China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.

[OPSSG]

A thinking response — Part 3

It is an interesting argument and it could be an alternative to backing the PRC into a corner where it does lash out. Under this scenario, it would eventually fold under its own inertia and weight because other nations would buy less of its products, and as its exports drop its economy suffers. That will create problems for the CCP that it may not be able to talk its way out of.

5. Yes, it is possible but we need more data to make that call. It will take some time for this trend to be obvious.

You also made a point point about how the wolf warrior diplomacy is backfiring. Maybe it could have worked if a cowardly politician became US President, but if the occupant of the Oval Office has even a moderate amount of backbone most countries were more likely to react negatively.

6. While I do not have enough data on China’s actions to be certain, I can share three inchoate thoughts, to give flavour to my line of thinking and reasoning:

One, they needed Trump for this to work (which is why Trump is well liked in China). Without Trump, the American NSC establishment and DoD will not over-react or under-react. Which means checkmate for the CCP, at a strategic level — due to the bandwagoning effect by the rest of Asia who have disputes with China — the so called victories in the South China Sea and at the border with India are tactical — and come with a significant geo-strategic cost — moreover these reclaimed islands are not defendable during a hot war, and the land the Chinese gain at the border with India is inhospitable. IMO, a sensible American President like Biden will have enough talent in his team to manage China’s rise.

Two, if only a certain part of China’s policies that need to be encouraged are encouraged, Asia might have an outcome that both the Americans and the Chinese can accept. The US is not a natural enemy of China — the relationship is competitive (but they have a history of cooperation too). If there is wisdom, the two superpowers need not be enemies, rather, they are competitors in certain spheres. Japan, India and Vietnam, on the other hand, are natural traditional enemies of China. If China pushes too hard, they will get a nuclear Japan. They have pushed India from neutral to the enemy camp. They did this about 15 years too early and they made all 3, who share maritime or land borders with China acutely aware of the need to bandwagon with others to counter China’s rise. This will ensure that two of China’s natural enemies, Japan and India will invest in making the quad relevant by dragging in Australia and the US; and Vietnam will fall out of China’s orbit, in geo-political terms.

Three, a weak willed American President will result in a nuclear Korea and Japan; which may not be better for a US partner country like Singapore or an US ally like Australia. China’s rise under this condition only creates more instability; and China needs some level of stability to continue to grow.

 

[SolarWind]

SIPRI estimate of Chinese military budget in 2019, based on publicly available sources in English and Chinese, is nominally $240 Billion US Dollars in 2019 dollars.

A New Estimate of China’s Military Expenditure

China publishes a national defence budget each year. In 2019 it reached 1.2 trillion yuan (US$175 billion). However, this figure does not account for all of China’s military spending. To provide a more accurate representation of China’s spending, SIPRI’s estimate—based on an analysis made in...

www.sipri.org

Adjusting for the PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) 2019 conversion rate of 0.6, I get Chinese 2019 military budget of $400 Billion US Dollars in PPP terms.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

 

[swerve]

That PPP conversion factor won't necessarily be accurate for military spending. It's a whole economy PPP, an average ratio of prices in the USA & China, but the price structures aren't the same. One thing may be three times as expensive in the USA as in China, another may be almost the same price.

It's probably better than using the market exchange rate, though.

 

[SolarWind]

That PPP conversion factor won't necessarily be accurate for military spending. It's a whole economy PPP, an average ratio of prices in the USA & China, but the price structures aren't the same. One thing may be three times as expensive in the USA as in China, another may be almost the same price.

It's probably better than using the market exchange rate, though.

It may be easier to think about this in terms of the Big Mac index, which is an oversimplified version of PPP for illustration purposes:

Our Big Mac index shows how burger prices differ across borders

Using patty-power parity to think about exchange rates

www.economist.com

Of course, running a military is a different business than serving Big Macs, but, overall, PPP is considered a better estimate than nominal exchange rates.

 

[swerve]

You're answering as if you didn't fully read what I wrote, & think I know nothing about what purchasing power parity means. I suggest you re-read what I wrote & think about it.

 

[SolarWind]

You're answering as if you didn't fully read what I wrote, & think I know nothing about what purchasing power parity means. I suggest you re-read what I wrote & think about it.

I was keeping in mind other readers when I was writing my response, who might not be as knowledgeable as you. You are correct in what you wrote, I am glad that you understand the concept so well, I just think there might be an easier way for others to look at it. My original post was a little dry, and I thank you for your elaborating on it. Please also notice that I elaborated on what you wrote, basically agreeing with you.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

And this $208.000.000.000 is just the official defencebudget.
So, this whole Covid-madness does not have a big impact on the willingness to spend a lot on their armed forces.

