuance of the Qing dynasty, but this time with the Han in firm control.   I think Mao, but, especially, Zhou Enlai, wanted to re-establish what they saw as a _comfortable_ or _natural_ system of government for China â â€œ a self sustaining oligarchy supported by a new, improved _mandarinate_.   The Party may have been communistic in the '30s, '40s and even '50s but, despite a few spasms â â€œ including the Cultural Revolution, it has reverted to _imperial_ type, except that the _mandate_ now comes (and is renewed and revised) from inside the Party rather than from _heaven_ (the ancestors, in reality).)_

China has been preoccupied with China since 1433.   I can see no reason to expect any change in that aspect of China's _social_ history. For many Chinese the physical world is, still, divided into two parts: China and the barbarians.   The Chinese may want what the barbarians have (some of them *believe* they are entitled to what the barbarians have â â€œ as a _natural_ (divinely ordained) right) but, at the all important _social_ level they, like 19th century Canadian Tories, want _â ?no truck or tradeâ ?_ with the foreign devils.   Some Chinese *believe* that everything that ever was Chinese is, now and always, Chinese. (Well, they want the trade and the money, but they want minimal 'contact' and *no* interference â â€œ as defined by the Chinese, themselves.)

(It is possible to have a calm discussion with a well educated, thoroughly Westernized Chinese on the topic: _Do the Mongol conquests, before the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368) 'count' as Chinese?_   If the answer is â Å“yes,â ? then the Western edge of China's legitimate territories is near Budapest â â€œ where Subedei ended up.   Of course the conversation ends in good natured chuckles but it is, usually, picked up again with a somewhat different, more serious question: _Did not the Russians, under Nevsky (a real person, by the way) concede *sovereignty* of everything East of the Urals to the Monglos?_   The answer appears to be that Nevsky 'saw' Russia as a strip of land stretching from the Crimea to the Gulf of Finland.   His father had, formally, submitted, to the   Mongols and he, Alexander Nevsky (from his base in Ukraine), supported the Mongols when his younger brother (Andrew, in Vladimir) rose against the Mongols.   Alexander Nevsky allowed the Mongols to conduct a census and collect taxes in Russia and he governed, essentially, as a vassal â â€œ concerned, primarily, with his Western enemies, not his Mongol overlords. That being the case, says the educated, Westernized Chinese person: _â Å“Didn't Mongol sovereignty extend into the Yuan and, therefore, become Chinese sovereignty over all of Siberia?â ?   If yes, then China still has a legitimate claim over all of Siberia; Europe ends at the Urals, from then on it is Asia and Asia 'belongs' to China.   Russia be damned, along with its ambitions._)

I think the Chinese are mischief making while America is preoccupied with a sideshow in the Middle East.   I am appalled at the dearth of comment on the just released Chinese White Paper on Defence, which is quite provocative.   (See:   http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/whitepaper/defense2004/defense2004.html ).   With a respect to those who are embroiled in Iraq, etc, this is a big deal, the main event.   After noting that East Asia is, essentially, stable, the White Paper says:



> Meanwhile, complicated security factors in the Asia-Pacific region are on the increase. The United States is realigning and reinforcing its military presence in this region by buttressing military alliances and accelerating deployment of missile defense systems. Japan is stepping up its constitutional overhaul, adjusting its military and security policies and developing the missile defense system for future deployment. It has also markedly increased military activities abroad. The foundation for the Six-Party Talks is not solid enough as uncertain factors linger in the settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. The threat posed by terrorism, separatism and extremism is still grave. Such transnational crimes as smuggling, piracy, drug trafficking and money laundering are rampant. Many countries are confronted with the formidable task of eliminating poverty, achieving sustainable development and enhancing security in the area of public health.
> 
> The situation in the relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits is grim. The Taiwan authorities under Chen Shui-bian have recklessly challenged the status quo that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China, and markedly escalated the "Taiwan independence" activities designed to split China. Incessantly trumpeting their separatist claim of "one country on each side," they use referendum to engage in the separatist activities aimed at "Taiwan independence," incite hostility among the people on the island toward the mainland, and purchase large amounts of offensive weapons and equipment. They have not given up their attempt at "Taiwan independence" through the formulation of a so-called "new constitution for Taiwan." They are still waiting for the opportune moment to engineer a major "Taiwan independence" incident through the so-called "constitutional reform." The separatist activities of the "Taiwan independence" forces have increasingly become the biggest immediate threat to China's sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as peace and stability on both sides of the Taiwan Straits and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. The United States has on many occasions reaffirmed adherence to the one China policy, observance of the three joint communiqu ¡ §|s and opposition to "Taiwan independence." However, it continues to increase, quantitatively and qualitatively, its arms sales to Taiwan, sending a wrong signal to the Taiwan authorities. The US action does not serve a stable situation across the Taiwan Straits.
> 
> China's national security environment in this pluralistic, diversified and interdependent world has on the whole improved, but new challenges keep cropping up. The vicious rise of the "Taiwan independence" forces, the technological gap resulting from RMA, the risks and challenges caused by the development of the trends toward economic globalization, and the prolonged existence of unipolarity vis-a-vis multipolarity - all these will have a major impact on China's security. Nevertheless, China is determined to safeguard its national sovereignty and security, no matter how the international situation may evolve, and what difficulties it may encounter, so as to join hands with the people around the world in advancing the lofty cause of peace and development for mankind.



