South China Sea thoughts?

[Sandhi Yudha]

China has recently begun transferring Type 056 (NATO designation Jiangdao) corvettes from the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN or Chinese Navy) to the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG).The move seems to be limited to the inventory of PLAN Type 056 corvettes which lack the variable depth sonar (featured in the Type 056A variant).

According to Chinese navy commissions final two Jiangdao-class corvettes the Jiangdao class comprises 22 Type 056 and 50 Type 056A variants, so even if only 22 from the in total 72 corvettes are to be transferred to the CCG, it will become much more crowded in the Spratly Sea and the rest of the first island chain.

The Type 056 corvettes are quite similar in appearance, size, role and armament with the SIGMA 9113 class, so it would be wise if the other Spratly Sea countries also strengthen their coast guards.

China Transferring Navy Type 056 Corvettes to the Coast Guard - Naval News

With increasing tensions in the first island chain, China has recently begun transferring Type 056 (NATO designation Jiangdao) corvettes from the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN or Chinese Navy) to the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG).

www.navalnews.com

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Following the successful completion of the appraisal drilling, Harbour Energy, a company from the UK, is seeking to finalise its investment to develop the Tuna Block in 2023 with initial production planned for 2026, according to industry publication Energy Voice.

The island chain was constantly under guard by the Indonesian Navy and Bakamla, which essentially functions as the national coast guard. The drilling activity at two natural gas appraisal wells in the Tuna Block began in June and was completed in late November.

Bakamla chief Vice Adm Aan Kurnia said Indonesian patrol vessels were occasionally found shadowed by Chinese Coast Guard vessels 4-5 nautical miles from the drilling site.

China reportedly disrupted similar drilling projects in Malaysian and Vietnamese waters this year.

And now Indonesia has invited Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam to convene next year as part of the Asean Coast Guard Forum, which met virtually in October.

“We will share experiences on how to respond in the field when we face the same ‘disturbance,’” the BAKAMLA-chief said, without mentioning China by name.

Indonesian maritime agency hails success over Natuna drilling

JAKARTA (The Jakarta Post/Asia News Network): The Maritime Security Agency (Bakamla) has hailed last month’s completion of a six-month drilling project on Indonesia’s continental shelf in the North Natuna Sea as a “victory” over China’s constant objections.

www.thestar.com.my

 

[ngatimozart]

On 12th July 2022 the Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique A. Manalo released a statement stating that:

Today we commemorate the 6th anniversary of the Award on the South China Sea Arbitration. More than a historic milestone whose value lies in its commemorative significance, we recall 12 July 2016 as the day that affirmed to the community of nations that the rule of law prevails, and that stability, peace and progress can only be attained when founded on a rules-based legal order on the oceans, as it should be everywhere else. ​

​

The Award and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) are the twin anchors of the Philippines’ policy and actions on the West Philippine Sea. ​

​

The year 2022 is also the 40th anniversary of the adoption of UNCLOS. UNCLOS sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. There is no recourse to general international law on matters comprehensively covered by the UNCLOS. Compliance with UNCLOS, which represents a delicate balance of the rights and obligations of all States Parties, in its entirety is key to ensuring global and regional peace and the fair and sustainable use of the oceans. ​

​

The Award, an affirmation of UNCLOS’ dispute resolution mechanisms, not only sets reason and right in the South China Sea, but is an inspiration for how matters should be considered – through reason and right – by states facing similarly challenging circumstances. ​

​

It authoritatively ruled that the claim of historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’ had no basis in law and is without legal effect. ​

​

It upheld the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction in its exclusive economic zone. ​

​

It affirmed that certain actions within the Philippines’ EEZ violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights and were thus unlawful; that large-scale reclamation and construction of artificial islands caused severe environmental harm in violation of international conventions; that the large-scale harvesting of endangered marine species damaged the marine ecosystem; and that actions taken since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the disputes. ​

​

These findings are no longer within the reach of denial and rebuttal, and are conclusive as they are indisputable. The Award is final. We firmly reject attempts to undermine it; nay, even erase it from law, history and our collective memories. At the same time, we welcome the support of a growing list of countries for the Award. ​

​

The Award benefits the world across the board. We do not see it as directed at any other country, near or far. We see it as it should be seen: as favoring all which are similarly situated by clarifying definitively a legal situation beyond the reach of arms to change. It puts this aspect of international law beyond the limit of prescription. ​

​

And so we say once again: the present that we need and the future that we want is a peaceful South China Sea. The Philippines is committed to this for as long as it exists.​

Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique A. Manalo on the 6th Anniversary of the Award on the South China Sea Arbitration​

Needless to say that didn't go down to well with the CCP in Beijing:

