China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Trying to see America through a Chinese lens — Part 1
I think China is bound to rise, it's a nation of 1.4 billion, so being strongest nation in the world is totally possible, but so what?
"So what" do they intend to do with that strength? Early signs (SCS militarisation, debt trap/wolf warrior/coercive diplomacy etc) have not been encouraging - at least not from where I am sitting...
1. @Boagrius, thanks for steering the thread back to reality. The sad reality is that the “Trump” administration’s America First (along with its decision to withdraw from the TTP) “and Brexit delivered star performances,” as Chen Jimin at China’s Central Party School observed, when it came to facilitating China’s rejuvenation.

2. CCP texts show China believes Trump is accelerating US decline. This has triggered a new phase in PRC grand strategy, which allows it — to misuse it’s power at the international arena — to be aggressive towards neighbours — to engage in coercive diplomacy.

Is the world dividing into two camps?
3. I do encourage people who intend to contribute to read more. But I can see that some, like Stampede, despite reading have totally misunderstood the role of agency of:
(i) smaller or weaker states (who are not client states of China), like Singapore, and Vietnam;​
(ii) middle powers, like Australia and Korea (see: Korean Peninsula Developments); and​
(iii) regional powers, like India (see: China-India border dispute) and Japan,​

in the era of great power competition. This means the US Navy and US Marines have to fight different. The hardest part of implementing and operationalizing EABO will come only after it has become clear who the winners and losers of the new concept are. In an environment of limited resources and plateauing budgets new investments will have to come at the cost of cuts elsewhere.

4. The Americans under Trump are doing a far better job at destroying the US-led alliance system than any enemy can hope for. Evidence of this isolation can be seen with the lack of support for the Trump Administration in its sanctions against Iran. Beyond the Trump administration mis-steps, American naval shipbuilding is in trouble and this will handicap any attempt by the US Navy to compete with the PLA(N).
China may not be interested in military conquest outside its immediate area, but it looks as if it expects deference & obedience, including willingness to accept whatever lies China chooses to tell & stay silent about truths China dislikes.
5. China has pushed hard to advance its interests because of Beijing’s perception of American decline. Some have argued that every PRC leader, after Mao, has publicly anchored grand strategy to assessments of US power. This is captured in euphemisms like "multipolarity" and the "international balance of forces." This shift in PRC strategy didn't begin with the pandemic. Rather, it began with Brexit and Trump's election, which led Beijing to think the West was withdrawing from the order it built.

6. Scholars in America and China are more candid in their views. Let me cite some Chinese examples:

Zhu Feng: As Western countries are consumed by populism “the East rises and the West falls.”​

Yan Xuetong: “Trump has ruined the U.S.-led alliance system” and ushered in “the best period of strategic opportunity for China since the Cold War.”​
Wu Xinbo: The US is “spiritually exhausted, physically weak, and could no longer carry the world.”​
Jin Canrong: "World structure is changing from one superpower, many great powers, to two superpowers, many great powers.”​
Perhaps we need to make a distinction now, it is Xi, not the former CCP establishment that is calling the shots. This is the greatest danger, we really don’t know what his end game is and if their is any relief valve that can curb him at this point. I suspect not.
7. I suspect you are wrong, as the trend is not unique to Xi. Currently, Xi is looking for an opportunity for China to rise in what Beijing sees as a period of decline for the West. India found out in 1962 and in 2020, what it means when America is distracted. In the 1962, China taught India a lesson during the Sino-Indian Border Conflict and again the Indians were schooled in 2020 during the CORVID-19 crisis — in May 2020, 20 Indian soldiers were clubbed to death by the PLA at the border in the north-eastern state of Sikkim.

8. While countries like Australia, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Vietnam do not buy into the Western decline theory, they do see the need to increase investments in military technology and develop military-to-military links with other powers besides China and the US. If you read what Xi said in a 2018 speech, it is understandable why countries, big countries, like India or Japan (with active disputes with China), would want a more capable military, so that they can be an active agent in their own destiny. As Xi said:

"China is in the best development period since modern times, and the world is in a state of great changes unseen in a century, and these two [trends] are simultaneously interwoven and mutually interacting.”​
 
Last edited:

SolarWind

Active Member
I think the rumors of our death are greatly exaggerated. The US is as strong and stronger as it has ever been, both spiritually and physically. There is something to be said about American isolationism, it is a viewpoint, but not a sign of weakness. And there are still enough people who want to keep us engaged in the Asia-Pacific region, I think no fewer than there were 4, 5, or 6 years ago.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Trying to see America through a Chinese lens — Part 2
I think the rumors of our death are greatly exaggerated...