Under the heading â Å“IX. International Security Cooperationâ ? the White paper goes on to say:



> Adhering to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, China persists in developing friendly relations and strengthening cooperation with other countries on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, and devotes itself to promoting international security dialogues and cooperation of all forms.
> 
> *Strategic Consultation and Dialogue*
> 
> ...



I personally, think China-Pakistan is a more worrisome _alliance_ than China-Russia because it threatens the _independence_ (such as it is) of the Central Asian 'stans' â â€œ another of the many worries for the Russians.

American and Western foreign policies need to get the world back into long range focus; when that is done it is clear that the current _unipolar_ interregnum will end sometime in the first half of the 21st century â â€œ say 2025, just for the sake of argument* â â€œ and China will take its place as the *dominant* Asian power, fully supplanting the USA, and as a _global_ superpower in its own right.   China's strength will be exaggerated by the precipitous *real* decline in European and Japanese power   and the consequential _*apparent*_ decline in American power.   I have written elsewhere (DFAIT) that:



> We must appreciate that, within the normal planning time frame, the existing interregnum where one "hyper-power" dominates the world will end. We will return to a more normal bipolar situation: China will join the USA as a global superpower. We need to belong to multilateral groups which engage and contain China.
> 
> Canada's vital interests might be described, in shorthand, as peace and prosperity. Neither is advanced if China and America become enemies - each dragging its friends and neighbours into armed camps. But, there will be "camps" - comprising or within various multilateral institutions.
> 
> Canada needs to play a leading role in convincing America and our traditional allies that we must engage China as a competitor, perhaps as an antagonistic competitor, but not as an enemy. If enmity and war must follow then it must be at China's initiative.



There is no good reason for China and the West to fight a war in Asia any time within the next half century, maybe more.   China should be, can be _contained_; just a Kennan correctly advocated, in 1947, the _containment_ of Russia and a restoration of a useful _balance of power_.   (See: http://www.cfr.org/about/grosse06.php and http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html ).

While I see China as *our* (the American led West) most important _competitor_ for the next century, I do not see a temporary Sino-Russian military _rapprochement_ as anything other than an expedient measure aimed, primarily, at discomfiting the USA in the immediate term.   China plans to benefit â â€œ the Chinese government is not a charitable institution and it pursues and protects its own vital interests with skill and diligence â â€œ but it has bigger fish to fry.

----------

* 20 years is 'shorter' now than it was when Germany moved from ruin to modern, potent industrial state in 1945-1965.   China is 'starting' from a good position and will [i[develop[/i] very, very quickly.


----------



## SHARP WO (28 Dec 2004)

I just want to point out a few inconsistancies that I have noticed from some of the posts on this subject.

Theyre communists and theyre govnernment could probobly whip up and conscript 100 million soldiers if they wanted to.The population of the country is 2 billion

While the Chinese government is communist, the rest of China is following the Western view of a capitalist nation.

Many companies are now owned by western nations is incorrect, in order to have a business in China, you need to have a Chinese business partner.

The last point is that the Chinese people do pay tax, around 15-20% and over a year for the 1.3 billion people, that is a lot of money.