NHK: The Foreign Affairs Secretary of the Philippines said in a statement released yesterday that the award of the South China Sea arbitration is “final” and “indisputable”. What’s China’s comment? China always advocates upholding the authority of the UN and international principles, why then does it reject this ruling?​

​

Wang Wenbin: Besides the statement from the Philippines, I also noted a statement by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the same day, which expressed support for the so-called ruling of the arbitral tribunal. I would like to state that China’s position on the South China Sea arbitration is consistent and clear. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement on its position on July 12, 2016. The so-called award of the South China Sea arbitration seriously violates international law including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is illegal, null and void. China neither accepts nor recognizes it and will never accept any claim or action based on the award. By doing so, we are upholding international rule of law. China’s position has received broad understanding and support from the international community. Those who attempt to infringe on China’s sovereignty, rights and interests by implementing this illegal award will not succeed. China will respond to such attempts in accordance with law.​

​

The US, as a non-regional country, has been ignoring the history and facts of the South China Sea issue and violated and distorted international law. It has broken its public commitment of taking no position on sovereignty claims in the South China Sea, and sought to drive a wedge between regional countries and undermine peace and stability in the region. This is extremely irresponsible. We urge the US to respect China’s sovereignty, rights and interests in the South China Sea, stop stirring up trouble and stop using the South China Sea issue to sow discord between regional countries.​

​

I would also like to say that China and the ASEAN nations are fully and effectively implementing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and working actively to advance the consultations on a code of conduct in the South China Sea. It has been agreed by all sides that the South China Sea issue should be handled following the dual-track approach, namely, maritime disputes should be handled properly by countries directly concerned through dialogue and consultation and peace and stability should be jointly safeguarded by China and the ASEAN countries.​

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin’s Regular Press Conference on July 13, 2022 (china-embassy.gov.cn)​

As usual the CCP/PRC are attempting to bully everyone else and conveniently forget that they are a signatory to and ratified UNCLOS. Much like a toddler; highly selective memory.

 

[koxinga]

As usual the CCP/PRC are attempting to bully everyone else and conveniently forget that they are a signatory to and ratified UNCLOS. Much like a toddler; highly selective memory.

The reason that they behave in this manner is they believe their critics (e.g US, Australia) play the same game (e.g. highly selective memory) and it is par for the course for any "Great Power". Whether this is true or not is secondary, but this is what they have convinced themselves on.

This is also why they are doubly sensitive when people criticise them for it because it appears to them as double standards and hypocritical.

 

[Stampede]

The reason that they behave in this manner is they believe their critics (e.g US, Australia) play the same game (e.g. highly selective memory) and it is par for the course for any "Great Power". Whether this is true or not is secondary, but this is what they have convinced themselves on.

This is also why they are doubly sensitive when people criticise them for it because it appears to them as double standards and hypocritical.

Nice post

I may suggest the CCP knows exactly what it is doing.

• The language used is really just verbal international chess.
• Do they really feel that aggrieved?
• Did they not expect push back?
• Do they really want to have a jolly good chat with their maritime neighbors to sort out differences?

An ugly game of pushing the limit that may not be resolved with words.

Their rhetoric mirrors their actions and their actions are alienating the region both near and far.

Again, they know what they are doing and I don't think they are so naive as to not think their would be consequences.

Unfortunately for the sake of peace, they don't seem to care.


Cheers S

 

[koxinga]

Wolf diplomacy and all that.

I speak the language (Mandarin) and I have always found the press statements by Zhao Lijian, Hua Chunying and Wang Wenbin deeply amusing. (sometimes better than the Chinese dramas that I catch occasionally). Especially Zhao Lijian, he will make this exaggerated expression of indignation before mouthing off the canned statements.

There is a nuance that is lost when the Mandarin statements are translated to English.

 

[STURM]

Unfortunately for the sake of peace, they don't seem to care.

I have no idea if they care but they have a better understanding of their adversaries than the other way around. Also, unlike the U.S. which has to worry about Europe, the Middle East, the Asia Pacific and others places [the burden of being a superpower]; China can focus most of its attention to its backyard. Another plus point is that it doesnt have a long list of allies it's obligated to by treaties.

China understands and accepts that the U.S. is a Asia Pacific player [since the time it took the Philippines from Spain] but sees the U.S. as meddling in affairs that doesn't concern it; the Spratlys and Taiwan; one is to the Chinese an internal matter and the other an issue to be resolved between China and the various claimants. China also sees countries such as Japan, South Korea and others as being nothing more than U.S. lackeys or "running dogs".

With regards to the South Pacific; as pointed out to me by a former diplomat; the U S. and it's allies see China's actions as a threat but the Chinese see all these expressions of concerns as camouflage; an attempt by the U. S. and its lackeys to hedge China in and to prevent China from establishing an presence on an area long dominated by blue eyed countries.

