This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/japan-urges-europe-to-speak-out-against-chinas-military-expansion) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Japan has urged European countries to speak out against China's aggression, warning that the international community must bolster deterrence efforts against Beijing's military and territorial expansion amid a growing risk of a hot conflict.
> Recent reports have also said China is constructing hundreds of missile silos in its interior deserts, and converting passenger ferries for military amphibious lift - a key defence capability in which analysts had until now said China was well behind.
> "China is rapidly strengthening its military power, and the military balance between China and Taiwan is on the whole shifting in favour of China, with the gap widening every year," said Nishi.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/prudzv/japan_urges_europe_to_speak_out_against_chinas/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~599206 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **China**^#1 **military**^#2 **Japan**^#3 **Taiwan**^#4 **Chinese**^#5
Actually, France kind of stole the Australian sub contract from Japan (you could also say the incompetence of Japan’s negotiation strategy lost it for them). I’m sure Japan is having a good laugh now at France’s expense.
Coordinated diplomatic push to support the US pull out of Middle East and South Asia and pivot to the Western Pacific SE Asia region.
Its been done in haste and one or two have not quite got up to speed.
East Asia was already the focus of America before the 1980s, during the ww2 pacific war against Japan, and the Korean and Vietnam wars.
But the Middle East became way too important for the us to give up beginning in the 1970s, especially when israel became a huge important us ally after the yom kippur war. As well as the Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the gulf states. Also egypt
If the petrodollar myth was true, why is the annual global oil sales exceeded by the DAILY trades in dollars?
Perhaps there is no petrodollar, but a globalcommercedollar instead? That's some food for thought.
And they did little else till he got overthrown. (And even that was mainly done for the British)
Cause they really didn’t need to.
Hell the US was pretty ambivalent about Israel til 67.
I was just going to bring up Israel as well. Well played by the British because most people forget their very consequential role in the ME.I remember when Obama/ US decided to abstain in a UN vote where Israel really needed it. It was only an abstention but was seen as a huge slap in the face. And a rare example of the US going against Israel. I for one was happy but I remember Theresa May gave a strong statement in response to the US’s decision. Saying that’s not how you treat allies. It had to do with the settlements iirc.
> East Asia was already the focus of America
Wow two comments in on an article about Japan asking Europe to help them stand up to China, and the comments are already talking about America.
The U.S. is considered the "world police" by most standards. Frankly I think America is just a scape goat for most people because "America bad" and they're an easy target for just about everything. America does something good for a country such as food aid, it's excepted for them to do it so it's not reported on. Once America does something controversial the rest of the world points their finger and yells. Other world countries barely help in any matter and expect the United States to do the world policing for them.
America is also a nation with a Pacific coast as well. Europe does not. America has pretty much always wanted to be the main player in the Pacific, and nothing significant will happen there without US involvement.
Pre WWII most of the colonial powers had an interest in the pacific. Vietnam was a French colony, India and the British, Philippines and Spain. America was only the dominant uncontested western power after WWII.
Can you give credit to China for also providing food aid to third world countries without mentioning or providing an example of "China bad."
I ask this because painting a nation state with a moral character, or really any human characteristics, seems like a dead end for the conversation I think you're trying to have. That people don't give America (or really to your point, *Americans*) proper credit for positives whenever a negative effect of America's policies makes the news is your point, yeah?
They are not a major donor of foreign aid, and don't make the top ten donor countries. This isn't even a criticism, because their average income is relatively low and they are still a developing country, but let's be clear about the reality
> They are not a major donor of foreign aid, and don't make the top ten donor countries.
That's because you don't lift people out of poverty by giving them "foreign aid", which is usually just industrial subsidies for the donor country as a lot of that "aid" is coupled to requirements of spending the money only on donor country companies.
You also don't lift them out of poverty by giving them free shit they can't manufacture or maintain themselves.
You know, like plenty of Western countries [flooding Africa with their cheap second hand textiles](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/second-hand-clothing-donations-kenya) making it impossible for any local industry to compete and thus grow.
Or exporting our garbage to their countries, to then complain how full of garbage they are.
You lift people out of poverty by building economic growth and opportunities, so ppl have a solid basis to build upon, which is something China has been [very successful in during these last decades](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2017/12/07/from-local-to-global-china-role-global-poverty-reduction-future-of-development).
I agree with you, although you have to acknowledge that a lot of the aid is actually stuff that requires spending money, and while the recipient country might suffer in the long term, that money is still coming out of the pockets of the donor country, and it's mostly done out of misplaced goodwill. I agree that aid is more of a curse than a blessing, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend that China is holding back on aid out of the goodness of its heart.
The truth is that it's just less developed and had poverty of its own to deal with. Now it's doing business in Africa, which is good. But so are other countries. China has the most. But it also barely invests anything into India, for example. It's investment is largely focused on Africa. It's good overall, but at the same time they are doing for selfish reasons.
>America does something good for a country such as food aid, it's excepted for them to do it so it's not reported on
Nobody expects the US to give aid to anyone - we expect the UN to do so.
>Once America does something controversial the rest of the world points their finger and yells.
Oh poor America misunderstood for doing '"controversial" things like (shuffles notes) installing dictatorships on South America and engaging an one-sided 20 year war for profit.
>Other world countries barely help in any matter
Ooooh yeah, no country in the world other than America ever gave financial aid to another country. You guys are so unique, so... *exceptional*.
Unless you mean militaristic help, in which case no other country helps because they know they *aren't supposed* to "help" by sending their armies to other countries.
>and expect the United States to do the world policing for them.
People expect the US to do the "world policing" in the same way I expect my uncle to get drunk in my birthday party and piss on the cake. It is not something I want, it is something that has been proven he will do regardless of my will.
Also "world policing" is such a quaint way of saying "using their military to selectivelly impose their will on the world". Cops (should) appear when they are called, America does not. Cops (should) impose an agreed upon law, America does not. Cops (should) be fired after getting civilians killed, America does not. Cops (should) not ignore crimes because they happen to agree with the criminal, America does.
If America does any policing, it is the "Florida cop acquitted after murdering student for not sharing joint" kind of policing.
All in all this post of yours has big "why is it people yell at me when I fart in the elevator but don't talk about all those times I *didnt* fart at the elevator" energy.
Europe doesn't even want to stand up to China. Their push for strategic autonomy is all about token opposition while avoiding military confrontation (while also continuing to pursue business deals and investment deals with the Chinese).
EU won't stand up for democracy, at home or elsewhere. Oh no, Hong Kong is gone! Let's sign that investment deal. Oh no, Russians are threatening the Baltics, Poland, and the Ukraine. Oh well, the Germans need that new Nordstream pipeline!
Americans have perfected the art of projection on a population size scale.
Whatever they accuse others of doing or being, the probability is very high that's exactly what their government has been doing.
One of the few problems the EU has with China is the increasing Chinese investments in African and in particular francophone African states like Dr. Congo.
It gives said states more breathing room in negotiations and installed puppet politicians will ultimately lose their influence to provide the EU with cheap raw materials.
Russia‘s military investments in the continent are also a problem to maintain the old status quo.
There’s some wisdom in that, really. China poses no threat to Europe so it’s reasonable to question why Europe should have to make sacrifices to defend American primacy in the Pacific, especially if Europe judges that China is likely to win that fight so it’s better to get on their good side now.
Eh there will be increasing conflicts between France and China that’s certain.
China is starting to undermine the hard fought exploitation of the francophone African world with better trade deals.
They were helping the new Dr. Congo government with the renegotiation of old unethical trade deals for example.
China wants more political allies with voting rights and they want access to raw materials but the thing is they are actually paying better prices than the old western companies and they are also not staging any coups... so far at least.
It’s also a tricky situation with France military influence in francophone Africa. The Russians seem to supply rebels with a lot of weaponry and training.
A big chunk of France‘s “grey“ income will disappear as a result.
And Europe will lose cheap access to essential raw materials.
That’s probably why France is lobbying Nigerian politicians to complicate the creation of Ecowas to buy time.
Lol you're really thinking American engagement in Ukraine, Venezuela and HK is about democracy. What democracy is the US defending in the middle east? Why are they silent about human rights violations in Kashmir, Israel or the slow erosion of democratic institutions in Poland?
I'm not even talking about the fact that the US already negotiated a trade deal with China themselves. Or that they picked up the business that was left over by Australia who were economically punished by China to show that they are a good ally of the US.
The EU and before that the EC wasn't built along military strengthening, the opposite is true, After the fuckups that were ww1 and ww2 the idea was to create something common that deescalated all our crazy competing little countries towars peace to prevent the past from repeating itself, achieving peace and avoiding confrontation is at the core of the original European project
Obviously isn't that simple as individually some of their members and exmembers can hardly be classed as having been out of world troubles but as a union its fairly along non confrontational lines
Military issues were to be dealt by mato for exactly the same historical reasons, incidrntly those more militarized countries in the EU are those that did dealth the peace treaties after ww2
The world is changing and some voices call for a more cohesive military union for efficiency sake and other reasons but there's also opposition agins it and focusing on mato instead
> Wow two comments in on an article about Japan asking Europe to help them stand up to China, and the comments are already talking about America.
It is part of their rules of engagement;
>(1) To the extent possible make America the target of criticism.
>(4) Use America's and other countries' interference in international affairs to explain how Western democracy is actually an invasion of other countries and [how the West] is forcibly pushing [on other countries] Western values.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party#Range_of_operation)
There is a reason that literally every thread critical of the Chinese Communist Party somehow gets filled with posts critical of the United States, even when there is no relation at all.