Sharp WO


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

ROJ, interesting analysis.   It'll take me a while to digest, but one point immediately jumped out:



			
				Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> There is no good reason for China and the West to fight a war in Asia any time within the next half century, maybe more.   China should be, can be _contained_; just a Kennan correctly advocated, in 1947, the _containment_ of Russia and a restoration of a useful _balance of power_.   (See: http://www.cfr.org/about/grosse06.php and http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html ).



Do you think a Kennan-esque policy of "Containment" is possible?   Kennan predicated his entire proposal on the fact that "The Soviet Union contained the seeds of its own demise" (quoting from memory)- containment would work because we could sit back and watch the Soviet Union fall apart.

Do we have that strategic choice with China?   A much more robust socio-economic system might make it untenable.



			
				SHARP WO said:
			
		

> Many companies are now owned by western nations is incorrect, in order to have a business in China, you need to have a Chinese business partner.



From the _Customs General Administration_ of the People's Republic of China (2003):

Industrial Machinery Exports: $83 billion (of which 62% was by Wholly Owned Foreign Enterprise)

Computers, Components, and Peripherals Exports: $41 billion (75% by WOFE)

Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment Exports:: $89 billion (43% by WOFE)

The companies you refer to - Joint Ventures - compose the second largest chunk in all these stats to the point where _strictly domestic industry, whether Private or State Owned, never composes more then 25% of the market of these major industrial and information age economic sectors._

These numbers are taken from George J Gilboy, _The Myth Behind China's Miracle_: Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug 2004; pg39.

The article points out that these difficulties are further exacerbated by the fact that the political landscape of the PRC makes essential, horizontal economic "nodes", which the liberal democratic order functions through, impossible.   Instead, foreign companies keep the politicians happy and look away from China while the domestic industries focus all their energies into building "vertical nodes" with local party officials - ties which are useless in a globalized and competitive economy.

The implications are obvious - the Chinese economy is not some Monolith that can simply shrug off Western engagement in an effort to push a more aggressive foreign policy - much of what they run off of may just dry up if the situation become unstable. Those who point to the preponderance of the Chinese economic boogie-man need to pay attention to the finer points.



> The last point is that the Chinese people do pay tax, around 15-20% and over a year for the 1.3 billion people, that is a lot of money.



Sure, but is this tax-money used efficiently?   I am not saying the Pentagon is the poster-boy for efficiency (far from it), but I'd venture that factors of the US economy and US society provides a much more robust and flexible Defence Industrial Base then China.


----------



## pbi (28 Dec 2004)

> 20 years is 'shorter' now than it was when Germany moved from ruin to modern, potent industrial state in 1945-1965.  China is 'starting' from a good position and will [i[develop[/i] very, very quickly.



My thoughts exactly. The idea, put about by people like Ralph Peters, that "nobody will ever catch up to the US" is IMHO just so mch hubris. There is no limit on intellectual ability. Cheers.


----------



## devil39 (29 Dec 2004)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> I personally, think China-Pakistan is a more worrisome _alliance_ than China-Russia because it threatens the _independence_ (such as it is) of the Central Asian 'stans' â â€œ another of the many worries for the Russians.



China-Pakistan is a more worrisome alliance in the opinion of India I would suggest too.   Could therefore be considered a greater concern than the independence of the central Asian "stans" for us as well.   I would be more concerned with a China-Pakistan-India conflict, than anything arising out of a China-Russia alliance.

Interesting reading Thomas P.M. Barnett, who claims that the Pentagon's search for a "near peer" competitor in China is purely wishful thinking by those who would like to go back to the days of big budget weapons acquisitions, and who would like to maintain the status quo within the US military.   He argues that a globalized, connected and economically integrated China will not go to war with the US or the rest of the "West" for that matter.

The Taiwan issue is going to require some resolution, as the current stances, as expressed by China and the US, and dependent on the whim of Taiwan, are not really acceptable.


----------



## JBP (29 Dec 2004)

> The USA spends the most on its military, do you know how much a tomahawk missile costs?