As things stand; the U.S. has to do a much better job if it wants to ensure that various countries in the region don't drift closer to China. Rhetoric by the President, Pentagon and State Department isn't enough. Nor are "freedom of navigation" cruises in the Spratlys, multilateral exercises, expressions of support to U.S. allies, etc.

 

[Ananda]

IP22037 | Failure to Launch? Indonesia against China’s Grey Zone Tactics

The authors' views are their own and do not represent the official position of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due recognition to the authors and...

www.rsis.edu.sg

This is an Article from one of Singapore Think Tank contributors. Personally I only agree partialy on his assesment on this article. I agree that Indonesia has patching performance conducting it's gray zone strategy against China incursion in it's EEZ. However I don't agree on his assesment entirely on how Indonesia need to change the approach.

Exploration continues offshore Indonesia in Natuna Sea despite China protest

Upstream oil and gas exploration activities in the North Natuna Sea will continue despite persistent protests from China, Indonesia’s upstream oil and gas

www.energyvoice.com

In some way it is still working. Being subtle against China but still consistent on the ground of final objectives, seems what most ASEAN members can do right now. Being too agreesive and confrontational must prepared escalating move to back it up. Something that most ASEAN members don't have enough resources to match China drive. Still, being less confrontational in media, like this drilling operation, so far make it still continue but in more subtle ways.

In the end China and ASEAN still Asian. More subtle diplomacy work better, but on the other hand ASEAN (at least the original five) also need to shown China, they are not budging on teritorial dispute.

 

[OPSSG]

Part 1 of 2: Giving the correct people their likely actual roles if shooting starts

1. The Indonesian and Singaporean Navies are training at #RIMPAC2022 to enhance Indonesia’s deterrence messaging with the KRI I Gusti Ngurah Rai (332) assigned to CTF 176 and under the command of the Sea Combatant Commander (located onboard RSS Intrepid).

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547799038258343941

2. While RIMPAC 2022 is not directed at China, there are 2 types of deterrence that can affect the PLA(N)’s calculus:

(a) by punishment (after the fact, with VLO fighters & Growlers to conduct SEAD, before the next few waves of anti-ship missiles); or​

​

(b) by denial (ensuring that the enemy fails to achieve its objective, with active ASW forces and the presence of our own superior submarines forces).​

3. The alternative to deterrence is surrender and that is not a preferred stance for the leader of ASEAN to adopt, over a minor EEZ dispute with China — given the aggressive actions of the Chinese Coast Guard (with the PLA(N) providing overwatch for escalation dominance over the TNI AU and TNI AL).

​

(a) Indonesia and Singapore do not posses any destroyers. As tier 3 littoral navies with only frigates that are capable of fighting and hiding amongst over a 150 islands, our naval strategy of sea denial against a larger blue water enemy force is remarkably Swedish in approach.​

​

(b) You are correct that no war is likely or necessary in dispute management of issues related to the South China Sea but Indonesian deterrence messaging must be credible and backed by reflect real capability inherent with current relationships with regional partners that can be tested (when shit hits the fan, should a shooting incident occur).​

​

(c) If the need arises, I strongly believe that it is in Australian and/or Singaporean interests to stand beside your country in harms way to calm the farm, with the deployment of MPAs with fighter escorts supported by tankers for persistence — before a combined destroyer led ASW task group is assembled within 48 to 72 hours — to be followed thereafter with army/marines boots on the ground to conduct a complex shell game in 150 islands (aka A2AD against the PLA Navy).​

​

IP22037 | Failure to Launch? Indonesia against China’s Grey Zone Tactics

The authors' views are their own and do not represent the official position of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due recognition to the authors and...

www.rsis.edu.sg

This is an Article from one of Singapore Think Tank contributors. Personally I only agree partialy on his assesment on this article. I agree that Indonesia has patching performance conducting it's gray zone strategy against China incursion in it's EEZ. However I don't agree on his assesment entirely on how Indonesia need to change the approach.

Exploration continues offshore Indonesia in Natuna Sea despite China protest

Upstream oil and gas exploration activities in the North Natuna Sea will continue despite persistent protests from China, Indonesia’s upstream oil and gas

www.energyvoice.com

In some way it is still working. Being subtle against China but still consistent on the ground of final objectives, seems what most ASEAN members can do right now. Being too agreesive and confrontational must prepared escalating move to back it up. Something that most ASEAN members don't have enough resources to match China drive. Still, being less confrontational in media, like this drilling operation, so far make it still continue but in more subtle ways.

In the end China and ASEAN still Asian. More subtle diplomacy work better, but on the other hand ASEAN (at least the original five) also need to shown China, they are not budging on teritorial dispute.

4. Well the writer is an Indonesian — but I do see your point, which I do not fully agree with. Let me explore the areas of minor disagreement with an intent to clarify.