There is something to be said about American isolationism, it is a viewpoint, but not a sign of weakness. And there are still enough people who want to keep us engaged in the Asia-Pacific...
9. As Rush Doshi noted, for Beijing, if the US is less engaged abroad, more divided at home, and uninterested in pandemic management or economic competitiveness, that's great.

10. But that is only the view from Beijing. There are other views and data suggests that Americans are still willing to stay engaged in the Indo-Pacific.

11. We should keep watch on the CNAS’ launch of The Gaming Lab, an initiative using unclassified games and exercises to help American policymakers and military strategists gain critical insights into key national security problems.

12. The Pacific is over 60 million square miles, a third larger than the Atlantic Ocean, and 16 times the size of the United States. The operational and strategic mobility throughout this vast expanse can only be accomplished by naval forces. For the US Marines and US Navy, they are using classified war games to plan spread out in unconventional ways to penetrate China's defense. The Chinese protective bubble has a gap, and that is where the US Forces will get into negating it.

13. Another observation is that if a conflict does happen, there will a good 30 to 45 days of groping using netted sensors. After that stage, forces will employ the devised strategy — where the Americans stop worrying about how to penetrate Chinese anti-access/area-denial systems, and force them to worry about how they will get past American systems.

14. By placing A2D2 systems, like the US Marines’ land-based anti-ship missile batteries and STOVL F-35Bs within the first and second island chains, EABO gives the US military options well-short of violating Field Marshall Montgomery’s first rule of warfare: Don’t go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia.

15. “The war game, what it’s showing us is that China’s invested in what they call Assassins Mace, which are weapon systems that are specifically designed to counter us,” Maj. Gen. Tracy King, the Marine Corps’ Director of Expeditionary Warfare said. But it’s clear US strategists also see some weakness in the Chinese approach. “What that means is they have an A2/AD capability that is fixed, static, expensive, hard to maintain and really effective in one place.”
 
Last edited:

SolarWind

Active Member
I don't think China understands the US. Aggressive trade negotiations and NATO Allies' arm twisting of the kind we have seen in the last four years should be interpreted as more activity rather than less. The things that divide us now are the same things that have divided us for a very long time. The pandemic is being managed. And economic competitiveness will improve as it always has via invisible market forces. In other words, Chinese negative viewpoint of US is just information war if they are smart, or wishful thinking otherwise.
 

Beholder

Active Member
"So what" do they intend to do with that strength? Early signs (SCS militarisation, debt trap/wolf warrior/coercive diplomacy etc) have not been encouraging - at least not from where I am sitting...
I don't think i tried to encourage you in the first place, especially considering where you are sitting.
What i mean is that China bound to rise, so old strategy of lot of Asian Pacific states to counter China by bilateral alliance with US may not be feasible.
In the first place other then democracies, some countries can actually be happy to enter China's strength hierarchy based world(RF for example).
US is certainly not going away, as West in general.
But i think countries that want to resist China need more regional defensive framework.

Is the world dividing into two camps?

Regards S
I don't think that world dividing into two camps. What happens is China use it's economic influence to hijack international institution. Buy votes if you want. They also created they own international structures and pour money there too.
That more serve to protect China rather then attack.
In general China use money and globalisation of world economic as both shield and weapon.
 