Yeah, actually I do, here is some facts, yes FACTS from the United States Navy Fact File:

General Characteristics


Primary Function: long-range subsonic cruise missile for striking high value or heavily defended land targets.
Contractor: Raytheon Systems Company, Tucson, Ariz.
Unit Cost: approximately *$569,000* (FY99 $)
Power Plant: 
Block II/III TLAM-A, C & D - Williams International F107 cruise turbo-fan engine ; ARC/CSD solid-fuel booster
Block IV TLAM-E - Williams International F415 cruise turbo-jet engine ; ARC solid-fuel booster
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Range: 
Block II TLAM-A â â€œ 1350 nautical miles (1500 statute miles, 2500 km)
Block III TLAM-C - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Block III TLAM-D - 700 nautical miles (800 statute miles, 1250 km)
Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Guidance System: 
Block II TLAM-A â â€œ INS, TERCOM
Block III TLAM-C, D & Block IV TLAM-E â â€œ INS, TERCOM, DSMAC, and GPS
Warheads: Block II TLAM-N â â€œ W80 nuclear warhead
Block III TLAM-C and Block IV TLAM-E - 1,000 pound class unitary warhead
Block III TLAM-D - conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets.
Date Deployed: Block II TLAM-A IOC - 1984
Block III â â€œ IOC 1994
Block IV â â€œ IOC expected 2004 

So basically it's half a mil for your basic cruise missle. When they first came out they used to be about 1 million. Your point would be??? Munitions of any kind, especially advanced weapons platforms are very expensive and China has advanced weaponry now days also. Even a Pheonix long range air-to-air missle that the US uses on F-14 Tomcats cost about as much as a Rolls Royce or Mercedes Benz... And the jet can carry 4 at a time!!!
 :
In other words, regardless the USA spends MUCH more than any nation even though they have the most expensive and state of the art weapons systems and military...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2004)

China is attempting to preemptively end run any possible "containment" strategy by the West or India by teaming up with as many "partners" as possible. 

In the 20th century this would have worked, but it is a tenuous and unstable policy at best (think of the Hitler-Stalin deals both during the rise of the Third Reich and in the early years of WW II), and assumes the United States can only achieve "containment" by surrounding China with hostile or at least pro US nations. 

I think the 21rst century will see the Americans running a hugely sophisticated "4GW" operation instead which nudges at Chinese economics, politics and culture enough to keep them off balance and allow the United States to continue to accrue the compound economic growth which will cause it to accelerate away from its rivals. If it does come to blows, the Chinese will find their investment in a 3 million man mechanized army trumped by a more flexible, agile and lethal "networked" force, schooled in waging war from PSO's and counter insergency all the way to massive armoured thrusts, and one with a global reach. This is not to say that an actual shooting war with China would be a cakewalk, or anything less than a disaster, but China is attempting to gain global pre eminence using "tried and true" methods in a new environment: dinosaurs fighting against mammals!


> Interesting reading Thomas P.M. Barnett, who claims that the Pentagon's search for a "near peer" competitor in China is purely wishful thinking by those who would like to go back to the days of big budget weapons acquisitions, and who would like to maintain the status quo within the US military.  He argues that a globalized, connected and economically integrated China will not go to war with the US or the rest of the "West" for that matter.



In the years prior to WW I, Europe and the world were economically connected in ways that were only rebuilt in the 1990s. Many rational people confidently predicted the tight economic webs would prevent the outbreak of future wars, but in August 1914, they were tragically proven wrong.


----------



## devil39 (30 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> > Interesting reading Thomas P.M. Barnett, who claims that the Pentagon's search for a "near peer" competitor in China is purely wishful thinking by those who would like to go back to the days of big budget weapons acquisitions, and who would like to maintain the status quo within the US military.   He argues that a globalized, connected and economically integrated China will not go to war with the US or the rest of the "West" for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> In the years prior to WW I, Europe and the world were economically connected in ways that were only rebuilt in the 1990s. Many rational people confidently predicted the tight economic webs would prevent the outbreak of future wars, but in August 1914, they were tragically proven wrong.





Barnett's argument on this subject is that China will be tied to the West as a result of what will be their insatiable appetite for energy, and the Foreign Direct Investment that will be required to pull that off.   There will be a significant cash delta from the funds the Chinese will be able to raise internally or from their most important trading partner, Japan.   That delta of cash resides on Wall Street or in the EU.

Barnett talks around the subject of Globalization I (1870-1914), and touches on the subsequent failure and deconstruction of the interconnectedness that occurred Post WWI and up until Globalization II (1945-1980).   The impression I am left with is that the difference between WWI and today (Globalization III) is a matter of scale, of institutional robustness (IMF, World Bank) and the development and refining of rulesets to regulate the flow of capital, people, energy and security.