5. Like you, I see the need to be respectful but Indonesia needs to draw a ‘red-line’ and the TNI, must inject a man with a gun by showing steel in its determination to defend the country’s sovereignty (working with partners in a consistent fashion to be more credible).

 

[OPSSG]

Part 2 of 2: Giving the correct people their likely actual roles if shooting starts

6. Commander First Flotilla COL Kwan Hon Chuong (as the Sea Combatant Commander for CTF 176), reports to Rear Adm. Sangmin An of the Korean Navy (who serves as the Commander of CTF 176) — RIMPAC’s amphibious task force. Once the PLA(N) knows that a multi-national task force can be assembled and stay on station for weeks in the South China Sea, the Chinese Navy would not have escalation dominance.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547019523903086592

7. To support Indonesia’s deterrence messaging in it’s 150 islands in the zone of conflict, Australian, American or Singaporean forces can conduct shaping operations — as demonstrated at RIMPAC, Ex Wirra Jaya, Ex Garuda Shield, Ex Trident, Ex Safkar Indopura, and Ex Lighting Strike.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547757592331464704

8. Indonesia and Australia are increasingly important strategic anchors in the Indo-Pacific region, as recognised by the Indonesia–Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP). It is also opportune, as President Jokowi has developed Indonesia’s maritime outlook through his Global Maritime Fulcrum doctrine and National Sea Policy. The 2018 Maritime Cooperation Plan of Action provides the broad policy guidelines to implement the joint declaration at leadership level and the new CSP nominates maritime cooperation as one of its key pillars.

10. There is a well quoted saying by Vladimir Lenin that would apply to the Chinese approach to disputes in the South China Sea (as an existential threat to 150 plus island controlled by Indonesia):

'You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.'​

 

[Ananda]

4. Well the writer is an Indonesian — but I do see your point, which I do not fully agree with. Let me explore the areas of minor disagreement with an intent to clarify.

5. Like you, I see the need to be respectful but Indonesia needs to draw a ‘red-line’ and the TNI, must inject a man with a gun by showing steel in its determination to defend the country’s sovereignty (working with partners in a consistent fashion to be more credible).

I believe the difference more on how to convey the message. That's why I said in my post subtlety but with consistent final ground. There's always question and debate whether more subtle approach will give the massage to PRC/CCP. Personally after talking with some collegues specialise in greater China market, I do see subtlety and behind media exposure still workable with PRC.

Final ground or Red Lining still has to be created. However how to communicate on showing your final ground, perhaps can be better gain without more confrontational approach.

The writer put in his article that Indonesian deploy more of their Navy and Coast Guard around the drilling area during the stand off. At same time Chinese Coast Guard also increase the feasibilities with PLAN in the background.

During the time, media exposure increase. At same time the louder the media and pundits talk, the more intense PLAN/Chinese Coast Guard incursions. Then quite a sudden media exposure slowing down, and the incursion intensities slowing down (at least based on Indonesian forums that watch maritime traffic in the area). Then Indonesian (like the media link I put on previous Post) claim the explorations will continues.

I believe during the tone downing period, there're more subtle diplomacies happening. I'm not a fan of Jokowi's administration as my posts in Indonesian thread shown. I do believe his administration decision making process at least in half of ministries is questionable. However I do have to admit Jokowi's choice for Retno as his Foreign Minister is correct so far (just as his choices of Sri Mulyani as MoF). So far I don't see Jokowi giving up on Indonesian possition on North Natuna Sea.

Whether some more Investment projects being given to Japan or MinDef increasing connections to French and US on military projects that do the tricks or perhaps something else, is debeatable. Still at this stage I do see more subtle diplomacy with PRC still work (at least on this stage time), as long as final ground possitioning massage can still shown.

Will there ever time needed for more direct confrontational approach with PRC ? I believe there is, but if that happen means China already crossing more line then what they are doing so far.

 

[Ananda]

Indonesia Risks Confrontation With China Over Gas Project in South China Sea

The Southeast Asian country is growing its presence in the South China Sea near the Natuna Islands where Beijing claims maritime rights.

www.wsj.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1613612777582608384

This two link seems contradict each other. First talk of potential confrontation between Indonesia and China if Indonesia choose to continue drilling the gas field. Second one from Tweeter Guy (which if you see my post in Indonesian thread is defense sales agent), talking on rumours of Indonesia taking Chinese defense assets.

The second ones related to rumours on "interim corvettes" program that supposedly going to take surplus ROKN Pohang, being circulate switch to PLAN surplus type 56. I put this just to shown example why even there's similarities how Russia engaged their neighbors, but also enough dissimilarity interaction. Which why I said in other thread, comparing Russia and China engagement to their neighbors is like Apple and Oranges.