China boosts defense budget again, exceeding $208 billion

China's leadership wants to see an increase in military training and better preparedness across the board as well as improved defense-related scientific, technological and industrial efforts.

www.defensenews.com

 

[SolarWind]

And this $208.000.000.000 is just the official defencebudget.
So, this whole Covid-madness does not have a big impact on the willingness to spend a lot on their armed forces.

China boosts defense budget again, exceeding $208 billion

China's leadership wants to see an increase in military training and better preparedness across the board as well as improved defense-related scientific, technological and industrial efforts.

www.defensenews.com

So, if I was to extrapolate from the article the 6.6% increase in Chinese defense spending in 2020, and 6.8% increase in 2021, and apply it to the PPP estimate of $400 Billion US dollars China's military budget in 2019 (in my post above), I would get an estimate of $455 Billion US Dollars worth of China's military budget in 2021 in terms of PPP.

 

[Ananda]

would get an estimate of $455 Billion US Dollars worth of China's military budget in 2021 in terms of PPP.

Using PPP can only useful if most of procurement is domestic or using local contents. In paper seems most PLA procurement using domestic products. However what we don't know is how far the local contents is on Chinese Defense products. This local contents must also calculate the materials sources from outside China. In short even if it's made in China but using significant amount of imported materials, this can't be all calculated on Renimbi/Yuan only equivalent of PPP.

If say Chinese local content's 75% (this's only assumption), then only 75% of the budget can be calculated on PPP. The other 25% must be calculated only nominal market rate.

 

[swerve]

Quite right. And to add to that there are sectoral differences, e.g. the PPP for hardware is likely to differ from the PPP for personnel costs. Typically, people become more expensive relative to hardware as countries become richer, so in a China:US comparison, ideally one should adjust Chinese personnel costs up more than hardware costs. The difficult part is working out how much more.

Note that this is to get an estimate of what China's military spending is really worth in US prices, not the economic burden to China. Percentage of nominal GDP is the best measure of economic burden. But as SolarWind correctly says, PPP (as in the average PPP) is a better converter than exchange rate for a "which country spends most?" comparison, despite its imperfections, at least for countries where most procurement is domestic such as China or Russia.

Your note on the cost of overseas procurement is much more important for some other countries than China, of course, because China makes most of its own equipment. For a country like Saudi Arabia, which imports the bulk of its military material, PPP should be applied to a much smaller proportion of spending.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Amerikaanse legerleider verwacht binnen zes jaar Chinese invasie in Taiwan

Admiraal Philip Davidson zegt dat hij zich zorgen maakt dat China in 2050 - sneller dan gedacht - de internationale leidersrol wil overnemen van de VS.

nos.nl

I haven't found this news in English language, but according to this news article, Admiraal Philip Davidson (commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM)) expects that Communist China will invade Taiwan soon, maybe even in 6 years. He is also worried that china will take over world domination from the US around 2050, much earlier than expected.

 

[ozrock62]

Amerikaanse legerleider verwacht binnen zes jaar Chinese invasie in Taiwan

Admiraal Philip Davidson zegt dat hij zich zorgen maakt dat China in 2050 - sneller dan gedacht - de internationale leidersrol wil overnemen van de VS.

nos.nl

I haven't found this news in English language, but according to this news article, Admiraal Philip Davidson (commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM)) expects that Communist China will invade Taiwan soon, maybe even in 6 years. He is also worried that china will take over world domination from the US around 2050, much earlier than expected.

Think I saw it in USNI.

 

[Boagrius]

Think I saw it in USNI.

Right you are:

China could attempt to take control of Taiwan by the end of the decade, the admiral leading U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said today.

Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Phil Davidson said China’s aggression in the region leads him to believe its goal of seizing Taiwan is a more imminent issue.

“I think our concerns are manifest here during this decade, not only on the development – the numbers of you know, ships, aircraft, rockets, etc. that they’ve put in the field – but the way they’re advancing those capabilities as well in combination with everything that you just cited: Hong Kong . . . and Tibet, and a line of actual control in the South China Sea and the East China Sea,” Davidson told the panel of lawmakers.

“I worry that they’re accelerating their ambitions to supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules-based international order, which they’ve long said that they want to do that by 2050. I’m worried about them moving that target closer,” he continued. “Taiwan is clearly one of their ambitions before then. And I think the threat is manifest during this decade, in fact in the next six years.”