Beholder

Active Member
The sad reality is that the “Trump” administration’s America First (along with its decision to withdraw from the TTP) “and Brexit delivered star performances,” as Chen Jimin at China’s Central Party School observed, when it came to facilitating China’s rejuvenation.
There are other views of Trump policy:

Such inconsistency has driven deep anxieties in the minds of U.S. allies and partners across the Indo-Pacific. According to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, the percentage of people in Japan and Australia with a positive view of the United States has plummeted to 41 percent and 33 percent, respectively – record lows. These plummeting levels of support can be attributed to broad public perceptions ranking the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic as lowest in the world, and a lack of confidence in Trump, specifically. For example, South Korea’s confidence in Trump in 2020 was at 17 percent, compared to 88 percent for then-President Barack Obama in 2016. Overall, the majority of people in Japan and Australia have an unfavorable opinion of the United States (54 percent and 64 percent, respectively), while South Korea’s view of the United States has remained generally positive (an unfavorable rating of 39 percent).

These concerns have also percolated among allied foreign policy leaders and bureaucracies. Several U.S. allies have increased spending on defense as they considered the implications of a less reliable United States, and Japan’s pursuit of offensive strike capabilities was reportedly driven by fears of the continued deterioration of its alliance with the United States. Additionally, Japan’s push for like-minded countries to sign on to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Partnership (CPTPP) arose after the United States withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Similarly, the Trump administration’s lack of leadership in international institutions raised concerns that the United States was no longer interested in leading the world and setting the international agenda, thus creating a geopolitical vacuum for China to fill.

Yet there have been other aspects of the Trump administration’s approach to the Indo-Pacific that some allied and partner foreign policy experts have supported. Specifically, the Trump administration’s willingness to explicitly accept friction with Beijing in the pursuit of U.S. interests has been welcomed by those in Japan and elsewhere with a more hawkish view of China. Recently, an anonymous official from Japan’s Foreign Ministry writing for the American Interest also saw advantages from Trump’s approach – clarity mixed with chaos – especially when compared to what the official saw as a more conciliatory Obama administration strategy. “[H]aving a poorly implemented but fundamentally correct strategy [under Trump] is better than having a well-implemented but ambiguous strategy [under Obama],” the official wrote. As James Crabtree highlighted in Foreign Policy, similar opinions have been expressed by scholars and officials from Singapore, India, and Taiwan.
The Asia Inheritance: Trump and US Alliances

While Trump policy can be viewed as benefiting China in some way, it also leads to increased self reliance of US allies, increasing military spending, willingness, despite differences, to form regional security framework to counter common threats etc.

You are a new member here and we have some rules that you had better acquaint yourself with. Rule #17 about not making one line posts refers. Also take note of Rule #18 which stipulates the proscriptions about politics. The Moderators on here get very twitchy about politics.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I don't think i tried to encourage you in the first place, especially considering where you are sitting.
What i mean is that China bound to rise, so old strategy of lot of Asian Pacific states to counter China by bilateral alliance with US may not be feasible.
In the first place other then democracies, some countries can actually be happy to enter China's strength hierarchy based world(RF for example).
US is certainly not going away, as West in general.
But i think countries that want to resist China need more regional defensive framework.
I think you may have misunderstood me. You have made the assertion that China's rise to the top is inevitable, and asked the question "so what?". This level of indifference only makes sense if China's rise (and subsequent ascendency) is a benign one. Its behaviour in recent years, however, does not suggest that this will be the case.

Any country considering its place in a Chinese "strength based hierarchy" must, in my view, also take this pattern of behaviour into consideration, along with how well a "strength based hierarchy" fits with their values and interests. Of particular note is how the CCP will behave - for example - if and when it has a true, ocean-going blue water navy at its disposal. What will this "strength based" world order really look like if the CCP actually has the military means to impose its will well beyond its own borders, let alone the immediate region? I agree that for many a multilateral alliance system will be necessary, but it would also be foolhardy to neglect the importance of the one strategic partner on the planet (US) that has both the military and economic weight to balance China's growing strength and belligerence.
 
Last edited:

Beholder

Active Member
I think you may have misunderstood me. You have made the assertion that China's rise to the top is inevitable, and asked the question "so what?". This level of indifference only makes sense if China's rise (and subsequent ascendency) is a benign one.
It's not a benign one. What i meant that you need to consider US with allies vs China, rather then China vs US.
So regional alliances is a way to go.