Chinese interaction with it's neighbor is more intense but also more complex. Interaction between soft and hard diplomacy more intertwined. Also relationship between commercial interaction and defense engagement sometimes act on opposite ways.

This is not saying Inter Asian diplomacy is better then Inter European ones. It is just different. Sometimes military clash can happen but in same time commercial engagement still doing as seems separately. Look at when India and China have border clash, but the bilateral trade between India and China run as not much affected. In fact the year end with increase trades on some parts.

Back to Indonesia and China relationship on SCS. China definitely will react negatively if Indonesia continue gas exploration. However other channels (usually through trade and investment) usually being bargain to contradict effect. In sense " I'm going to do this, but I offer you something else".

How this is reacted toward end result, will still be open. However Asian doing things differently then West. Some members in here accuse me has anti Western agenda, simply because I criticize some Western agenda and thinking. This is just shown doing differently then how West doing is not means 'mistake' or 'wrong'.

Egypt has joined BRICS’ de-dollarisation campaign

The de-dollarisation is driven by the desire to insulate the Central Banks of the member countries from geopolitical risks.

tfiglobalnews.com

BRICS undermine dollar hegemony with gold purchases

Just before the New Year, the Financial Times ran a piece noting that central banks were accumulating gold at a rate not seen in 55 years. In the third quarter of 2022, analysts estimate that almost 400 tonnes of gold were bought by central banks. That much gold would take around 16 semi-trailer...

unherd.com

India and China shown they have still big gap to resolve on their border issue. However does not mean they can't have mutual commercial standing in commerce through BRICS. Something similar interaction also happening between China and ASEAN neighbors.

 

[Vivendi]

Chinese interaction with it's neighbor is more intense but also more complex. Interaction between soft and hard diplomacy more intertwined. Also relationship between commercial interaction and defense engagement sometimes act on opposite ways.

Keep in mind that the Europe-Russia relationship and the relationship between China and her neighbors are in quite different phases. Russia did an unprovoked, brutal invasion of the whole of Ukraine. China has not invaded anybody in SEA recently.

If you look at the relationship between Europe and Russia before 2014, it was "intense and complex" and also interaction between soft and hard diplomacy, and a lot of commercial interaction.

France even wanted to sell Mistral ships(!) to Russia, after the 2008 invasion. However after the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, that was stopped. Mistral Dispute With Russia Settled, France Eyes Exports (defensenews.com)

The relationship between Europe and Russia was quite different before the aggressive moves done by Russia, and very much dominated by diplomacy and business.

At the same time there are of course many other differences -- for instance, Asian countries don't have anything like EU, or NATO. The histories are very different, and also geography is very different. Finally the cultures are different.

 

[Ananda]

mind that the Europe-Russia relationship and the relationship between China and her neighbors are in quite different phases.

No they are not in different phase, they are simply different in the interaction.

look at the relationship between Europe and Russia before 2014, it was "intense and complex" and also interaction between soft and hard diplomacy, and a lot of commercial interaction.

Are they (West and Russia) can still have normal commercial interaction even when their soldiers have spats in the borders ? That's what China and India done. If Russia and some NATO members doing what Chinese and Indian done in the borders, we already enter full blown war.

Can their (West-Russia) commercial industrial value chains connection increasing even when their naval forces got intense interactions in the sea? That's what Vietnam and China did.

No face it, it's not on different phase. It is simply different. Can China and it's neighbours have full invasion kind like Russia ? With Taiwan perhaps there's potential. With other neigbours more on intense show of force. Full blown invasion less likely in this time around.

That's doesn't mean risk of full blown war/invasion is not there, however Asian do make different diplomatic interaction. Again it is not better, but different then European does. Asian balancing act is just done in difference cultural assessment.

I agree with your last paragraph, that their culture is different. That's why I said before they are doing different diplomatic interactions. Not because they (Asian and China) in different phase then Euro and Russia.

 

[Vivendi]

No they are not in different phase, they are simply different in the interaction.

Whether you accept the hypothesis of "different phases" or not I hope you agree that there was very much a "before" and "after" in Europe, in particular before and after the 2014 invasion of Ukraine and even more pronounced, before and after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Before the 2014 invasion we saw a lot of trade, and a a lot of diplomacy between European countries and Russia. This changed after the 2014 invasion where Russia broke with the Budapest agreement. The 2022 illegal unprovoked invasion led to millions of refugees in Europe, and a level of destruction and suffering not seen in Europe since WW2. In addition, keep in mind that Russia started weaponizing gas supplies to Europe 6-12 months before the invasion. Energy supplies are absolutely critical to a country. The US restrictions of oil supplies to Japan was seen as a strong motivator for Japan to enter into a war with the US in 1941: BLOOD AND OIL: WHY JAPAN ATTACKED PEARL - The Washington Post

In spite of Russia launching an "energy war" against Europe in 2021, Europe has not taken any direct military action against Russia, not even a minor one.