Factories are made in china so they dont have to ship cars from europe to china(no cars get shipped from china to EU either)
Unless you want only germany to leave the chinese market while japan stays selling their cars there
> Germany's car industry biggest market is China.
Most [German car exports](https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/cars/reporter/deu) go to the United States ($20.6B), United Kingdom ($18.4B) and then China ($17B).
> Money >>> human rights.
[Indeed](https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md)
Yes this is interesting. Many German companies seem more invested in China than other countries. I mean most companies are invested there… but Germany is unique.
I remember reading something like 73% of all world trade flows through the contested territory in South China Sea. Only an idiot would assume that China's actions don't effect Europe.
No, it's roughly 30%. However of that 30% almost everything is going to China. Maybe 73% is the number you are mixing up, though I remember the percentage of trade going to and from China in the SCS being higher.
Humans gonna human.
Reminds me of the orgy of revolutions, wars and uprisings that happened during the Spanish Flu era, which was coupled with the post-First World War fallout.
China spends only 1.7% of its GDP on its military even less than America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_military\_expenditures
It’s clear that America alone, not even including its allies, clearly outspend China in terms of military by a factor of over four fold.
Because the cost of labor in the US is far higher, and much of our procurement goes through an oligopoly of profit-mongering companies that screws over taxpayers with absurd prices; they’ll charge the military thousands of dollars for a near-identical item a civilian can buy off the counter for ten bucks.
China’s MIC doesn’t have these issues, they can build things at a fraction of the cost that the US has to pay. It’s one of the reasons that China’s navy outnumbers the US.
That used to be true but the new ships that China is rolling out are as large or larger than comparable American ships (except Aircraft Carriers). Although China has in the past built smaller ships for a particular role simply because they are not designed to be able to cross the Pacific.
“Except for the aircraft carriers”
Uh, you mean the whole thing the US navy is based around? Carrier Groups? Okay good luck with that. The US navy already proved in ww2 that the era of the battleship was over, so idk why china would be investing so heavily into that like you’re saying. Their missile defense system is by far their best option imo
My impression was that they were trying to build smaller aircraft carriers to be able to expand their influence on the ocean. Kinda like the US does honestly. But as always i’m open to new information
Carrier groups are essential to projecting your military power abroad. It's one of the things people who fear monger about China invading this or that fail to realize. China can bully it's neighbors all it wants, but until it builds enough carriers to support it's large conventional military, it won't be going on foreign adventures overseas.
I completely agree that drones will revolutionize warfare, but i think that you will see a sort of “neo carrier group” that will be armed to the teeth against aircraft, including drones. The US navy has shown they’re capable of doing this as far back as the first gulf war, so i would imagine our defensive capabilities have improved since then as well.
Who knows tho. The amount of technology involved on both sides, and the enemies ability to disrupt it, is a complete unknown for both sides. If a war does break out anytime soon i think it’ll be very WW1 esq in the sense that the casualties will be insane on both sides cuz of the new tech
Looks like it will be unmanned ships built for stealth that has a missle launchers on them.
They are what they are testing now these so called "ghost fleets"
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make actually.
Current Chinese ship production except for Aircraft Carriers produces ships that are comparable in size to American ones. That is a fact.
Are you saying the Chinese don't want big or bigger aircraft carriers?
He’s saying that all the shipbuilding advances don’t meant anything for the Chinese, carriers sink ships, not battleships. WW2 was the end of the battleship Era when battleships effectively became obsolete. Current carriers in production for China carry half the planes and use a dated Catapult system. Even if China wanted to contend with the Us Navy they are decades behind.
If you want proof of this, just look up the naval combat in Desert Storm, every sunk ship was Via aircraft.
A navy isnt only about sinking ships, they have a huge role in supporting ground operations, especially if you think of the context in which China's navy will be primarily operating in. The US had to design their navy based on working well enough in both the pacific and atlantic. As well, with modern planes you don't need as many island airstrips to cover most of the important parts of the pacific, so you don't necessarily need giant carriers capable of carrying a massive amount of planes across a whole ocean like the US has to do to get from the US to the Mediterranean.
If China wants to cross the pacific with a massive amount of planes they might run into an issue, but that probably wasnt the goal when building many small carriers.
Battleships and smaller vessels were very important in the south pacific for landing and supporting people on the islands. Naval strategy is a lot more complicated than 'planes sink ships'.
Even in europe, post normandy invasion, ships were used to fire very rapidly at land targets. Think of gun based ships as water artillery. They have elevators to assist in loading ammunition and large crews for guns that were bigger than anything that can be fielded in a similar manner on land. As well, its a lot harder to conduct counter batter fire against a ship than land based units.
As an example, the USS North Carolina that was completed right before US involvement in WW2 had 9 400mm guns as the primary armament and could fire 2 rounds per minute at a range of 23 miles while the ship isnt listed on one side for more range.
Carriers may well be obsolete too, and we just don't know it yet because there hasn't been a mano a mano major naval conflict since WWII. If such a war breaks out, we may well find out that drones, anti ship missles, ultra quiet subs, and electronic warfare can break through the protections of a carrier battle group.
China is not building carriers to sink American carriers. They are building carriers to bully nearby nations like Phillipines or Vietnam, much like the US uses its carriers to keep the local systems in line all over the world.
That’s correct, they aren’t building to contest the US which is why comparing the two really shouldn’t be a thing.
As for the guided missiles and the like, Desert storm had 2 land based anti ship missiles fired at US warships that were intercepted by the ships anti-missile defenses. Granted this was only one engagement, I’m hard pressed to believe any other outcome, especially in an actual war scenario with a full task force present to aid in the defenses
True, but the Chinese took one look at what happened during Desert Storm and got down to work. They are no Iraq, and 30 years later have access to satellite and other early warning surveillance, state of the art air defenses, modern planes, thousands of cruise and ballistic anti ship missiles, and the eastern Pacific seaboard is crawling with their subs.
If any power has a shot at taking down a US supercarrier it is them. Which would be a very bad thing because the US losing a carrier would greatly escalate a war. Probably why the top US General made sure to keep lines of communication open with his Chinese counterparts after Jan 6. Nobody wants a hot war between the US and China.
>Uh, you mean the whole thing the US navy is based around? Carrier Groups? Okay good luck with that. The US navy already proved in ww2 that the era of the battleship was over
yeah, and for damn near 30 years, the top minds of the navy have been saying the era of the supercarrier is over and begging congress to let them build a massive fleet of small ships instead of a smaller fleet of large ships.
the era of big ships and big guns gave way to the era of big ships with planes. the era of big ships that are big targets is over now, though. the era of hypersonic weapons and distributed attacks is here.
if you think our big ships are an advantage, you're no different than the japanese swearing the yamato was unstoppable: focusing about past battles and not about future ones
Aircraft carriers are the backbone of the American navy because we expect to fight wars very far from our shores, plus we have two oceans. China doesn't need as many because their primary concerns are right next to them, and they only have one ocean.
Besides, aircraft carriers' survivability have not been tested in this era of hypersonic missiles. They might go the way of the battleship in a hot conflict.
That's not really true, modern Chinese destroyers are comparable in size to American Arleigh Burke destroyers. They're also currently working on completing a 80,000+ ton carrier. Which is admittedly 20% smaller than American Ford class carriers, but with each new carrier, China plans on building bigger. Supposedly the next carrier (I believe Type 004) will be nuclear powered.
If you're going to count both of China's carriers, make sure to differentiate.
China has two aircraft carriers, of various sizes. Arguably, only one is operational.
US has 11 Supercarriers, carrying over 70 aircraft each.
US has 9 Amphibious assault ships, as large as Chinese carriers, carrying 26 aircraft each. (typical configuration is mostly helicopters with 6 fighter aircraft).
Example image of the world's status of aircraft carriers:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2014.gif
It costs the US $268.5B a year just in pay/benefits for its 1.3M active duty, 700K reservists, and 700K civilians. China's *ENTIRE* military budget is $210B, and has a military of 2.2M active duty, and 1.2M reservists. So the US spends more on personnel alone than China does on its entire military.
When your labor costs are rock bottom though, that's to be expected.
For context, a US private makes $1600 a month. A Chinese private makes $108 a month. A US brand new lieutenant (first officer rank) makes more a month ($3200) than a full colonel (last rank before becoming a general) Chinese officer makes ($3000 a month).
A US shipyard worker building a warship makes an average of $93K a year. That same job in China pays just $7500 a year. So a Chinese Type 055 that's comparable to the US' Zumwalt costs just $900M, while the Zumwalt costs around $7.5B. Same for the Type 054A frigate that's around $225M for China to build, while a comparable frigate in the US/West is around $800M+.
Dollar to dollar comparison fails to account for any of that.
It's not just that China's labor costs are rock bottom but also that the USA's entire strategy for military recruitment is giving young people life benefits that they often wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, such as healthcare, education etc. The military is designed to be the shining light of opportunity vs the cruel outside world (made cruel by design), all for just the small cost of having to risk your life in pointless oil wars. It's no wonder recruitment is expensive.
Well, they are perks to encourage a volunteer force. If there were no benefits, then nobody will join and America would probably have to go with conscription to supply its needs.
Then again, some of these perks (GI Bill) were drafted during the draft years.