Davidson: China Could Try to Take Control of Taiwan In 'Next Six Years' - USNI News

China could attempt to take control of Taiwan by the end of the decade, the admiral leading U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said today. Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Phil Davidson said China’s aggression in the region leads him to believe its goal of seizing Taiwan...

news.usni.org

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Think I saw it in USNI.

Yes, thank you Ozrock62 and Boagrius.
Janes also reported this yesterday later on the day.

Military balance in Indo-Pacific region ‘becoming more unfavourable to US', says Adm Davidson

US Navy Admiral Philip Davidson, the commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM), has warned that the “greatest danger” facing the United States in the...

www.janes.com

 

[weaponwh]

Amerikaanse legerleider verwacht binnen zes jaar Chinese invasie in Taiwan

Admiraal Philip Davidson zegt dat hij zich zorgen maakt dat China in 2050 - sneller dan gedacht - de internationale leidersrol wil overnemen van de VS.

nos.nl

I haven't found this news in English language, but according to this news article, Admiraal Philip Davidson (commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM)) expects that Communist China will invade Taiwan soon, maybe even in 6 years. He is also worried that china will take over world domination from the US around 2050, much earlier than expected.

the likely hood of china invade taiwan is small as long as Taiwan doesn't formally announce independence or cross some mainland red line. There are severe economic and other consequence for China when using military options. we are talking about past 30+ years of economic gone, and lets not forget potential military action. And if China didn't succeed, well, it might be the downfall of the current government. For these reason china wont invade taiwan just because it achieve certain military prowess. Whats more likely is china will use its growing softpower + its hard power to influence taiwan. Carrot and stick as they say.

 

[ngatimozart]

the likely hood of china invade taiwan is small as long as Taiwan doesn't formally announce independence or cross some mainland red line. There are severe economic and other consequence for China when using military options. we are talking about past 30+ years of economic gone, and lets not forget potential military action. And if China didn't succeed, well, it might be the downfall of the current government. For these reason china wont invade taiwan just because it achieve certain military prowess. Whats more likely is china will use its growing softpower + its hard power to influence taiwan. Carrot and stick as they say.

10 years ago or if anyone more moderate than Xi was in charge that would most likely be the case. However, Xi is on a mission and he fully intends to fully invest Taiwan. You just have to look at Hong Kong, and the Uygher genocide. So far there hasn't been any economic fall out for the PRC over either. Fully investing Taiwan and returning the rebellious province to the motherland has been central CCP policy since 1949 and they aren't going to change that for anything.

I would argue that 6 years is the window that they have before the forces against them build up enough strength to make what is an already difficult operation more difficult. They have very little experience in conducting an amphibious operation against a well defended target, and the PLA have no experience in modern warfare. That increases the level of difficulty significantly.

Remember that this is a political imperative for the CCP and it is something that they cannot back down from because it would reduce their political status with the masses.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

10 years ago or if anyone more moderate than Xi was in charge that would most likely be the case. However, Xi is on a mission and he fully intends to fully invest Taiwan.

Indeed. You can be sure that Taiwan will magically be found to be in breach of a "red line", no doubt by putting off unification talks for "too long", when Beijing decides it's time to attack. I guess China will wait until after the 2024 election and use the likely DPP victory as justification for an attack in the months/years afterwards.

 

[cdxbow]

Indeed. You can be sure that Taiwan will magically be found to be in breach of a "red line", no doubt by putting off unification talks for "too long", when Beijing decides it's time to attack. I guess China will wait until after the 2024 election and use the likely DPP victory as justification for an attack in the months/years afterwards.

I don't think the PRC will move prior to the 2022 Winter Olympics. .
How long the window may be perceived to be open after that, I'm not sure. A DPP victory in 2024 could certainly be the trigger for an attack

 

[John Fedup]

Maybe China assumes nobody would consider invasion prior to the Olympics in 2022....opportunity for a surprise attack? Another consideration is would a boycott of the 2022 games be a trigger?

 

[ngatimozart]

Maybe China assumes nobody would consider invasion prior to the Olympics in 2022....opportunity for a surprise attack? Another consideration is would a boycott of the 2022 games be a trigger?

I don't know. I suppose that it would depend upon how extensive the boycott was. Maybe they would suddenly find reasons to stop certain countries exports into China from crossing the border: incorrect paperwork, Covid-19 found on the surface of packaging, doesn’t adhere to hygiene / safety standards etc., followed up by telling its importers not to import certain countries products etc. I feel that they would rather punish the countries who boycotted them first before going against Taiwan, because an invasion of Taiwan is not going to punish those countries who boycotted the games.