Any country considering its place in a Chinese "strength based hierarchy" must, in my view, also take this pattern of behaviour into consideration, along with how well a "strength based hierarchy" fits with their values and interests. Of particular note is how the CCP will behave - for example - if and when it has a true, ocean-going blue water navy at its disposal. What will this "strength based" world order really look like if the CCP actually has the military means to impose its will well beyond its own borders, let alone the immediate region? I agree that for many a multilateral alliance system will be necessary, but it would also be foolhardy to neglect the importance of the one strategic partner on the planet (US) that has both the military and economic weight to balance China's growing strength and belligerence.
Let's see, we have NATO, so coming in Europe to "bully" ppl there will be pure suicide for China.

We have Africa, there is no way they will piss of China, so no reason to bully.

We have Middle East, there it can be 2 scenarios, that leads to "bullying":
1. Support of Iran. Iran can be strategic partner of China due to oil, there is also Silk Road there. China in general invest lot of resources in region, both in Iran and into Gulf states. Hard to say how it will play, point is it's of strategic importance for China, so steer pot here, with various conflicts already going on plus you need to consider that it's important region for EU...
2. Israel will piss China somehow(in general our politicians are careful of such things, but all is possible), like Australia in recent round of "bullying".
Well, good luck trying to bully Israel.

We have South America, have no idea what happens there, but i doubt China will try to reach there militarily.

Bottom line, in such situation even loose regional alliances have ability to deter China from taking actions in the first place.
It's different for countries adjusted to China, because of importance of the region for China. IMO

In general because China is able to hijack world institutions like UNSC, you need alternative security framework.

Aside from countering militarily, another thing is counter "bullying" through financial leverage. This is actually global problem, rather then regional.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Obviously each country's circumstances are unique, but yes I do think a combination of regional alliances and US backing would offer most regional countries the best chance of withstanding a belligerent China.

Further afield it is important to acknowledge that it may be decades before China can bring the full gamut of hard and soft power to bear. It is very difficult to predict, for example, what NATO will look like in that timeframe. On current trends it strikes me as a far less robust organisation than it once was, so who knows what it will look like in 10, 20 or 30 years.

As it stands China's growing influence is still heavily focused on the Asia-Pacific region, and I suspect it will remain so for some time. That said, for those of us that live in that region, a strength based regional order could be readily viewed as a euphemism for simply accepting that the CCP will impose its will on whoever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants (since China, after all, will be the strongest player).

While this sort of "arrangement" may have worked for the CCP domestically up to this point, the broader region is populated by countries that have historically shed considerable blood and treasure to protect the modicum of autonomy, independence and self determination that they currently possess. I doubt that many of them will part with it just because the CCP says that China is destined to be "number 1". On the contrary, I suspect they will continue to look to the US as an important guarantor of their sovereignty, since nobody else has or will have the means to do so.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
We have South America, have no idea what happens there, but i doubt China will try to reach there militarily.
Based on what? China is involved with Nicaragua and Venezuela and is rapidly growing their navy. Military involvement in Latin or South America is a natural step, if they can get anyone there to host their base.
 

Beholder

Active Member
Based on what? China is involved with Nicaragua and Venezuela and is rapidly growing their navy. Military involvement in Latin or South America is a natural step, if they can get anyone there to host their base.
1. Based on strategic consideration. I think China's policy have been consistent. I also think they currently don't try to counter US Navy even in Asia Pacific.
Instead they building Silk Road, goal is to get stable export to Europe even in case of naval blockade.
They concentrate naval power in own backyard in a bid to get local superiority.
So they won't fight US navy anywhere far from China, they do try to create distractions around the world, but using soft power, not military one. IMO
Naturally if they don't fumble economically, maybe they will try to get superiority in whole of Asia Pacific.

2. Look at China's and US naval fleet differences. With what aircraft carriers China will counter US far from home?
Submarine warfare most likely if at all. IMO

3. What they will get from winning proxy war in Latin America? Can they win it? They don't want to spread communism, for influence soft power just as good. IMO
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #172
1. Based on strategic consideration. I think China's policy have been consistent. I also think they currently don't try to counter US Navy even in Asia Pacific.
Instead they building Silk Road, goal is to get stable export to Europe even in case of naval blockade.
They concentrate naval power in own backyard in a bid to get local superiority.
So they won't fight US navy anywhere far from China, they do try to create distractions around the world, but using soft power, not military one. IMO
Naturally if they don't fumble economically, maybe they will try to get superiority in whole of Asia Pacific.