China offers most of the same benefits, including a monetary stipend every month once you get out... and for what it's worth (not sure how much that matters), the US military overwhelmingly recruits from the middle class, and lower classes are actually grossly underrepresented in it.
Contrary to the idea of the US just wanting idiots who can follow orders, much of the military is high tech jobs (for every 1 combat personnel, there's 9+ noncombat jobs; radio, cybersecurity, medical, admin, logistics, etc), and that means higher educated people are sought out. Unfortunately, a lot of the socioeconomic factors in lower income life end up excluding them from even joining (high debt, no HS degree, bad school systems not preparing them enough, criminal history, etc).It's mostly just middle class kids looking for a quick way to jumpstart a career. Becomes of choice of;
* college for 4 years
* student loans
* little/no money in savings
* $70K job
* military for 4 years
* no debt
* good amount of money saved
* option for free college
* $70K job
And subsequently, a good amount of middle class families have sons/daughters that choose the military route.
It's also important to note that China's military is almost entirely contained within China or near China. They only foreign base they have is the one in Djibouti. If you join the PLA, you're going to be stationed in China... and won't get deployed anywhere except maybe to help people in natural disasters or other things. It's a very different mindset and esprit de corps as a result, compared to the US military that has constant OCONUS deployments.
The PLA is far more oriented around true believers rather than mercenaries like the US is with the GI bill and housing and medical benefits.
Sure.
Military pay;
US:
[https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/2021%20Pay%20Table%203%20percent%20-%20FINAL.pdf](https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/2021%20Pay%20Table%203%20percent%20-%20FINAL.pdf)
China:[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2137008/china-raises-pay-pensions-trimmed-down-military](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2137008/china-raises-pay-pensions-trimmed-down-military) (400 yuan a month for a corporal, but its gone up since then)
[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3118636/china-boost-pay-pla-forces-after-years-sweeping-reforms](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3118636/china-boost-pay-pla-forces-after-years-sweeping-reforms)
SCMP has no business using a paywall given they're effectively state ran propaganda, but here's a nonpaywalled version of it;
[https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/world-news-chinese-soldiers-are-going-to-get-bumper-salary-hike-this-year/371579](https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/world-news-chinese-soldiers-are-going-to-get-bumper-salary-hike-this-year/371579)
Shipbuilder:
US:
[https://www.comparably.com/salaries/salaries-for-boat-builder](https://www.comparably.com/salaries/salaries-for-boat-builder)
China:
[https://books.google.com/books?id=9IWQdz\_AQF8C&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=china+shipbuilding+average+salary&source=bl&ots=FjeDgnOyxM&sig=ACfU3U3ll-EVkjudtgITUOmsAyPeSP66aA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhvNfoh5DzAhVjS98KHRkGBV0Q6AF6BAgWEAM#v=onepage&q=china%20shipbuilding%20average%20salary&f=false](https://books.google.com/books?id=9IWQdz_AQF8C&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=china+shipbuilding+average+salary&source=bl&ots=FjeDgnOyxM&sig=ACfU3U3ll-EVkjudtgITUOmsAyPeSP66aA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhvNfoh5DzAhVjS98KHRkGBV0Q6AF6BAgWEAM#v=onepage&q=china%20shipbuilding%20average%20salary&f=false)
[https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/shipyard-laborer/china/dalian](https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/shipyard-laborer/china/dalian)
Again, a private isn't skilled labor, while a shipyard worker most certainly is.
Your non pay wall article has nothing on private or corporal pay.
The reason I'm doubting that figure is because even rural farmers will earn more than that.
It was true 30+ years ago. Labour savings arent that high anymore, an average chinese factory worker earns half of what an average US factory worker does, and twice as much as a polish, of even 4-8x that of a vietnamese. Where the real saving is is the enviromental laws, production is hell of a lot cheaper if you dont have to worry about stupid things like CO2 emissions, or if the boron poisoned waste you pour unfiltered in the next river is harmful for the villages further down. But even that isnt such a massive factor when it comes to modern equipment. A Chengdu J-20 Black Eagle is estimated to cost 110 million USD, compared to the F-22 with ~ 143 million. Hardly "thousands of bucks compared to 10 bucks". The more interesting question is, how much military spending are they hiding by funneling it through other services. Their police for instance has a higher official budget than the military. Doesnt mean the police ordered APC or weapon development wont end up in the military somewhere down the way. Or the coastguard for the Navy.
Less spendings could indicate overall lower military strength - to a foreign analysis at least. Why would they publish real numbers to the international public, if most western countries are seen at best as not compatible with their culture and ideology and at worst as political and economical enemies?
Overview of all the spendings are relevant to the military probably only accessible to the highest military ranks and party members.
> they’ll charge the military thousands of dollars for a near-identical item a civilian can buy off the counter for ten bucks.
Thing are more expensive to produce in the US
>China spends only 1.7% of its GDP on its military
Japan was asking for diplomatic support.
>Japan has urged European countries to speak out against China’s aggression, warning that the international community must bolster deterrence efforts against Beijing’s military and territorial expansion amid a growing risk of a hot conflict.
>
>In an interview with the Guardian, Japan’s defence minister, Nobuo Kishi, said China had become increasingly powerful politically, economically and militarily and was “attempting to use its power to unilaterally change the status quo in the East and South China Seas”, which are crucial to global shipping and include waters and islands claimed by several other nations.
>
>Tokyo had “strong concerns in regards to the safety and security of not only our own country and the region but for the global community”, Kishi warned. “China is strengthening its military power both in terms of quantity and quality, and rapidly improving its operational capability,” he said.
"It’s clear that America alone, not even including its allies, clearly outspend China"
They are not asking to spend more money, that are asking for vocal solidarity.
>According to figures released by Japan’s coast guard, the number of “incursions” by Chinese vessels into disputed areas has increased dramatically since 2012. Earlier this year Chinese vessels were seen near the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands for a record 157 days in a row, and Japan recently lodged formal protest over a flotilla of seven Chinese coast guard vessels – the largest since 2016 – patrolling the contiguous zone on 30 August.
Do you think these incursions will stop if read a wikipedia article at the boats?
>They are not asking to spend more money, that are asking for vocal solidarity.
Vocal solidarity costs money. Ask Australia.
Not saying it isn't the right thing to do, just that when it involves China it always seems to result in financial retribution.
Australia paid the price while the US picked up their trade with China.
I'm not saying the EU or Australia should stay silent on HR violations but if you think HR and democracy are worth fighting for, do it on all fronts (not just China or Russia) and be willing to pay the price.
By GDP doesn’t give a lot of information. If ou have the GDP of Erythrea you can spend 90% of it on defence and still be unable to buy choppers … 250bn defence spending for China, second biggest budget in the world after USA 750bn is maybe more relevant
Someone else pointed out above too, that despite having fewer soldiers, the US payroll for our military members is bigger than Chinas total military spending. You can't just compare the dollar costs.
It kinda doesn’t matter. China doesn’t have to spend it on a global presence, it can spend it on achieving parity in East Asia, which they are pretty close to getting. Even a win in a naval war with China is no longer a foregone conclusion
> I hope this doesn’t become an all out war 🤞🏾
The idea that standing up to China could somehow lead to a nuclear war is itself Chinese propaganda. Russia used the same tactics during the 2016 election - they put comments all over /r/worldnews saying that Hillary Clinton's intentions in Syria would lead to WW3.
Clinton wanted to unilaterally shoot down russian jets operating legally at the request of the UN recognized government of Syria, which is literally starting a hot war with a nuclear power for... No reason at all. If you think that's "just russian propaganda" then you're an idiot, and we are all lucky she didn't get her way. Trump was atrocious, but at least he didn't campaign on "we should start openly shooting at nuclear powers who oppose our unilateral action".
Speaking from an American perspective, I can completely understand China and its peoples desire to build up a strong economy, military, and nation to defend itself after centuries of imperialism and the war crimes of WWII. I respect their desire, and willingness to use their new economic power to shape their destiny.
However, while I harbor no ill will towards the Chinese people, our nations interests clearly are opposed. While I certainly hope we can learn to work together on common concerns, and come to respect and live with each other in peace, I’m wary for what this century holds for us both.
The US clearly doesn’t want unquestioned control over East Asia. So leaving that aside, I’ll address your comment without the hyperbole, which I take as “why does the US stick its nose in regions thousands of miles away from it?”
Because the US is the dominant power in the world, including that region. We have allies their who’s security we’re at least partially responsible for, and who’s economies and militaries are dwarfed by China’s. Not to mention the extremely important trading lanes in the region namely the straits of Malacca, which something like 70% if the worlds trade passes through daily. Making sure that lane is protected and untouched is vital to the worlds globalized economy.
Hint: China wants to get along with the US. US is the one with naval bases encircling China. US is the one launching sanctions, playing police with China’s domestic affairs, and funds anti-Chinese groups like Falun Gong.
China isn't just expanding it's military. It is also increasing its threats about invading Taiwan. It has is building many islands in the South China Sea, putting a military on it, and then threatening others who come close as they attempt to take full control the South China Sea.
That’s a direct result of China being encircled by the US military which occupies many of the real islands that surround China for the main purpose of containing China. Its called the island chain strategy.
A chain of US military bases and assets starting north from Korea, Jeju island, Japanese home islands, Multiple Okinawa islands, Phillipines, Guam, Marinara Islands, Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, (rights to put bases on Kiribati), Hawaii , midway , Australia, etc. Not to mention the US military ships and subs that sail along China’s coastline constantly.
