Nuclear submarines and regional security.

[Dave70]

An Australian News program was trying to demonstrate how menacing a potential adversary China is, but they kind of screwed it up.

 

[Bob]

Yes, if you read the WHO’s official announcement or press conference at the conclusion of their visits.

Sure they did

 

[Bob]

Yes, but some way more than others....

United States involvement in regime change - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jump directly to 1945 - 1991

Cool. Now do France.

 

[Bob]

Bear in mind that there was no trouble until after Victoria Nuland visited Sudan.

There's been trouble there for years.

 

[jstar]

But the Russians do have the numbers; their amount of tanks for instance, is six times that of Germany. Now, if you attack over land your strength has to be times 3 vs the defending army and 3-5 of those ‘inferior’ tanks can take out a Leopard. Compare it a bit to the desperate ‘banzai’ technique of the Japanese at the time. Huge losses but you accept and take those and just overrun the enemy.

In 2015, developers of the T-14 tank claimed it would be the world's first "invisible" tank (with anti radar technology). The T-14 is actually the successor to the T-90 and as you can see on the picture, has an unmanned (gun) turret which the crew can operate from a heavily armored pod at the front of the vehicle. This would give the crew greater chances of survival if the tank is hit. These tanks reach a maximum speed of 80 kilometers per hour on the road.

The T-14 Armata main battle tanks are being deployed to fire at Ukrainian positions from a distance, but they have not yet taken part in "direct attack operations", the Russian news agency "RIA" reported on Tuesday.

The T-14 was first unveiled in 2015 and the Kremlin ordered 2,300 units by 2020. But that deadline was pushed back to 2025 after huge production and quality issues. And now they don’t even have 40.

 

[Balifrog]

Cool. Now do France.

Since 1945 ?
Indochina, Algeria.
But both were colonial territories, figthing for their independance.

 

[Bob]

Since 1945 ?
Indochina, Algeria.
But both were colonial territories, figthing for their independance.

Africa? Cooperative efforts with the British and US? South Pacific? There are probably a few more but that's just from memory.

 

[harryopal1]

It certainly would be a major achievement if Xi Jinping could broker a peace between Ukraine and Russia but I can't help but feel this is unlikely. Zelensky has been clear that peace is only possible if it retains all its areas presently occupied by the Russians and is talking about taking Crimea. Putin seems to have insisted on "liberating" pro Russian areas of Ukraine and losing Crimea would be such a loss of face that it is hard to see him allowing that to happen. I do not pretend to have any particular expertise on these issues but find it hard to think what might be negotiable concessions for either of the protagonists.

 

[Balifrog]

It certainly would be a major achievement if Xi Jinping could broker a peace between Ukraine and Russia but I can't help but feel this is unlikely. Zelensky has been clear that peace is only possible if it retains all its areas presently occupied by the Russians and is talking about taking Crimea. Putin seems to have insisted on "liberating" pro Russian areas of Ukraine and losing Crimea would be such a loss of face that it is hard to see him allowing that to happen. I do not pretend to have any particular expertise on these issues but find it hard to think what might be negotiable concessions for either of the protagonists.

Zelensky will do what the USA tells him to do.
Ukraine can not win, clear and simple. Russia and Ukraine have about the same losses, except that Russia has triple the UKR population and can afford the attrition.
And thinking that Putin will give up Crimea is a dream.

 

[Balifrog]

Africa? Cooperative efforts with the British and US? South Pacific? There are probably a few more but that's just from memory.

Wiki is you friend....
"It participated in 50 of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495; more than any other European state. It is followed by Austria which fought in 47 of them; Spain in 44; and England in 43. Out of the 169 most important world battles fought since 387BC, France has won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10."

You will note our extreme fair play, as once in 3 we let the other party win !

Military history of France - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[jstar]

Of course every colonial power has its dark history. Even the Danes and the Belgians.

With China it is rather peculiar though; they have never been so keen on having military power or domination over regions. Of course you can make the case for Nepal, the Uyghur region, Tibet or the Southern Chinese Sea, but those are specific for interpretation of territory, for fear of terrorism or losing power, rather recent and exceptional.

To generalize, the ‘Chinese’ want to trade and make money and acquire wealth. But with a ruling political party that doesn’t want to lose face…

 

[Bob]

Of course every colonial power has its dark history. Even the Danes and the Belgians.

With China it is rather peculiar though; they have never been so keen on having military power or domination over regions. Of course you can make the case for Nepal, the Uyghur region, Tibet or the Southern Chinese Sea, but those are specific for interpretation of territory, for fear of terrorism or losing power, rather recent and exceptional.

To generalize, the ‘Chinese’ want to trade and make money and acquire wealth. But with a ruling political party that doesn’t want to lose face…

China's had periods of isolationism but they've got a longer history of imperialism. A lot of today's China is not the Han homeland. Look at their history in SEA and Central Asia.
Expansion for fear of terrorism makes no sense.

 

[Balifrog]

China is not an agressive power.
But they want their previous status back as the biggest worldpower, which they were till the Opium wars 1 and 2. Wars they lost and were humiliated, something they never forget. Hence their "revenge" on HKG, territory that the Brits "stole" from them.
Now it is simple, they want to be the major ;

• Economic power (done)
• Military power (nearly there, their Navy has mor ships than the USN)
• Diplomatic power (working on it, see the Saudi / Iran talks organized by China and now their peace proposal on Ukraine)

Of course the USA seing that they are slowing losing in the 3 domains dont take it very well, as they used to be the dominant hegemon.
PS : You can add also the plan to avoid the USD, and start trading in RMB.
Note also that the BRICS are discussing establing a special currency, for trade purpose only, amongst them. And that there is a waiting list of countries wanting to join the BRICS...