Are they (West and Russia) can still have normal commercial interaction even when their soldiers have spats in the borders ? That's what China and India done. If Russia and some NATO members doing what Chinese and Indian done in the borders, we already enter full blown war.

First, I can assure you that Europe/NATO are making significant efforts to avoid a "full blown war" with Russia. Why do you think the US refuse (so far) to send ATACMS to Ukraine, in spite of the obvious military benefit this would have (at a low financial cost to the US!).

Second, India have imposed sanctions on China: Statecraft | India Imposes Economic Sanctions on China Following the Death of 20 Indian Soldiers

Can their (West-Russia) commercial industrial value chains connection increasing even when their naval forces got intense interactions in the sea? That's what Vietnam and China did.

1. There have been a number of incidents, here are some examples.
HMS Defender: Russian jets and ships shadow British warship - BBC News
Russian Su-24 Makes Pass at US Warship in the Black Sea – The Diplomat
Watch dramatic video of US and Russian warships nearly colliding - Vox

Incidents not involving ships:
Russian colonel Igor Girkin and his deputy found guilty in mass murder after killing civilians from 17 nationalities (mainly Dutch): 3 Convicted as Court Finds Rebels Shot Down Malaysian Airliner With Russian Missile (voanews.com)

During the cold war there were a lot of incidents, e.g.
Swedish Air Force Pays Tribute To Spy Plane Crew Shot Down By Russia 70 Years Ago (thedrive.com)

Also naval incidents occurred frequently, leading the US to suggest to the USSR an agreement to reduce the issues. Incidents at Sea Agreement (state.gov)

Still issues happened occasionally:
1988 Black Sea bumping incident - Wikipedia


2. There are several indications that the Vietnamese population is very upset and angry with the "appeasement" policy the corrupt communist regime is exercising in their interactions with China. China – a domestic threat to Vietnam? (eiu.com)

Part of the reason why Vietnam is doing this is (as I already pointed out) due to history, geography, military and economic weakness of Vietnam, culture, but also due to the fact that the leaders of Vietnam are a corrupt bunch who live isolated from the rest of the population and who cares mainly about themselves and less about Vietnam.

 

[Ananda]

in particular before and after the 2014 invasion of Ukraine and even more pronounced, before and after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Before the 2014 invasion we saw a lot of trade, and a a lot of diplomacy between European countries and Russia.

Off course it is, I acknowledge that, and accept that. Seems you the one that can not accept other people (in this case Asian), doing different calculations on their inter asian interactions, then your western thinking.

can assure you that Europe/NATO are making significant efforts to avoid a "full blown war" with Russia.

That's not related on anything with the point that I make. I said, if Nato and Russian soldiers doing what Chinese and Indian doing in their border clash, there's good probability Nato and Russia already in further escalations that lead to full blown war.

Do I ever say that Russia and Nato not doing their best to avoid full blown war ? If I say that, please show where ?

Second, India have imposed sanctions on China:

So ? Is that make their trade less ??

India-China trade climbs to USD 135.98 billion in 2022, trade deficit crosses USD 100 billion for the first time

The trade between India and China touched an all-time high of USD 135.98 billion in 2022, while New Delhi's trade deficit with Beijing crossed the USD 100 billion mark for the first time despite frosty bilateral relations, according to data released by the Chinese customs on Friday.

m.economictimes.com

.

Again Asian seems can do trade even when there's tensions on Military interaction. Will this means continue this way all the time ? Off course not, but Asian has different 'red line' then West and Russia. Something that seems either you can not grasp or just can not accept.

There have been a number of incidents, here are some examples.

Do you already review how far Vietnam and China clashing in SCS ? Is that as far as Russian and West incidents ? There's open information you can take a look on historical trend of SCS level engagement especially between Vietnam and China.

One other thing you put your example on incidents in cold war. Come on, is it comparable? There's limited trade and investment between West and East (not just Russia) in Cold war. How it is comparable with China and Vietnam interaction on Trade vis a vis SCS clash ?

Vietnam Marks Anniversary of Naval Clash With China Over Spratly Island Reefs

Families of fallen soldiers and veterans hold prayer ceremonies to honor the 64 dead.

www.rfa.org

Philippines backs Vietnam after China sinks fishing boat

In an unusually pointed statement, Manila laments loss of trust among neighbours due to incidents in disputed seas.

www.aljazeera.com

Vietnam's rare commemoration of a deadly South China Sea battle is a quiet but direct message to Beijing

The unusual ceremony, which took place amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, was seen as a quiet message from Hanoi to Beijing.

www.businessinsider.com

With all this historical and existing tensions in SCS (sometimes more brutal then West and USSR/Russia has), don't mean Vietnam and China has reduce their trade and businesses interactions. In fact they are increasing.

but also due to the fact that the leaders of Vietnam are a corrupt bunch who live isolated from the rest of the population and who cares mainly about themselves and less about Vietnam.