I find Barnett's arguments very seductive and appealing, but I can't say that I have completely bought into them.   

I also have a very limited patience for economics and economic history unfortunately, and therefore I find myself lacking the will or the knowledge to prove Barnett wrong.   Must have been the course on Soviet economic history I took in university that soured me.   Needless to say, after reading Barnett The Pentagon's New Map and Fergusons Collosus, I am done wrt to (even relatively lightweight) economic theory for another couple of months yet.

If anyone can post or direct me to an argument disproving Barnett in 2000 words or less I will be very interested to read it.   Ok, don't worry about the length unless it is a book!


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2004)

Infanteer asked a question which I have been ducking while I tried to frame and answer based on something better than my personal impressions and which does not come across as overtly _racist._



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> ROJ, interesting analysis.   It'll take me a while to digest, but one point immediately jumped out:
> 
> Do you think a Kennan-esque policy of "Containment" is possible?   Kennan predicated his entire proposal on the fact that "The Soviet Union contained the seeds of its own demise" (quoting from memory)- containment would work because we could sit back and watch the Soviet Union fall apart.



Here goes:

"¢	I agree that Kennan's _containment_ model counted on the USSR being unable to make _soviet communism_ work; but

"¢	I *believe* that -

o	As I said earlier, China *was communistic* but it has reverted (maybe is still in the process of reverting) to a more familiar system of government - an oligarchy supported by a skilled _mandarinate_.   That being said, China and the Chinese people - including the _overseas Chinese_, has a very strong sense of _community_,

o	Chinese _culture_ has developed, over the millennia, a sense of insularity which will make it _naturally_ resistant to too much _intercourse_ with foreigners - and war is the most intimate form of intercourse between nations.

I think we need to understand the Chinese people a bit better.     This is the most hierarchical of all the great, modern societies or cultures.   Consider, only, language.   Every Chinese person, as they acquire their _milk tongue_ (the language learned at one's mother's breast), *learns* that every person has a place - there are distinct, separate words for elder and younger brother, different ones for elder and younger sister, elder auntie and so on and so forth.   As they grow older they learn that words used as titles have values: elder _outranks_ younger; teacher _outranks_ rich businessman which, in turn, _outranks_ soldier, even general, and so on.   Elder professor is a _couplet_ which has enormous stature. There are, also, many, many (mostly pejorative) words and phrases to describe foreigners, foreign countries and foreign ideas; this _reflects_ a well defined sense of insularity, sometimes verging on xenophobia.   Language both drives _culture_ and then reflects it back on society, at large.   _Culture_ drives politics: both polity and policy.   The hierarchical and insular nature of China's culture means that a relatively small number of (generally well educated, thoughtful) people can _steer_ a huge country- on most important issues there is no _split_ in China such as we see in the USA, today, or in Europe or Canada, for that matter.   People like Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were able to wield enormous power and, even more important, _indirect *influence *_ because they controlled *and taught* the new, improved, modern _mandarinate_.

(I have a friend, a brilliant mathematician and professor in a major Chinese university.   She is, year after year, invited (and very well paid) to give seminars to post-doctoral fellows at major universities in Asia, Europe and North America.   She longs for the day when she (only 38 years old, now!) will have grey hair and will be _*elder*_ scholar, not just "Honoured Professor Xiao.â ? (See: I edited out Prof. Xiao's home page because it contained her e-mail address and I though I might be compromising her privacy )

(It is important to understand that academic standards in China are very, very high.   The competition to enter a tiny handful of the best universities is astonishing - these (Peking University, for example) schools probably have 'better' entrants who undertake 'harder' studies than Harvard, Yale, MIT or Cambridge - Caltech _*might*_ be in the same league, it, like Peking, is mainly, a 'school' for PhD candidates.)

All that to say that I think Chinese society has, within itself, the _seeds of it own survival_.   The Chinese don't care, quite simply don't care if we are rich and have a liberal-democratic society.   They want to be rich, too, but they will _take_ whatever they *need* from us and ignore the rest - e.g. democracy.   They have copied many of our institutions - people like Anson Chan (see: http://www.proudfootconsulting.com/advisor_bio_achan.asp ) worked assiduously, behind the scenes, to reform China's banking and securities laws and regulations to allow a relatively businesslike and 'fair' regime which would attract foreign capital, working capital - rather than just tied investments in joint ventures.   But, despite her own, personal views, Chan never promoted anything like British style liberal-democracy - apparently considering it ill-suited to 21st century China.