2. Look at China's and US naval fleet differences. With what aircraft carriers China will counter US far from home?
Submarine warfare most likely if at all. IMO

3. What they will get from winning proxy war in Latin America? Can they win it? They don't want to spread communism, for influence soft power just as good. IMO
First of all a warning about China. Don't make the mistake that far too many western based analysts who should know better do: Do not assess the PRC and what it does through the lens of western eyes, beliefs and culture. Because if you do you will end up with rubbish conclusions: rubbish in = rubbish out. The PRC do not think or operate in a western mindset or manner - never have and never will because they see no valid reason too. They have even changed communism, or more correctly Marxist - Leninism to Marxist - Leninism - Maoism with Chinese characteristics. They are a three plus thousand year old civilisation with an impressive history and culture that has served them for three plus millennia, older than the ancient Egyptians Greeks and Israelites.

In the present time they might be communist with Chinese characteristics, but they still follow Confucian principles no matter how hard the CCP has tried to change that. They are very patient and are willing to bide their time and still follow the Sun Tzu Ping Fa which today is taught in every military academy throughout the world and compulsory reading in many. Then you have to understand the CCP and how it works. If you thought the old USSR and the CPSU was bad, it was somewhat angelic compared to Xi Jinping and the current CCP. Imagine Lenin or Stalin with modern surveillance technology. The PLA, PLAAF, PLAN, Rocket Forces, Peoples Militias, Peoples Police, Ministry of State Security and all the security forces report to and pledge their oath of allegiance to the CCP, not the state or the people.

Their ultimate aim is to push the US out of the Pacific beyond the three island chain. The final goal is hegemony within the three island chain which encompasses Australia and NZ forcing the US out completely. That is why the second island chain is very important now. Another point to consider is this, on July 8, 2013, the Hong Kong pro-PRC Chinese-language newspaper, Wenweipo published a story entitled "Six Wars China Is Sure to Fight In the Next 50 Years"

The 1st War: Unification of Taiwan (Year 2020 to 2025)
The 2nd War: “Reconquest” of Spratly Islands (Year 2025 to 2030)
The 3rd War: “Reconquest” of Southern Tibet (Year 2035 to 2040) - part of India
The 4th War: “Reconquest” of Diaoyu Island [Senkaku] and Ryukyu [Okinawa] Islands (Year 2040 to 2045)
The 5th War: Unification of Outer Mongolia (Year 2045 to 2050)
The 6th War: Taking back of lands lost to Russia (Year 2055 to 2060).

Whilst this cannot be taken as "gospel”, such an article wouldn't be published without sanction from within the higher echelons of the Chinese government. Many articles have appeared in the mainland Chinese media written by Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) officers, mostly Colonels that have called for the use of force to regain "lost territories". They play on the 100 years of shame that is embedded in current Chinese society.

It is the 100 years from the 1840s to 1949 when China was plagued with foreign invasions and having to kow tow and pay tribute to foreigners, especially the west and Japan. These Colonels and other officers of the PLA making these statements in public and in the media would not be doing so, without the sanction of higher authority and that would in this case be the Politburo and Xi Jinping in particular.

It's not as straight forward as you think because not only do have to view everything through a Chinese, lens but everything in China has a CCP political aspect to it as well that may not be quite so obvious to an outsider.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. Based on strategic consideration. I think China's policy have been consistent. I also think they currently don't try to counter US Navy even in Asia Pacific.
Instead they building Silk Road, goal is to get stable export to Europe even in case of naval blockade.
They concentrate naval power in own backyard in a bid to get local superiority.
So they won't fight US navy anywhere far from China, they do try to create distractions around the world, but using soft power, not military one. IMO
Naturally if they don't fumble economically, maybe they will try to get superiority in whole of Asia Pacific.