Right, if there's something that you don't agree, then it is must be corruption or criminal bunch. Have you ever been to Vietnam ? have ever have in depth business interactions with Vietnamese companies ? have ever have direct interactions with ordinary Vietnamese ? or you simply read online or some disgruntled Vietnamese activist talking in western media.

If don't have that kind deep interactions with real Vietnamese people, or Vietnamese busineess, don't talk condescending on how Vietnamese real interactions with their governments. This kind western thinking of Vietnamese societies, that make US lost and has to left Vietnam eventually.

Ooh I don't say Asian don't have corruption, there's reasons why only few Asian countries that rank high in Corruption Index. However don't talk on simplification that because of corruption, Asian governments lost touch with their population. Like it or not present 'corrupt' Vietnamese administration has raise their population standards of living significantly on the last two decades.

You already know there's difference cultures, but seems you can't accept that difference cultures means also different calculations on interactions mechanism. Again this doesn't means Asians diplomacy better then Western-Russia ones. It is just different.

 

[Vivendi]

Off course it is, I acknowledge that, and accept that. Seems you the one that can not accept other people (in this case Asian), doing different calculations on their inter asian interactions, then your western thinking.

I understand that Asian "thinking" can be different -- I merely highlighted that the examples you used were less striking if you look at Russian-European interactions before 2014.

That's not related on anything with the point that I make. I said, if Nato and Russian soldiers doing what Chinese and Indian doing in their border clash, there's good probability Nato and Russia already in further escalations that lead to full blown war.

I strongly disagree. Even if NATO and Russian soldiers had clashed over a disputed border, like China and India did, there is a low probability that this would escalate into a full blown war. I could point to several incidents during the cold war, however one more recent one, is this incident from Syria, where a large number of Russians were killed in a battle with US soldiers, and the situation was rapidly de-escalated afterwards: How a 4-Hour Battle Between Russian Mercenaries and U.S. Commandos Unfolded in Syria - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Have you ever been to Vietnam ? have ever have in depth business interactions with Vietnamese companies ? have ever have direct interactions with ordinary Vietnamese ? or you simply read online or some disgruntled Vietnamese activist talking in western media.

Yes I have been to Vietnam a number of times and the discontent with the corrupt regime in Vietnam is very real, and quite strong. Also the relationship between the general Vietnamese population and China is also quite "tense". I have written about this many times.

You keep highlighting "different cultures" and I keep responding that to a large extent I agree! "different cultures" are important. However what you seem to fail to accept is that "different cultures" are not the only explanation for how countries act differently.

One more example: Finland is definitely not Asian, and very much European, still, due to history, geography and some other factors Finland remained in a "neutral", nonaligned state during the cold war, and also in the first periods after the cold war, and with significant trade ties and diplomatic ties with USSR/Russia. Not because it has a "different culture" from e.g. Norway, but for other reasons. Yes, cultures are important but perhaps sometimes you need to look also at other factors that are at play...

 

[Ananda]

I merely highlighted that the examples you used were less striking if you look at Russian-European interactions before 2014.

Even before 2014, Inter Asian interactions already difference on mechanisms with Western and Russian. So simply can not accept that some Asian can do trade even they are having military tensions. That's striking difference.

However what you seem to fail to accept is that "different cultures" are not the only explanation for how countries act differently.

What seems you fail to accept is difference in culture is big parts on what make difference in interactions mechanisms. Yes is not the only one, however biggest parts that make it overall interactions difference.

Even if NATO and Russian soldiers had clashed over a disputed border, like China and India did, there is a low probability that this would escalate into a full blown war. I could point to several incidents during the cold war, however one more recent one, is this incident from Syria, where a large number of Russians were killed in a battle with US soldiers, and the situation was rapidly de-escalated afterwards:

Well lets agree to disagree then. Do you think if Russian doing twhat India and Chinese did with the Baltic states borders, the EU and NATO already up and arms much more then what happens in Ukraine?

Don't bring example on Syria, that's not border clash, that's not matter of sovereign jurisdictions. The level of 'emotional' attachments is difference. Really surprised you can not understand that basic difference.

Again what you can't accept and grasp to understand is simply Asian doing different ways. They can have increases on trade while having military tension in border. That's what happen with India and China, With China and their SCS neighbors.

You keep bring Russia and West before 2014. Well if Russian invasion on Crimea (which is not part of NATO border) already reduced trade significantly on both sides. Imagine what happens on trade and investment, if what happen in Indians -China border and SCS, happen to direct Nato border.