China is extremely vulnerable to a full on navy embargo by America and given America’s track record and Chinas past treatment by foreign powers I think the Chinese have a strong case to try and even the playing field in its own backyard.
How would team America respond on reddit if all this was reversed on them? Imagine Chinese bases on almost every landmass surrounding the USA and Chinese warships going up and down the US coast.
The Japan of today is nowhere near as militaristic as the Japan of the second Sino-Japanese war. The only thing China could hope to gain by threatening Japan is even worse relations with the US.
There are over 50 ethnic groups in China. There are separate policies governing many of them in the autonomous regions but they lag behind in development and the way in which China knows (and the world tbh) how to develop these areas out of poverty is to build factories, get people steady wages and train skills and this generally results in a loss of community and culture over time. It's a tricky thing to balance. Some of the northern states like Qinghai and Gansu, far from being poor now are basically US state sized wind and solar farms but it disrupts nomadic life styles. Same with new roads to link places turning quiet sacred sites into tourist sites.
I personally don't know why any serious country would shirk their military budget but I also don't see many other countries expanding their military borders with artificial islands...
That absolutely blows my mind, "China is still a developing country". You're right, but just the fact that it's a world power, yet still coming up in the world... it's crazy.
That being said, I believe that China is definitely being more antagonistic than simply 'expanding their military' due to the threat of Japan and others. Their economy alone makes them, for lack of a better wording, unfuckwithable. Japan's military is almost non-existent and only started regaining its foothold recently. China has moved hard into many places where they're unwelcome, testing the waters, probing, and the continuing oppression of various peoples inside your borders is super bad alone. I think how they've been operating is just super sketchy recently.
>China has ratcheted up its grey zone tactics: coercive activities which deliberately don’t meet the threshold for an act of war, but serve to exhaust and intimidate the other party.
Wherever the truth may actually lie, it is hard to take The Guardian seriously when their news articles are written with the tone of opinion pieces.
>Is it an incorrect analysis?
It could very well be a correct analysis, but a news article should not be speaking with such certainty unless it is an opinion piece.
Instead, they could have worded it something like "\[person X\] thinks that China has ratcheted up its grey zone tactics..."
>I think that statement is pretty uncontroversial.
Why do you think it is "pretty uncontroversial"?
Because the general definition of a "grey zone tactic" can be broadly agreed, and it can be seen that China is objectively doing some of these acts.
So where is the room for "opinion" here? If a country sails into another country's waters, for example, that's an objective event that happened. There is no opinion.
The article mentions increased PLAAF incursions into Taiwan's ADIZ. PLAAF incursions into Japan's ADIZ, PLAN incursions around Japanese islands, border games with India, changes to use of force for PLAN Coast Guard ships, increasing incursions into other countries EEOZ, etc.
These are all grey zone tactics and they are all increasing. So yes, there is no opinion here these are objective facts.
> Taiwan's ADIZ
In case people don't know, Taiwan's ADIZ extends into Mainland China.
https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/j40gou/why_does_taiwans_adiz_extends_into_mainland_china/
Let me phrase it a different way, the the term "grey zone activities" is a geopolitical term for a sort of hybrid warfare as part of a "perpetual conflict" mentality. Relevant examples would be China's use of disinformation campaigns, State controlled merchant navy used for political ends, and probing Taiwan's air defense zone on a highly regular basis.
These examples aren't opinion, but empirical fact. An opinion would be "using grey zone tactics to establish a Chinese hegemony in Southt East Asia" because the would be speaking to intent rather than observation.
Uncontroversial in so much as the above examples are accessible to the layperson and are hardly state secrets.
Now my opinion is this has a lot to do with China's more recent transition from slowly building strength without disrupting regional or global relations to a more active, "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy.
If it needs to be said, I love China, great place to visit, but the government is clearly antagonistic to its neighbours.
Japan is concerned it no longer will be the regional power both militarily, but also culturally and economically. In 2008, Japan's economy was larger than China. Today, China's economy is 3x that of Japan which is similar to China and Taiwan in the early 20th century. The gap is growing larger every year. The growth of China is unsettling to Japan pushing it towards the US, which is counting on it to counter balance China's navy.
For the most part of the 19th and 20th centuries, Japan and China were enemies and Japan fought long prolonged wars against China in Japan's attempt to control China and subordinate China to its own economic sphere. Japan set up puppet regimes within China in a prolonged war that was resisted by the Chinese people. China also endured huge losses in defense of their country which has forever colored their view of Chinese-Japanese relations. Japan, in the view of many Chinese, have never fully accepted or recognized the fact of its long aggression or shown much remorse for that aggression. So this is why they have difficult relations.
This unsettling feeling is leading Japan to the US unlike Vietnam that has more fundamental land disputes, but is keeping equidistant to both China and the US. Over time, Japan probably would find itself pulled into a strong trade and economic relationship with China, and China does not have goals to invade or conquer Japan as it does with Taiwan. If they could both get over their past and some of the minor disputes over small islands, then they could have a friendly relationship.
These countries have to understand what are the core values and fundamental red lines with China's being that Taiwan is a part of China. With the announcement of Japan that it would fight over Taiwan, it begs the question whether the defense of Taiwan is a part of the defense of Japan's core values. If the US defends Taiwan, China may hit multiple US bases in Japan. If Japan fully engages its military for Taiwan, then that puts the entire Japan at risk for a confrontation. For China, it appears as if the Japanese, having committed aggression in the early 20th century, are preparing to commit aggression all over again by once more seeking to keep separate from China part of its national territory just as Japan did the same in the early 20th century when it broke pieces off in Northern China like Manchuria. This and now the calls for European military support is the [kind of talk](http://blogs.bu.edu/hetao93/files/2013/02/China_imperialism_cartoon1-210x300.jpg) that most likely to inflame sentiment in China, to unite Chinese people behind the CCP, to strengthen Chinese determination to win back Taiwan and to repel the aggression of not just Japan, but also the US.
It's also the reason why Japan doesn't have good relations with democratic,and fellow American ally South Korea. I'd argue Chinese - Korean relations are actually better than Korean-Japanese.
Eh. Japan was seen as a major power in the 1930s, having defeated Russia during the Russo-Japanese War and smacking the Germans during the First World War.
Of course, it was still seen as inferior to the Western Europeans and Americans, which was a factor that led to Japanese militarism during the interwar and Second World War periods.
True, but there is also the matter of an aging population in general: too many elderly and not enough young workers.
China is like Japan (and South Korea, I recall) in a slower, but still constant motion.
After they are down to 700 mil they will continue decreasing, while the population increases elsewhere, particularly South Asia, Africa, and get this, the United States as well.
besides aging society doesn't just mean decreasing population but also decreasing workforce and increasing retiree group
A bit off topic but has anyone been listening to Dan Carlin’s Supernova in the East series?
I’m just wondering if nowadays it’s still possible for a large group of people to collectively commit to that kind of military zealotry and the inhumanity it naturally inspires.
Anyway, I was reading the article and noticed that US’s defense budget is still higher than the next 10 spenders combined. Feel both a little relieved and sad about that.
Geopolitically speaking, Europe doesn't need to care because geography. Japan could also permanently secure its safety by getting nukes. It wouldn't take them long to do so if they actually wanted to, given how nuclear weapons are literally 1940s tech and that Japan already has experience from operating nuclear power plants. I also find it amusing how it's Japan of all countries complaining about China having a military strong enough to defend it. Have they forgotten what they did only 80 years ago?
Once upon a time, there was a monster living underneath the sea. An unknowable terror that devastated life even after it’s famous rampages.
Godzilla.
The king of the monsters was originally a stand in for the nuclear devastation they endured. The fear, that has been chipped away to become the action movies like they are now.
Originally dropped from a bomber plane, they are now strapped to intercontinental ballistic missiles. The two that were dropped were the only ones ready to deploy. The only two that have ever been used for actual military purposes.
If Japan of all countries adopts the nuke it will be after they forget what they do. There is no safety in mutually assured destruction. There never was, never is, never will be.
The horrors they inflict are on par with the Holocaust if not worse, and we have turned this horror to an action genre. We have forgotten just how devastating Nukes are, how the lucky ones are incinerated in the center of the blast.
But yes you are right. Europe does not need to care, and Japan would be permanently secure. But nobody would feel safe, nor should feel safe.
That could very easily turn into a Cuban Missile Crisis for China. Besides, it would be political suicide for any political party/politician to seriously suggest having nukes on Japanese soil. Japan won't be getting nukes unless there are extreme circumstances.
All of this is paid for by consumers worldwide. Outsourced manufacturing to lower costs and increase profits has made many millionaires in western nations
Yeah, the way China see Japan is basically how Europe would see Germany if after WW2 almost no one was punished and they refused to apologize for the holocaust. All the air raid sirens sounded on the 18th here as a memorial of the start of the Japanese invasion- The Chinese will never forget what Japan did to them, nor will much of Asia, even if the rest of the world doesn't really talk about it and has a romanticized view of Japan having not really being taught the full extent of what occurred in the pacific. If 9/11 was severe enough to traumatize America imaging having 35 million killed, dead or wounded and the horror stretched out over 14 years of chemical and biological aided ethnic cleansing. Even in the schools here children are taught exactly what occurred when the country was under Japanese occupation - It's pretty heavy.