I believe the Chinese are bent on _sharing_ the world with an American led West for a century or so (the Chinese _think_ in centuries) ... dominating the _East_, completely, and being able to buy and sell *advantageously* with whomever.   Conquest, as we understand it, has no advantage for China - they want a degree of _submission_ without the bother (and danger) of too much interaction.   China and the Chinese are nationalistic, chauvinistic, ambitious, communitarian, hard working and animated by _family values_.   They are a formidable people, thankfully it is a conservative, hierarchical, tradition-bound society which fears war - not for death and destruction but for too much 'contact' with the enemy.

As to Infanteer's second question: I believe we always have _strategic_ choices ... until we - like Blum, Chamberlain, Daladier, MacDonald, Roosevelt, Stalin_ et al_ - *dither* our way out of options (ÃƒÂ  la Paul Martin in 2004).


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2004)

Further to the above, everything China does is cause for some concern.   See e.g. today's _Globe and Mail_ (ROB) at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041230.wxchina1230/BNStory/Business/



> China's oil sands role tests U.S.
> Balancing open markets, secure supply
> 
> By DAVE EBNER
> ...



I offer this to highlight my earlier comment about China's great hunger for resources.   That, *not ideology* or even a centuries old antipathy towards Russia, will drive China in the 21st century.   Look in a modern atlas â â€œ see the resource base in Siberia, _Asian Siberia_, East of the Urals and, especially, East of the Yenisey River.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Dec 2004)

devil39 said:
			
		

> If anyone can post or direct me to an argument disproving Barnett in 2000 words or less I will be very interested to read it.  Ok, don't worry about the length unless it is a book!



History of the Peloponnesian War (Penguin Classics) by Thucydides, Rex Warner
# Paperback: 464 pages
# Publisher: Penguin Books; Reprint edition (September 1, 1954)
# ISBN: 0140440399

Sorry, it is a book


----------



## devil39 (30 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> History of the Peloponnesian War (Penguin Classics) by Thucydides, Rex Warner
> # Paperback: 464 pages
> # Publisher: Penguin Books; Reprint edition (September 1, 1954)
> # ISBN: 0140440399
> ...




OK.   Disproving Barnett's _economic theories_.   Must first have read Barnett though!     >

Thucydides will not quite cut it, but worth the read, regardless.


----------



## edadian (19 Aug 2005)

Interesting development on the BBC. 10 000 troops in a combined arms excercise near Vladivostok and the Shandong peninsula

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4162054.stm

It looks like the tensions between the two is gone. Wonder what this means for Canada?


----------



## Jascar (19 Aug 2005)

edadian said:
			
		

> Wonder what this means for Canada?



What does Canada have to do with it?


----------



## tig3r (19 Aug 2005)

thats a very interesting article. i was quite surprised that such large countries, both with military might can get along and run a military exercise such as this. I see it as definitely a statement to the US, something that is going to bother those in the US administration. i wonder whats next in asia...India and Pakistan running a joint military exercise?? who knows...


----------



## Jascar (19 Aug 2005)

The joint exercises by China and Russia are clearly nothing more than a message. Both nations have said that they don't like the single-superpower reality of today's world,  so now they're trying to flex a little muscle. It doesn't mean that they've put aside centuries of rivalry or that we can expect a Russian/Chinese invasion of our coasts any time soon.

I doubt the US is worried about this. They realize this is merely a show, plus they get the chance to look at the Chinese air force's ability to work with ground troops, Chinese technology, China's ability (or inability) to move large numbers of troops, and China's ability to work with Russia. The militaries of both of these nations are known to be in quite a sad state. You can bet that the Americans will be monitoring every bit of this exercise and it could turn out to be the comedy of the year.


----------



## edadian (19 Aug 2005)

We can just chalk this up to the new world order counter balancing American hegemony. The United States is the sick man of Earth, the daily business reports show that. Massive job cuts at Chrysler the other day and recently GM combined with the huge deficit and debt run up by the 'fiscally responsible' Republicans. 