So Russia-West trade interaction before and after 2014, is runing on different interactions with Inter Asian trade interactions. Simply because there's difference on Asians doing diplomacy. Again that's the fact that you seem not grasping.

 

[Ananda]

have been to Vietnam a number of times and the discontent with the corrupt regime in Vietnam is very real, and quite strong. Also the relationship between the general Vietnamese population and China is also quite "tense". I have written about this many times.

I put it in difference posts because this is clearly shown that you simply don't understand on Asians. You seems forgot that both Chinese and Vietnamese 'corrupt' governments are already raises their citizen living standards significantly.

Asian as the communities can put up with authoritarian and corrupt regime, if they keep continue raising the standard of living. You simply see on your western standard. If it is already strong discontent, then there will be already enough uprisings in Vietnam.

Getting some protests or 'online' discontent is normal situations. However when you as government fail to deliver on economics progress, then it is different thing. That's why Soeharto fall in 98, because he fail to deliver. His regimes fall like deck card because when you fail in economics promises, everyone bailed from you.

If they (Vietnamese) as you say already have strong discontent among population, then Vietnam already like Myanmar now or like Indonesia in 98 when Soeharto fell. This is that you will not understand, as simply you only see it from your western standard.

There's level of discontent within Asian societies. Something that if see it only on western thinking, you will not get that subtle differences. Vietnam level of discontent for Asian standard still manageable. Why do you think business keep investing in there? Do you think us as Asians markets can not read sign on troubles ?

 

[Vivendi]

Even before 2014, Inter Asian interactions already difference on mechanisms with Western and Russian. So simply can not accept that some Asian can do trade even they are having military tensions. That's striking difference.

I did not say it was the same, on the contrary there was a difference but the difference was less striking before 2014.

What seems you fail to accept is difference in culture is big parts on what make difference in interactions mechanisms. Yes is not the only one, however biggest parts that make it overall interactions difference.

I already said that culture differences are important, but it seems you don't accept other factors are also significantly at play. I have given you examples where you see very different types and levels of interactions for different countries having the same culture.

Well lets agree to disagree then. Do you think if Russian doing twhat India and Chinese did with the Baltic states borders, the EU and NATO already up and arms much more then what happens in Ukraine?

1. The the Baltic border is not disputed like the Chinese/Indian border, so not at all the same situation.
2. Even if a significant trussle had happened on the Baltic border, of course NATO would work very hard to try to de-escalate the situation. De-escalation would be the main aim in such a scenario.

Don't bring example on Syria, that's not border clash, that's not matter of sovereign jurisdictions. The level of 'emotional' attachments is difference. Really surprised you can not understand that basic difference.

It is of course not the same, but still interesting to note how quickly both sides returned to a "normal" situation, and actively worked at de-escalating. I referred to that example because there are (to my knowledge) no examples of "border fights" between Russia and NATO countries, and although this was not a border fight it was a fight between US soldiers and Russians that led to Russian casualties and therefore the most relevant example.

Again what you can't accept and grasp to understand is simply Asian doing different ways. They can have increases on trade while having military tension in border. That's what happen with India and China, With China and their SCS neighbors.

I grasp that Asians are doing things differently. However it seems you fail to grasp that "culture" does not explain all the differences, there are also other factors at play.

You keep bring Russia and West before 2014. Well if Russian invasion on Crimea (which is not part of NATO border) already reduced trade significantly on both sides. Imagine what happens on trade and investment, if what happen in Indians -China border and SCS, happen to direct Nato border.

1. It did not reduce trade significantly, however it changed the diplomatic interaction significantly.
2. 2014 was not just about annexation of Crimea and invasion of Eastern Ukraine. The Budapest agreement, which was directly linked to nuclear nonprofilation was broken. Thus the Russian aggression towards Ukraine have far-reaching implications. Shooting down a civilian plane also did not improve the mood in Europe.
3. There were other Russian aggressions towards Europe that happened during 2014-2015 that further escalated the situation.
4. I have mentioned geography as an important factor, one you have not commented on. Had Ukraine been an island thousands of km away, and had the events not had any nuclear aspects, the European reaction would have been even more muted, even if we assume the same "culture" of the countries involved.

So Russia-West trade interaction before and after 2014, is runing on different interactions with Inter Asian trade interactions. Simply because there's difference on Asians doing diplomacy. Again that's the fact that you seem not grasping.

Yes but that is not the whole story is it. History, geography, also the existence of NATO and EU, are important factors that explain why and how things happen. Asia don't have NATO, don't have EU, don't have the geography of Europe. And don't have the cold war history, and a different WW2 history. All important factors. And yes culture differences are definitely important but it is seems you don't grasp the significance of all the other factors at play.