2. Look at China's and US naval fleet differences. With what aircraft carriers China will counter US far from home?
Submarine warfare most likely if at all. IMO

3. What they will get from winning proxy war in Latin America? Can they win it? They don't want to spread communism, for influence soft power just as good. IMO
They don't need to fight a war against the US to set up a base in Nicaragua or Venezuela. And it would give them the ability to deploy missile systems forward, creating similar A2/AD bubbles to what Russia does with Kaliningrad, the Arctic, the Kurils, Syria, etc. It would force the USN to take out Chinese bastions close to home, while also dealing with the Chinese threat near China itself. It would tie down US resources, likely disproportionate ones compared to what it would take to deploy forces there. I'm not saying it's a guarantee but to dismiss the possibility entirely seems a little odd at best. You're looking at this through solely the lens of a major US-China war.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The 6th War: Taking back of lands lost to Russia (Year 2055 to 2060).
That's... optimistic. Are they hoping Russian nuclear arsenal declines by that time? Or that Russia will be unwilling to use nukes to defend a giant piece of their territory?
 

InterestedParty

Active Member
To assist those of us eager to learn more about China could we have suggested reading list please, including something at a primer level. I have been to China a few times and was married to one but cannot pretend to understand
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #176
That's... optimistic. Are they hoping Russian nuclear arsenal declines by that time? Or that Russia will be unwilling to use nukes to defend a giant piece of their territory?
That's what I think too, but I suppose you have to give them points for ambition, but deduct some for lack of realism. Maybe reading to much of Mao's little red book of quotations and not enough looking out the window at the real world.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #177
To assist those of us eager to learn more about China could we have suggested reading list please, including something at a primer level. I have been to China a few times and was married to one but cannot pretend to understand
I have been working on an overall reading list for the last 6 months so will add to it in next few weeks.
 

SolarWind

Active Member
That's... optimistic. Are they hoping Russian nuclear arsenal declines by that time? Or that Russia will be unwilling to use nukes to defend a giant piece of their territory?
I suspect it is more of a Christmas-like shopping list to entertain nationalist-minded populace than concrete realistic plans.
 
Last edited:

SolarWind

Active Member
1. Based on strategic consideration. I think China's policy have been consistent. I also think they currently don't try to counter US Navy even in Asia Pacific.
Instead they building Silk Road, goal is to get stable export to Europe even in case of naval blockade.
They concentrate naval power in own backyard in a bid to get local superiority.
So they won't fight US navy anywhere far from China, they do try to create distractions around the world, but using soft power, not military one. IMO
Naturally if they don't fumble economically, maybe they will try to get superiority in whole of Asia Pacific.

2. Look at China's and US naval fleet differences. With what aircraft carriers China will counter US far from home?
Submarine warfare most likely if at all. IMO

3. What they will get from winning proxy war in Latin America? Can they win it? They don't want to spread communism, for influence soft power just as good. IMO
The Chinese do not try to counter US Navy because they cannot hope to achieve anything other than humiliation. Their goal in Latin America would be economic domination with security provided by naval and military bases. And they already are fighting a proxy war in Latin America:

China arms Venezuelan Navy with Anti Ship Missiles with over 100 nautical mile range.
 
Last edited:

Beholder

Active Member
They don't need to fight a war against the US to set up a base in Nicaragua or Venezuela. And it would give them the ability to deploy missile systems forward, creating similar A2/AD bubbles to what Russia does with Kaliningrad, the Arctic, the Kurils, Syria, etc. It would force the USN to take out Chinese bastions close to home, while also dealing with the Chinese threat near China itself. It would tie down US resources, likely disproportionate ones compared to what it would take to deploy forces there. I'm not saying it's a guarantee but to dismiss the possibility entirely seems a little odd at best. You're looking at this through solely the lens of a major US-China war.
It will not force US to do anything, unless war actually happens. Moreover even if US would want to do this as you say, China will spend more resources, then vice verso(A2/AD bubbles for example requires aviation to be successful etc.).
RF in all places except Syria is on RF's home ground. Russia is big.
In Syria RF spend more resources on one hand and don't actually tie US on another. Iran what tie US there. The moment Gulf states can counter Iran US can leave(not that it will happen, as China will come there, but we'll see).IMO

In general i agree that China's strategy will include all that can divide US attention, just not actually military involvement(as logistic consideration make resource loses not worth the gain).
 
Top