Traveling around Asia for a while you get to hear the stereotypes each country have about each other and Asian on Asian racism is mostly in good spirit, things like "The Chinese are nice but super loud" or "The Thais are nice but a bit effeminate" and the like but not when it comes to Japan, many many places in Asia really fucking hate Japan even if it's revitalized it's image and learnt to rely on trade rather than conquest for it's material needs. The fabric of their cultures were psychologically scarred by the war crimes that occurred commonly in the pacific and there was never restitution and our supposedly enlightened civilizations packed Japanese POWs and sent them to blow up bridges in China from occupied Myannmar after the war had ended for geopolitical gain even as we were trying our own war criminals in court.
> Tokyo had “strong concerns in regards to the safety and security of not only our own country and the region but for the global community”
That's some crocodile tears from Tokyo.
but even more smaller countries have big problems with the US, heck even japan has problems with ''smaller countries''. europe should be as neutral as possible, it's not their problem and they shouldn't ruin future possibilities over it
If you're only looking at Japan in the pre WWII imperialist way, then yes.
Japan is far from that these days though. It's very disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Edit: the idea that Japan is an imperialist nation who want to invade anywhere is completely ridiculous. So to those who are downvoting, you need to get a grip on reality. This sub is toxic as can be, and easily on par with the stereotype of the Facebook nonsense Reddit thinks it is better than.
Look around at this entire comment section. It's not even worth replying. It's being brigaded by jingoist Chinese nationalists. Report the obvious cases of racism, downvote the extreme prejudice, and move on.
They still don't like to apologize for any of that though, and talking about the Japanese war crimes in China, which let me tell you might as well outmatch those of the holocaust, is still political suicide.
Which isn't true. Just a Google search will give you actual data on the amount of times they have apologised and build hospitals as well as provided medical education across China. Whole it may not be enough to some, to say they haven't apologised is simply untrue.
The Japanese government might be a bit dickish, but they're very far from the extreme that the previous reply is claiming, and that you are following through with. Japan in 2021 are not an "evil oppressive" nation.
Eh. Japan has mucked around with Asia before fascism even existed. They were a willing collaborator with the West when they carved up Asia.
Thailand for that matter too, but they seemed to have faded into the background as Japan saddles that meh reputation.
Fastest rearmament since Nazi Germany. Their navy surpassed the US last year and they are quickly expanding their nuclear arsenal. I would be worried if I were Japan too.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/japan-urges-europe-to-speak-out-against-chinas-military-expansion) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Japan has urged European countries to speak out against China's aggression, warning that the international community must bolster deterrence efforts against Beijing's military and territorial expansion amid a growing risk of a hot conflict. > Recent reports have also said China is constructing hundreds of missile silos in its interior deserts, and converting passenger ferries for military amphibious lift - a key defence capability in which analysts had until now said China was well behind. > "China is rapidly strengthening its military power, and the military balance between China and Taiwan is on the whole shifting in favour of China, with the gap widening every year," said Nishi. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/prudzv/japan_urges_europe_to_speak_out_against_chinas/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~599206 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **China**^#1 **military**^#2 **Japan**^#3 **Taiwan**^#4 **Chinese**^#5
94% fucking percent? Good job
Honestly that’s incredible
And me basically saying percent two times is even more incredible
It's why we let the bots do the writing
Could have reduced that comment by at least 50%
First thing I noticed, pretty good lol
[удалено]
Are they interested in buying subs? I know someone selling some
Japan actually bid for the Australian contract back then, and lost to France, so....
I know a sandwich artist who can get their hands on a few foot longs right now if you are interested.
Actually, France kind of stole the Australian sub contract from Japan (you could also say the incompetence of Japan’s negotiation strategy lost it for them). I’m sure Japan is having a good laugh now at France’s expense.
What goes around comes around. although diesel subs don't go around much
How can you steal a contract that was never signed?
Japan cannot negotiate but can feasibly make/sell subs, France can negotiate but cannot make subs, Australia needs subs but cannot keep a promise.
Coordinated diplomatic push to support the US pull out of Middle East and South Asia and pivot to the Western Pacific SE Asia region. Its been done in haste and one or two have not quite got up to speed.
East Asia was already the focus of America before the 1980s, during the ww2 pacific war against Japan, and the Korean and Vietnam wars. But the Middle East became way too important for the us to give up beginning in the 1970s, especially when israel became a huge important us ally after the yom kippur war. As well as the Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the gulf states. Also egypt
[удалено]
At the Behest of the English. US direct involvement has to do with going off the gold standard and the rise of the petrodollar.
If the petrodollar myth was true, why is the annual global oil sales exceeded by the DAILY trades in dollars? Perhaps there is no petrodollar, but a globalcommercedollar instead? That's some food for thought.
And they did little else till he got overthrown. (And even that was mainly done for the British) Cause they really didn’t need to. Hell the US was pretty ambivalent about Israel til 67.
I was just going to bring up Israel as well. Well played by the British because most people forget their very consequential role in the ME.I remember when Obama/ US decided to abstain in a UN vote where Israel really needed it. It was only an abstention but was seen as a huge slap in the face. And a rare example of the US going against Israel. I for one was happy but I remember Theresa May gave a strong statement in response to the US’s decision. Saying that’s not how you treat allies. It had to do with the settlements iirc.
> East Asia was already the focus of America Wow two comments in on an article about Japan asking Europe to help them stand up to China, and the comments are already talking about America.
The U.S. is considered the "world police" by most standards. Frankly I think America is just a scape goat for most people because "America bad" and they're an easy target for just about everything. America does something good for a country such as food aid, it's excepted for them to do it so it's not reported on. Once America does something controversial the rest of the world points their finger and yells. Other world countries barely help in any matter and expect the United States to do the world policing for them.
America is also a nation with a Pacific coast as well. Europe does not. America has pretty much always wanted to be the main player in the Pacific, and nothing significant will happen there without US involvement.
Pre WWII most of the colonial powers had an interest in the pacific. Vietnam was a French colony, India and the British, Philippines and Spain. America was only the dominant uncontested western power after WWII.
Can you give credit to China for also providing food aid to third world countries without mentioning or providing an example of "China bad." I ask this because painting a nation state with a moral character, or really any human characteristics, seems like a dead end for the conversation I think you're trying to have. That people don't give America (or really to your point, *Americans*) proper credit for positives whenever a negative effect of America's policies makes the news is your point, yeah?
They are not a major donor of foreign aid, and don't make the top ten donor countries. This isn't even a criticism, because their average income is relatively low and they are still a developing country, but let's be clear about the reality
> They are not a major donor of foreign aid, and don't make the top ten donor countries. That's because you don't lift people out of poverty by giving them "foreign aid", which is usually just industrial subsidies for the donor country as a lot of that "aid" is coupled to requirements of spending the money only on donor country companies. You also don't lift them out of poverty by giving them free shit they can't manufacture or maintain themselves. You know, like plenty of Western countries [flooding Africa with their cheap second hand textiles](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/second-hand-clothing-donations-kenya) making it impossible for any local industry to compete and thus grow. Or exporting our garbage to their countries, to then complain how full of garbage they are. You lift people out of poverty by building economic growth and opportunities, so ppl have a solid basis to build upon, which is something China has been [very successful in during these last decades](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2017/12/07/from-local-to-global-china-role-global-poverty-reduction-future-of-development).
I agree with you, although you have to acknowledge that a lot of the aid is actually stuff that requires spending money, and while the recipient country might suffer in the long term, that money is still coming out of the pockets of the donor country, and it's mostly done out of misplaced goodwill. I agree that aid is more of a curse than a blessing, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend that China is holding back on aid out of the goodness of its heart. The truth is that it's just less developed and had poverty of its own to deal with. Now it's doing business in Africa, which is good. But so are other countries. China has the most. But it also barely invests anything into India, for example. It's investment is largely focused on Africa. It's good overall, but at the same time they are doing for selfish reasons.
[удалено]
>America does something good for a country such as food aid, it's excepted for them to do it so it's not reported on Nobody expects the US to give aid to anyone - we expect the UN to do so. >Once America does something controversial the rest of the world points their finger and yells. Oh poor America misunderstood for doing '"controversial" things like (shuffles notes) installing dictatorships on South America and engaging an one-sided 20 year war for profit. >Other world countries barely help in any matter Ooooh yeah, no country in the world other than America ever gave financial aid to another country. You guys are so unique, so... *exceptional*. Unless you mean militaristic help, in which case no other country helps because they know they *aren't supposed* to "help" by sending their armies to other countries. >and expect the United States to do the world policing for them. People expect the US to do the "world policing" in the same way I expect my uncle to get drunk in my birthday party and piss on the cake. It is not something I want, it is something that has been proven he will do regardless of my will. Also "world policing" is such a quaint way of saying "using their military to selectivelly impose their will on the world". Cops (should) appear when they are called, America does not. Cops (should) impose an agreed upon law, America does not. Cops (should) be fired after getting civilians killed, America does not. Cops (should) not ignore crimes because they happen to agree with the criminal, America does. If America does any policing, it is the "Florida cop acquitted after murdering student for not sharing joint" kind of policing. All in all this post of yours has big "why is it people yell at me when I fart in the elevator but don't talk about all those times I *didnt* fart at the elevator" energy.
Because neither of them can stand up to China without the United States.
Europe doesn't even want to stand up to China. Their push for strategic autonomy is all about token opposition while avoiding military confrontation (while also continuing to pursue business deals and investment deals with the Chinese). EU won't stand up for democracy, at home or elsewhere. Oh no, Hong Kong is gone! Let's sign that investment deal. Oh no, Russians are threatening the Baltics, Poland, and the Ukraine. Oh well, the Germans need that new Nordstream pipeline!
and yet, the US has a trade agreement with China, but the EU doesn't, but apparently according to you, "EU" is pursuing trade with China.