 

[Bob]

China is not an agressive power.
But they want their previous status back as the biggest worldpower, which they were till the Opium wars 1 and 2. Wars they lost and were humiliated, something they never forget. Hence their "revenge" on HKG, territory that the Brits "stole" from them.
Now it is simple, they want to be the major ;

• Economic power (done)
• Military power (nearly there, their Navy has mor ships than the USN)
• Diplomatic power (working on it, see the Saudi / Iran talks organized by China and now their peace proposal on Ukraine)

Of course the USA seing that they are slowing losing in the 3 domains dont take it very well, as they used to be the dominant hegemon.
PS : You can add also the plan to avoid the USD, and start trading in RMB.
Note also that the BRICS are discussing establing a special currency, for trade purpose only, amongst them. And that there is a waiting list of countries wanting to join the BRICS...

The first two sentences are contradictory. PRC won't become the biggest world power without being aggressive, and they are indeed aggressive as we've seen for example in the SCS.
Maybe it's nitpicking but the US is still the biggest economy by a wide margin. That will change for sure. With PRC's population and growing economy it is natural that they become a bigger player on the world stage. Ideally they'll do so without running roughshod over their neighbors.

 

[R Cameron]

Maybe it's nitpicking but the US is still the biggest economy by a wide margin. That will change for sure. With PRC's population and growing economy it is natural that they become a bigger player on the world stage. Ideally they'll do so without running roughshod over their neighbors.

Exactly, US economy is still much bigger, as is the US Navy. China may have more ships, but size and quality matter a lot more than quantity. US has about 50% greater fleet by tonnage. China has 6 nuclear subs, the US has 71. The US Navy alone has more aircraft than all branches of the Chinese military combined (and USAF and US Army both have more than the US Navy).

And all China's positive trends face great uncertainty as their population is now declining with no sign of recovery.

 

[Helpful Herbert]

As part of the Chinese humiliation in the 19th century, the Treaty of Peking in 1860 gave Outer manchuria (part of China) to Russia. It now includes Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. China has described this as an "unequal treaty", only concluded because Russia threatened to invade and China was fighting elsewhere and knew they would lose. Since it gives Russia access to the Pacific, it wouldn't be given up without a fight. The fight is not imminent, but on the other hand there are certain circumstances (such as the disintegration of Russia) where it would make sense for China to take it back, or at least aim to control it. I'm sure Putin and Xi are both aware of this, and it is part of the delicate balance of their relationship.

 

[Balifrog]

As part of the Chinese humiliation in the 19th century, the Treaty of Peking in 1860 gave Outer manchuria (part of China) to Russia. It now includes Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. China has described this as an "unequal treaty", only concluded because Russia threatened to invade and China was fighting elsewhere and knew they would lose. Since it gives Russia access to the Pacific, it wouldn't be given up without a fight. The fight is not imminent, but on the other hand there are certain circumstances (such as the disintegration of Russia) where it would make sense for China to take it back, or at least aim to control it. I'm sure Putin and Xi are both aware of this, and it is part of the delicate balance of their relationship.

Huge Chinese presence in Siberia !

Beijing 'eating up' Siberia

A documentary about the colonization of the Russian Far East by Chinese migrants. They do big business in a sparsely populated area with an unregulated market. Facial recognition

www.asianews.it

The Myth of a Chinese Takeover in the Russian Far East

The Chinese presence in Siberia and the Far East is actually declining, not growing.

thediplomat.com

 

[Balifrog]

The first two sentences are contradictory. PRC won't become the biggest world power without being aggressive, and they are indeed aggressive as we've seen for example in the SCS.

Wrong .... Chinese are business minded people.
But they are very dependant on trade routes for this. Hence the Belt and Road initiative. Partly over land (rail), partly over the seas.
Their increased presence in the SCS is related to the latter, in effect protect their maritime trade routes that are vital for their import (oil) and exports.
The Strait of Malacca being a typical example.
The world has seen how the US is able (and politically willing) to cut off a.country from international transport (Cuba, Venezuela, Iran...)
Hence they want a strong Navy to protect their trade routes.
I say "protect" ! They dont need 70 nuclear subs, as they dont intend to invade the US. Contrary to the US who is always ready to attack / invade anyone.

Concerning the state of the US, you make me smile...
USA has HUGE economic, racial, health (include mental health), gun addiction, and extremist biparty politics problems....
BTW, you are aware that of the 5 biggest banks in the world, 3 are Chinese ?

Ok, 06:30 , time for my morning swim !

 

[Dave70]

There's been trouble there for years.

You know what I meant, the trouble I'm referring to is the current fighting between rival military factions which obliged many countries to evacuate their citizens and close their embassies. It's been the headline news for a week or so now.

 

[Dave70]

As part of the Chinese humiliation in the 19th century, the Treaty of Peking in 1860 gave Outer manchuria (part of China) to Russia. It now includes Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. China has described this as an "unequal treaty", only concluded because Russia threatened to invade and China was fighting elsewhere and knew they would lose. Since it gives Russia access to the Pacific, it wouldn't be given up without a fight. The fight is not imminent, but on the other hand there are certain circumstances (such as the disintegration of Russia) where it would make sense for China to take it back, or at least aim to control it. I'm sure Putin and Xi are both aware of this, and it is part of the delicate balance of their relationship.

Officially, both China and Russia have no claim on each other's territory as they have settled their territorial disputes years ago.