Latest figures show the US military spends equal to what all other militaries spend and yet is still having trouble with equipment and troop rotations. The US Army can't get its recruitment targets and doesn't have enough troops to deploy if another conflict arrises. The constant interferance from Rumsfeld and his chronies isn't helping matters. The other day Nova had a look at the Stryker Brigades and concluded a very low tech force could defeat them. A former US Marine General proved it when he came back to run the excercise.

As for the US being there for us in a crisis I doubt it. If were serious allies why are they hurting our economy on the agricultural and soft wood lumber fronts. We signed a security agreement with them in 1926 and they sold weapons to our enemies from 1939-1941. 

It is time for Canada to be more global. The modern world the US represents died with the Soviet Union this is now the Post-Modern world (for those who need labels). I'm not saying cut ties with the US but it can't be our only or most important option. Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil and others are moving faster and redrawing the maps of the world. Canada can join in and be a player or cushion Americas fall.


----------



## Blue Max (19 Aug 2005)

I am not sure where I read this now, but the article mentioned that analyst believed that this joint Russian - Chinese exercise was mostly a showcase for Russian arms sales to China. 

Do you see anything you like, you can have it in any colour, as long as its camouflage. ;D

On a serious note, most military powers are stocking up on main weapons platforms. I have yet to see any tangible equipment requisition plans for DND. ???


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (22 Aug 2005)

I'm just curious, why is there an American on the directing staff for Army.ca?


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Aug 2005)

Yeah but Sherwood, what have you done for us recently? ;D

Chris


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Aug 2005)

Cheers, and thanks.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Aug 2005)

BITTER PPCLI CPL said:
			
		

> I'm just curious, why is there an American on the directing staff for Army.ca?



Because Mike Bobbitt asked him to be on the DS....no other better reason then that IMO.


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Aug 2005)

Right, back on topic then.....

Rumour has it that the whole ex was paid for entirely by the Chinese.

http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=601906



> The Mercenaries of Goodwill
> // Russian will participate in anti-American maneuvers for Chinese money
> Today in Vladivostok the chief of general staff of the Russian Armed Forces Yuri Baluevsky and his counterpart in the National Liberation Army of China Lan Guanlee will announce today about the beginning of Russian-Chinese military maneuvers "Peace Mission -2005." For seven days Russian and Chinese generals and officers will analyze military-political situation and will transfer the results of analysis from maps to the battleground. In the final stage 10,000 joint Russian and Chinese troops will practice how to eliminate unlawful bands of armed insurgents using heavy bombers and naval vessels.
> The Russian side will provide more than 1,800 military servicemen. Moscow also will provide two strategic bombers Tu-95MS, four long-distance bombers Tu-22M3, military transport aircraft Il-76MD, refueling aircraft Il-78, the AWACS aircraft 8-50, front-line bomber SU-24M2 and fighters SU-27SM. Moreover, the Pacific fleet will provide big destroyer "Marshal Shaposhnikov," destroyer "Burny," large landing ship BDK 11 with a regiment of naval infantry from the 55th Division of Naval Infantry and cadets of Naval Institute of Makarov (Vladivostok) and also the tanker Pechenga and sea tugboat SB-522. Five Il-76MD will drop with parachutes 12 paratrooper armored carrier vehicles BMD-2 as well as a regiment of paratroopers from 76th Airborne Division (Pskov).
> ...




Also, the rumor on Chinese boards is that the Chinese found out just how backward they really were when compared to the Russians. The Russians wore armour all the time throughout the ex, including the airborne and amphibious phases, while the Chinese wore none. What pictures I've seen seems to confirm this.  There is also  a rumor that while the Russians jumped with full kit and were off and running immedietly after hitting the ground, the Chinese dropped their weapons (including rifles?!) seperately in crates and took much longer to get organized.

I'm thinking the CHinese blew their load on the shiny planes and ships and are neglecting the basic soldiering.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Aug 2005)

> and are neglecting the basic soldiering.


 I know very little about Chinese tactics (at least since the time of the Oceanic Khan), but this seems to be a recurring theme, doesn't it?


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Aug 2005)

> I know very little about Chinese tactics (at least since the time of the Oceanic Khan), but this seems to be a recurring theme, doesn't it?