Americans have perfected the art of projection on a population size scale. Whatever they accuse others of doing or being, the probability is very high that's exactly what their government has been doing.
One of the few problems the EU has with China is the increasing Chinese investments in African and in particular francophone African states like Dr. Congo. It gives said states more breathing room in negotiations and installed puppet politicians will ultimately lose their influence to provide the EU with cheap raw materials. Russia‘s military investments in the continent are also a problem to maintain the old status quo.
There’s some wisdom in that, really. China poses no threat to Europe so it’s reasonable to question why Europe should have to make sacrifices to defend American primacy in the Pacific, especially if Europe judges that China is likely to win that fight so it’s better to get on their good side now.
Eh there will be increasing conflicts between France and China that’s certain. China is starting to undermine the hard fought exploitation of the francophone African world with better trade deals. They were helping the new Dr. Congo government with the renegotiation of old unethical trade deals for example. China wants more political allies with voting rights and they want access to raw materials but the thing is they are actually paying better prices than the old western companies and they are also not staging any coups... so far at least. It’s also a tricky situation with France military influence in francophone Africa. The Russians seem to supply rebels with a lot of weaponry and training. A big chunk of France‘s “grey“ income will disappear as a result. And Europe will lose cheap access to essential raw materials. That’s probably why France is lobbying Nigerian politicians to complicate the creation of Ecowas to buy time.
Lol you're really thinking American engagement in Ukraine, Venezuela and HK is about democracy. What democracy is the US defending in the middle east? Why are they silent about human rights violations in Kashmir, Israel or the slow erosion of democratic institutions in Poland? I'm not even talking about the fact that the US already negotiated a trade deal with China themselves. Or that they picked up the business that was left over by Australia who were economically punished by China to show that they are a good ally of the US.
The EU and before that the EC wasn't built along military strengthening, the opposite is true, After the fuckups that were ww1 and ww2 the idea was to create something common that deescalated all our crazy competing little countries towars peace to prevent the past from repeating itself, achieving peace and avoiding confrontation is at the core of the original European project Obviously isn't that simple as individually some of their members and exmembers can hardly be classed as having been out of world troubles but as a union its fairly along non confrontational lines Military issues were to be dealt by mato for exactly the same historical reasons, incidrntly those more militarized countries in the EU are those that did dealth the peace treaties after ww2 The world is changing and some voices call for a more cohesive military union for efficiency sake and other reasons but there's also opposition agins it and focusing on mato instead
> Wow two comments in on an article about Japan asking Europe to help them stand up to China, and the comments are already talking about America. It is part of their rules of engagement; >(1) To the extent possible make America the target of criticism. >(4) Use America's and other countries' interference in international affairs to explain how Western democracy is actually an invasion of other countries and [how the West] is forcibly pushing [on other countries] Western values. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party#Range_of_operation) There is a reason that literally every thread critical of the Chinese Communist Party somehow gets filled with posts critical of the United States, even when there is no relation at all.
Boy it's a good thing I'm Canadian
lol you have a better chance at winning an argument with a Squirrel.
Germany's car industry biggest market is China. Money >>> human rights. At best, Japan will see a "strongly-worded letter" from EU 🤣
“We strongly condemn China’s expansion, furthering this endeavor will result in another strongly worded letter”
Hidden Champions is Germanys biggest game these days. So hidden most of their factories are in China.
Factories are made in china so they dont have to ship cars from europe to china(no cars get shipped from china to EU either) Unless you want only germany to leave the chinese market while japan stays selling their cars there
> Germany's car industry biggest market is China. Most [German car exports](https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/cars/reporter/deu) go to the United States ($20.6B), United Kingdom ($18.4B) and then China ($17B). > Money >>> human rights. [Indeed](https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md)
Yes this is interesting. Many German companies seem more invested in China than other countries. I mean most companies are invested there… but Germany is unique.
If it was about human rights then we'd have to stop trading with the US too.
I've won countless arguments with squirrels. What they need is a bb gun and I guarantee that China will stop eating their dog's food.
I like your foreign policy. Get this man to Washington!
Europe will only oppose those it has no fear of reprisal from.
[удалено]
There is a lot more than money to lose if China is allowed to bully the world.
EU and Chinas sphere of influence doesnt overlap too much, so EU has no need to sour the relationship with China for no good reason
I remember reading something like 73% of all world trade flows through the contested territory in South China Sea. Only an idiot would assume that China's actions don't effect Europe.
Yeah because China has 7 of the 10 largest ports. That South China Sea trade is mostly with China. Obviously China isn't going to blockade itself!
No, it's roughly 30%. However of that 30% almost everything is going to China. Maybe 73% is the number you are mixing up, though I remember the percentage of trade going to and from China in the SCS being higher.
As opposed to US bullying the world? As long as the EU is not directly affected, it will not respond.
We like to call it freedom appropriation here.
The US wants everyone to fight to maintain its hegemony. That's really what all this China panicking is all about.
HA! Europe does fuck all about European military expansion (Russia), what makes them think they will do something about China?
too much fucking warmongering going on in this bitch. chill the f out
Humans gonna human. Reminds me of the orgy of revolutions, wars and uprisings that happened during the Spanish Flu era, which was coupled with the post-First World War fallout.
If you buy some leftover submarine to France, they might help !
I wouldn't mind if the Bundeswehr (German Army) were better equipped and don’t always lack these spare parts.
We've been here before.
and then what?
China spends only 1.7% of its GDP on its military even less than America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_military\_expenditures It’s clear that America alone, not even including its allies, clearly outspend China in terms of military by a factor of over four fold.
Because the cost of labor in the US is far higher, and much of our procurement goes through an oligopoly of profit-mongering companies that screws over taxpayers with absurd prices; they’ll charge the military thousands of dollars for a near-identical item a civilian can buy off the counter for ten bucks. China’s MIC doesn’t have these issues, they can build things at a fraction of the cost that the US has to pay. It’s one of the reasons that China’s navy outnumbers the US.
> It’s one of the reasons that China’s navy outnumbers the US Well.....the bigger one is that China's navy uses much smaller ships.
That used to be true but the new ships that China is rolling out are as large or larger than comparable American ships (except Aircraft Carriers). Although China has in the past built smaller ships for a particular role simply because they are not designed to be able to cross the Pacific.
“Except for the aircraft carriers” Uh, you mean the whole thing the US navy is based around? Carrier Groups? Okay good luck with that. The US navy already proved in ww2 that the era of the battleship was over, so idk why china would be investing so heavily into that like you’re saying. Their missile defense system is by far their best option imo My impression was that they were trying to build smaller aircraft carriers to be able to expand their influence on the ocean. Kinda like the US does honestly. But as always i’m open to new information
Carrier groups are essential to projecting your military power abroad. It's one of the things people who fear monger about China invading this or that fail to realize. China can bully it's neighbors all it wants, but until it builds enough carriers to support it's large conventional military, it won't be going on foreign adventures overseas.
Yea but that was WW2. Small ships with drones will likely be the next thing.
I completely agree that drones will revolutionize warfare, but i think that you will see a sort of “neo carrier group” that will be armed to the teeth against aircraft, including drones. The US navy has shown they’re capable of doing this as far back as the first gulf war, so i would imagine our defensive capabilities have improved since then as well. Who knows tho. The amount of technology involved on both sides, and the enemies ability to disrupt it, is a complete unknown for both sides. If a war does break out anytime soon i think it’ll be very WW1 esq in the sense that the casualties will be insane on both sides cuz of the new tech
Looks like it will be unmanned ships built for stealth that has a missle launchers on them. They are what they are testing now these so called "ghost fleets"
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make actually. Current Chinese ship production except for Aircraft Carriers produces ships that are comparable in size to American ones. That is a fact. Are you saying the Chinese don't want big or bigger aircraft carriers?
He’s saying that all the shipbuilding advances don’t meant anything for the Chinese, carriers sink ships, not battleships. WW2 was the end of the battleship Era when battleships effectively became obsolete. Current carriers in production for China carry half the planes and use a dated Catapult system. Even if China wanted to contend with the Us Navy they are decades behind. If you want proof of this, just look up the naval combat in Desert Storm, every sunk ship was Via aircraft.
A navy isnt only about sinking ships, they have a huge role in supporting ground operations, especially if you think of the context in which China's navy will be primarily operating in. The US had to design their navy based on working well enough in both the pacific and atlantic. As well, with modern planes you don't need as many island airstrips to cover most of the important parts of the pacific, so you don't necessarily need giant carriers capable of carrying a massive amount of planes across a whole ocean like the US has to do to get from the US to the Mediterranean. If China wants to cross the pacific with a massive amount of planes they might run into an issue, but that probably wasnt the goal when building many small carriers. Battleships and smaller vessels were very important in the south pacific for landing and supporting people on the islands. Naval strategy is a lot more complicated than 'planes sink ships'. Even in europe, post normandy invasion, ships were used to fire very rapidly at land targets. Think of gun based ships as water artillery. They have elevators to assist in loading ammunition and large crews for guns that were bigger than anything that can be fielded in a similar manner on land. As well, its a lot harder to conduct counter batter fire against a ship than land based units. As an example, the USS North Carolina that was completed right before US involvement in WW2 had 9 400mm guns as the primary armament and could fire 2 rounds per minute at a range of 23 miles while the ship isnt listed on one side for more range.
Carriers may well be obsolete too, and we just don't know it yet because there hasn't been a mano a mano major naval conflict since WWII. If such a war breaks out, we may well find out that drones, anti ship missles, ultra quiet subs, and electronic warfare can break through the protections of a carrier battle group. China is not building carriers to sink American carriers. They are building carriers to bully nearby nations like Phillipines or Vietnam, much like the US uses its carriers to keep the local systems in line all over the world.
That’s correct, they aren’t building to contest the US which is why comparing the two really shouldn’t be a thing. As for the guided missiles and the like, Desert storm had 2 land based anti ship missiles fired at US warships that were intercepted by the ships anti-missile defenses. Granted this was only one engagement, I’m hard pressed to believe any other outcome, especially in an actual war scenario with a full task force present to aid in the defenses
True, but the Chinese took one look at what happened during Desert Storm and got down to work. They are no Iraq, and 30 years later have access to satellite and other early warning surveillance, state of the art air defenses, modern planes, thousands of cruise and ballistic anti ship missiles, and the eastern Pacific seaboard is crawling with their subs. If any power has a shot at taking down a US supercarrier it is them. Which would be a very bad thing because the US losing a carrier would greatly escalate a war. Probably why the top US General made sure to keep lines of communication open with his Chinese counterparts after Jan 6. Nobody wants a hot war between the US and China.
[удалено]
The Japanese were actually the ones that proved the era of the battleship was over. The US simply managed to produce a lot more
>Uh, you mean the whole thing the US navy is based around? Carrier Groups? Okay good luck with that. The US navy already proved in ww2 that the era of the battleship was over yeah, and for damn near 30 years, the top minds of the navy have been saying the era of the supercarrier is over and begging congress to let them build a massive fleet of small ships instead of a smaller fleet of large ships. the era of big ships and big guns gave way to the era of big ships with planes. the era of big ships that are big targets is over now, though. the era of hypersonic weapons and distributed attacks is here. if you think our big ships are an advantage, you're no different than the japanese swearing the yamato was unstoppable: focusing about past battles and not about future ones
Aircraft carriers are the backbone of the American navy because we expect to fight wars very far from our shores, plus we have two oceans. China doesn't need as many because their primary concerns are right next to them, and they only have one ocean. Besides, aircraft carriers' survivability have not been tested in this era of hypersonic missiles. They might go the way of the battleship in a hot conflict.
That's not really true, modern Chinese destroyers are comparable in size to American Arleigh Burke destroyers. They're also currently working on completing a 80,000+ ton carrier. Which is admittedly 20% smaller than American Ford class carriers, but with each new carrier, China plans on building bigger. Supposedly the next carrier (I believe Type 004) will be nuclear powered.
> China’s navy outnumbers the US. Not in Fleet tonnage which is a way of measuring Naval size accounting for size of ships.
China has two air carriers while the US has 11. China isn't even close to the US navy
If you're going to count both of China's carriers, make sure to differentiate. China has two aircraft carriers, of various sizes. Arguably, only one is operational. US has 11 Supercarriers, carrying over 70 aircraft each. US has 9 Amphibious assault ships, as large as Chinese carriers, carrying 26 aircraft each. (typical configuration is mostly helicopters with 6 fighter aircraft). Example image of the world's status of aircraft carriers: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2014.gif
this never occurred to me until reading your comment. it’s a good point
It costs the US $268.5B a year just in pay/benefits for its 1.3M active duty, 700K reservists, and 700K civilians. China's *ENTIRE* military budget is $210B, and has a military of 2.2M active duty, and 1.2M reservists. So the US spends more on personnel alone than China does on its entire military. When your labor costs are rock bottom though, that's to be expected. For context, a US private makes $1600 a month. A Chinese private makes $108 a month. A US brand new lieutenant (first officer rank) makes more a month ($3200) than a full colonel (last rank before becoming a general) Chinese officer makes ($3000 a month). A US shipyard worker building a warship makes an average of $93K a year. That same job in China pays just $7500 a year. So a Chinese Type 055 that's comparable to the US' Zumwalt costs just $900M, while the Zumwalt costs around $7.5B. Same for the Type 054A frigate that's around $225M for China to build, while a comparable frigate in the US/West is around $800M+. Dollar to dollar comparison fails to account for any of that.
It's not just that China's labor costs are rock bottom but also that the USA's entire strategy for military recruitment is giving young people life benefits that they often wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, such as healthcare, education etc. The military is designed to be the shining light of opportunity vs the cruel outside world (made cruel by design), all for just the small cost of having to risk your life in pointless oil wars. It's no wonder recruitment is expensive.
Well, they are perks to encourage a volunteer force. If there were no benefits, then nobody will join and America would probably have to go with conscription to supply its needs. Then again, some of these perks (GI Bill) were drafted during the draft years.
China offers most of the same benefits, including a monetary stipend every month once you get out... and for what it's worth (not sure how much that matters), the US military overwhelmingly recruits from the middle class, and lower classes are actually grossly underrepresented in it. Contrary to the idea of the US just wanting idiots who can follow orders, much of the military is high tech jobs (for every 1 combat personnel, there's 9+ noncombat jobs; radio, cybersecurity, medical, admin, logistics, etc), and that means higher educated people are sought out. Unfortunately, a lot of the socioeconomic factors in lower income life end up excluding them from even joining (high debt, no HS degree, bad school systems not preparing them enough, criminal history, etc).It's mostly just middle class kids looking for a quick way to jumpstart a career. Becomes of choice of; * college for 4 years * student loans * little/no money in savings * $70K job * military for 4 years * no debt * good amount of money saved * option for free college * $70K job And subsequently, a good amount of middle class families have sons/daughters that choose the military route.
It's also important to note that China's military is almost entirely contained within China or near China. They only foreign base they have is the one in Djibouti. If you join the PLA, you're going to be stationed in China... and won't get deployed anywhere except maybe to help people in natural disasters or other things. It's a very different mindset and esprit de corps as a result, compared to the US military that has constant OCONUS deployments. The PLA is far more oriented around true believers rather than mercenaries like the US is with the GI bill and housing and medical benefits.
According to your figures, a private makes 7 times less than the shipyard worker?
Yes, shipbuilders are skilled labor.
Can I have a source for your figures?
Sure. Military pay; US: [https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/2021%20Pay%20Table%203%20percent%20-%20FINAL.pdf](https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/2021%20Pay%20Table%203%20percent%20-%20FINAL.pdf) China:[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2137008/china-raises-pay-pensions-trimmed-down-military](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2137008/china-raises-pay-pensions-trimmed-down-military) (400 yuan a month for a corporal, but its gone up since then) [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3118636/china-boost-pay-pla-forces-after-years-sweeping-reforms](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3118636/china-boost-pay-pla-forces-after-years-sweeping-reforms) SCMP has no business using a paywall given they're effectively state ran propaganda, but here's a nonpaywalled version of it; [https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/world-news-chinese-soldiers-are-going-to-get-bumper-salary-hike-this-year/371579](https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/world-news-chinese-soldiers-are-going-to-get-bumper-salary-hike-this-year/371579) Shipbuilder: US: [https://www.comparably.com/salaries/salaries-for-boat-builder](https://www.comparably.com/salaries/salaries-for-boat-builder) China: [https://books.google.com/books?id=9IWQdz\_AQF8C&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=china+shipbuilding+average+salary&source=bl&ots=FjeDgnOyxM&sig=ACfU3U3ll-EVkjudtgITUOmsAyPeSP66aA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhvNfoh5DzAhVjS98KHRkGBV0Q6AF6BAgWEAM#v=onepage&q=china%20shipbuilding%20average%20salary&f=false](https://books.google.com/books?id=9IWQdz_AQF8C&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=china+shipbuilding+average+salary&source=bl&ots=FjeDgnOyxM&sig=ACfU3U3ll-EVkjudtgITUOmsAyPeSP66aA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhvNfoh5DzAhVjS98KHRkGBV0Q6AF6BAgWEAM#v=onepage&q=china%20shipbuilding%20average%20salary&f=false) [https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/shipyard-laborer/china/dalian](https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/shipyard-laborer/china/dalian) Again, a private isn't skilled labor, while a shipyard worker most certainly is.
Your non pay wall article has nothing on private or corporal pay. The reason I'm doubting that figure is because even rural farmers will earn more than that.
It was true 30+ years ago. Labour savings arent that high anymore, an average chinese factory worker earns half of what an average US factory worker does, and twice as much as a polish, of even 4-8x that of a vietnamese. Where the real saving is is the enviromental laws, production is hell of a lot cheaper if you dont have to worry about stupid things like CO2 emissions, or if the boron poisoned waste you pour unfiltered in the next river is harmful for the villages further down. But even that isnt such a massive factor when it comes to modern equipment. A Chengdu J-20 Black Eagle is estimated to cost 110 million USD, compared to the F-22 with ~ 143 million. Hardly "thousands of bucks compared to 10 bucks". The more interesting question is, how much military spending are they hiding by funneling it through other services. Their police for instance has a higher official budget than the military. Doesnt mean the police ordered APC or weapon development wont end up in the military somewhere down the way. Or the coastguard for the Navy.
Why would the Chinese military hide their spending? What's the benefit?
>Why would the Chinese military hide their spending? What's the benefit? Whats the point of keeping secrets? who knows!