Hmm, how far back do you want to go? The PLA at the end of the civil war and during the Korean war, up to the late 1950s were a very professional force. and the air force and navy were getting good really quickly. But from the 60s to the 80s internal upheavals within China sapped a lot of their epirit de corps. The Air Force and Navy were hit harder than the Army, because of Lin Biao (The PLA commander in Korea)'s failed coup against Mao which were principally enginnered by Soviet-trained Navy and Air Force officers. The series of wars with Vietnam, in 1973 all the way until the early 80s, were mostly fiascos and proved how far behind the Chinese were. It's telling that most of the PLA's senior leadership today were majors and captains in those actions. there's a perhaps apocryphal story of how Deng Xiao Ping, after watching the Chinese-armed Iraqis in GW1, called a meeting of the senior PLA leadership and told them to un-fsuck themselves and quickly. THe US army was to be the original model and the Americans promised all kinds of weapons, Blackhawks, American engineers to upgrade old fighters, new raders, etc. But TianAnMen happened and the weapons that the Americans promised never showed up, except for that one sqdn of Blackhawks.   

So I think the pendulum is just swinging the other way, for now. The air force and navy are just making up for lost time. No one is interested in joining the infantry during peace time.


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Aug 2005)

I like how the official Chinese and Russian media calls the excecise a mock "UN sanctioned peacekeeping operation" with an enemy force of over 10,000 "terrorists",  though.

Do you think Carolyn Parrish would approve?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2005)

> The PLA at the end of the civil war and during the Korean war, up to the late 1950s were a very professional force.



Britney: I'm in the same boat as paracowboy re the Chinese army but by professional do you mean the army at large or just the officer corps. My sense of the Korean war tactics was the soldiers were used as bullet traps and overwhelmed the enemy by numbers.



> No one is interested in joining the infantry during peace time.



Do you think this might be connected to my perception being shared by the citizenry?

Cheers.


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Aug 2005)

> Britney: I'm in the same boat as paracowboy re the Chinese army but by professional do you mean the army at large or just the officer corps. My sense of the Korean war tactics was the soldiers were used as bullet traps and overwhelmed the enemy by numbers.



I believe this perception is inaccurate, but it would be a fairly lengthy discussion to cover all the details. Instead, I will throw out the fact that at no point during the Korean War did the total number of Chinese troops  in theatre significantly outnumber total UN forces and at a number of times they themselves were significantly outnumbered. There is this perception if you rely on "first hand" accounts from western soldiers, because the Chinese, especially during the initial offensive phases of their intervention in early 1951, always managed to achieve local superiority in numbers. This is due to superior fieldcraft and march discipline, and not actual numbers of troops. Since the Chinese were so vastly inferior in firepower, they had no option but to concentrate superior numbers on western formations. Sometimes it didn't work (Kapyong, Changjin Resevoir), most of the time it did. Western sources also often ignore or downplay casualty figures of South Korean units, who more often than not bore the brunt of Chinese offensive operations (The Chinese were no fools, and knew very well that South Korean Units were weak links in the chain) The "human wave" attack that the sgts on the MG course like to talk about might properly describe the British and Germans at the Somme, but the Chinese "human wave" is not much more than a myth.




> Do you think this might be connected to my perception being shared by the citizenry?



Not really. It's the same in most third world countries. The Air Force and Navy are the Elite, while the Army is the place for peasants. They are trying to change this perception (see my previous China Threat posts) .


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Aug 2005)

Mr.Kirkhill et al, an additional point of interest:

Various histories of both the Chinese civil war and the Korean war point to the Chinese Eighth Route Army as the originator of the "fireteam" concept. That is, a grouping of 2 or 3 men, armed with a variety of weapons (Rifle, SMG, Automatic Rifle) that fomed the basic building block of modern western infantry sections. Most prominently, the writings of USMC Lt. Col. Evans F. Carlson, who learned of this idea while acting as an observer in China and who first adopted this organization into his Marine "Raider" battalion. Eventually the concept spread to the rest of the Army and the rest of the world.  Hopefully, with more research, I shall have a conclusive answer to the accuracy of this claim.

But please, back to the Sino-Russian excercise....


----------



## edadian (23 Aug 2005)

That fire team concept goes back before the Chinise civil war. It was part of the 1916 reorganization of the Canadian Army for Vimy Ridge.

Rifle grenadiers, mills bombers, trench gunners, riflemen and a Lewis gun team made up an infantry section.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2005)

Thanks for bringing that information forward Britney.  Much appreciated. 

Cheers.


----------