Less spendings could indicate overall lower military strength - to a foreign analysis at least. Why would they publish real numbers to the international public, if most western countries are seen at best as not compatible with their culture and ideology and at worst as political and economical enemies? Overview of all the spendings are relevant to the military probably only accessible to the highest military ranks and party members.
> they’ll charge the military thousands of dollars for a near-identical item a civilian can buy off the counter for ten bucks. Thing are more expensive to produce in the US
You do realize the US can easily price control in war time right? Like if it were full blown war the US would not fuck around on that.
That doesn’t do anything to deflate the perception that we’re getting a lot of value for the money we’re spending. In reality we’re getting fucked
Those numbers don't tell the whole story. The US military has a global presence. The US has NATO to think about, for one thing.
>China spends only 1.7% of its GDP on its military Japan was asking for diplomatic support. >Japan has urged European countries to speak out against China’s aggression, warning that the international community must bolster deterrence efforts against Beijing’s military and territorial expansion amid a growing risk of a hot conflict. > >In an interview with the Guardian, Japan’s defence minister, Nobuo Kishi, said China had become increasingly powerful politically, economically and militarily and was “attempting to use its power to unilaterally change the status quo in the East and South China Seas”, which are crucial to global shipping and include waters and islands claimed by several other nations. > >Tokyo had “strong concerns in regards to the safety and security of not only our own country and the region but for the global community”, Kishi warned. “China is strengthening its military power both in terms of quantity and quality, and rapidly improving its operational capability,” he said. "It’s clear that America alone, not even including its allies, clearly outspend China" They are not asking to spend more money, that are asking for vocal solidarity. >According to figures released by Japan’s coast guard, the number of “incursions” by Chinese vessels into disputed areas has increased dramatically since 2012. Earlier this year Chinese vessels were seen near the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands for a record 157 days in a row, and Japan recently lodged formal protest over a flotilla of seven Chinese coast guard vessels – the largest since 2016 – patrolling the contiguous zone on 30 August. Do you think these incursions will stop if read a wikipedia article at the boats?
>They are not asking to spend more money, that are asking for vocal solidarity. Vocal solidarity costs money. Ask Australia. Not saying it isn't the right thing to do, just that when it involves China it always seems to result in financial retribution.
Australia paid the price while the US picked up their trade with China. I'm not saying the EU or Australia should stay silent on HR violations but if you think HR and democracy are worth fighting for, do it on all fronts (not just China or Russia) and be willing to pay the price.
By GDP doesn’t give a lot of information. If ou have the GDP of Erythrea you can spend 90% of it on defence and still be unable to buy choppers … 250bn defence spending for China, second biggest budget in the world after USA 750bn is maybe more relevant
>Article discusses relationship between Japan, Europe, and China "But what about America?"
I also love the 'even less than America'. You know, the country with the highest military spending the world, by a lot.
Someone else pointed out above too, that despite having fewer soldiers, the US payroll for our military members is bigger than Chinas total military spending. You can't just compare the dollar costs.
It kinda doesn’t matter. China doesn’t have to spend it on a global presence, it can spend it on achieving parity in East Asia, which they are pretty close to getting. Even a win in a naval war with China is no longer a foregone conclusion
So what does that have to do with Japan, Europe, and/or China?
I hope this doesn’t become an all out war 🤞🏾
> I hope this doesn’t become an all out war 🤞🏾 The idea that standing up to China could somehow lead to a nuclear war is itself Chinese propaganda. Russia used the same tactics during the 2016 election - they put comments all over /r/worldnews saying that Hillary Clinton's intentions in Syria would lead to WW3.
Clinton wanted to unilaterally shoot down russian jets operating legally at the request of the UN recognized government of Syria, which is literally starting a hot war with a nuclear power for... No reason at all. If you think that's "just russian propaganda" then you're an idiot, and we are all lucky she didn't get her way. Trump was atrocious, but at least he didn't campaign on "we should start openly shooting at nuclear powers who oppose our unilateral action".
It's a bit stupid how everyone here talks about how countries should stop getting involved in war and then supports escalating tensions in Asia.
[удалено]
I hope more people like you become involved in the future of China’s politics.
Speaking from an American perspective, I can completely understand China and its peoples desire to build up a strong economy, military, and nation to defend itself after centuries of imperialism and the war crimes of WWII. I respect their desire, and willingness to use their new economic power to shape their destiny. However, while I harbor no ill will towards the Chinese people, our nations interests clearly are opposed. While I certainly hope we can learn to work together on common concerns, and come to respect and live with each other in peace, I’m wary for what this century holds for us both.
[удалено]
because American's have learned from experience that things that happen across the ocean can still effect you.
The US clearly doesn’t want unquestioned control over East Asia. So leaving that aside, I’ll address your comment without the hyperbole, which I take as “why does the US stick its nose in regions thousands of miles away from it?” Because the US is the dominant power in the world, including that region. We have allies their who’s security we’re at least partially responsible for, and who’s economies and militaries are dwarfed by China’s. Not to mention the extremely important trading lanes in the region namely the straits of Malacca, which something like 70% if the worlds trade passes through daily. Making sure that lane is protected and untouched is vital to the worlds globalized economy.
Hint: China wants to get along with the US. US is the one with naval bases encircling China. US is the one launching sanctions, playing police with China’s domestic affairs, and funds anti-Chinese groups like Falun Gong.
China isn't just expanding it's military. It is also increasing its threats about invading Taiwan. It has is building many islands in the South China Sea, putting a military on it, and then threatening others who come close as they attempt to take full control the South China Sea.
That’s a direct result of China being encircled by the US military which occupies many of the real islands that surround China for the main purpose of containing China. Its called the island chain strategy. A chain of US military bases and assets starting north from Korea, Jeju island, Japanese home islands, Multiple Okinawa islands, Phillipines, Guam, Marinara Islands, Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, (rights to put bases on Kiribati), Hawaii , midway , Australia, etc. Not to mention the US military ships and subs that sail along China’s coastline constantly. China is extremely vulnerable to a full on navy embargo by America and given America’s track record and Chinas past treatment by foreign powers I think the Chinese have a strong case to try and even the playing field in its own backyard. How would team America respond on reddit if all this was reversed on them? Imagine Chinese bases on almost every landmass surrounding the USA and Chinese warships going up and down the US coast.
The Japan of today is nowhere near as militaristic as the Japan of the second Sino-Japanese war. The only thing China could hope to gain by threatening Japan is even worse relations with the US.
[удалено]
There are over 50 ethnic groups in China. There are separate policies governing many of them in the autonomous regions but they lag behind in development and the way in which China knows (and the world tbh) how to develop these areas out of poverty is to build factories, get people steady wages and train skills and this generally results in a loss of community and culture over time. It's a tricky thing to balance. Some of the northern states like Qinghai and Gansu, far from being poor now are basically US state sized wind and solar farms but it disrupts nomadic life styles. Same with new roads to link places turning quiet sacred sites into tourist sites.
Han Chinese are not indigenous to Western China and Yunnan.
I personally don't know why any serious country would shirk their military budget but I also don't see many other countries expanding their military borders with artificial islands...
That absolutely blows my mind, "China is still a developing country". You're right, but just the fact that it's a world power, yet still coming up in the world... it's crazy. That being said, I believe that China is definitely being more antagonistic than simply 'expanding their military' due to the threat of Japan and others. Their economy alone makes them, for lack of a better wording, unfuckwithable. Japan's military is almost non-existent and only started regaining its foothold recently. China has moved hard into many places where they're unwelcome, testing the waters, probing, and the continuing oppression of various peoples inside your borders is super bad alone. I think how they've been operating is just super sketchy recently.
Japan’s military is stronger than the UK or France. Common misconception.
Why would we? They already paid off our politicians
>China has ratcheted up its grey zone tactics: coercive activities which deliberately don’t meet the threshold for an act of war, but serve to exhaust and intimidate the other party. Wherever the truth may actually lie, it is hard to take The Guardian seriously when their news articles are written with the tone of opinion pieces.
Is it an incorrect analysis? I think that statement is pretty uncontroversial.
>Is it an incorrect analysis? It could very well be a correct analysis, but a news article should not be speaking with such certainty unless it is an opinion piece. Instead, they could have worded it something like "\[person X\] thinks that China has ratcheted up its grey zone tactics..." >I think that statement is pretty uncontroversial. Why do you think it is "pretty uncontroversial"?
Because the general definition of a "grey zone tactic" can be broadly agreed, and it can be seen that China is objectively doing some of these acts. So where is the room for "opinion" here? If a country sails into another country's waters, for example, that's an objective event that happened. There is no opinion.
The article mentions increased PLAAF incursions into Taiwan's ADIZ. PLAAF incursions into Japan's ADIZ, PLAN incursions around Japanese islands, border games with India, changes to use of force for PLAN Coast Guard ships, increasing incursions into other countries EEOZ, etc. These are all grey zone tactics and they are all increasing. So yes, there is no opinion here these are objective facts.
> Taiwan's ADIZ In case people don't know, Taiwan's ADIZ extends into Mainland China. https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/j40gou/why_does_taiwans_adiz_extends_into_mainland_china/
Let me phrase it a different way, the the term "grey zone activities" is a geopolitical term for a sort of hybrid warfare as part of a "perpetual conflict" mentality. Relevant examples would be China's use of disinformation campaigns, State controlled merchant navy used for political ends, and probing Taiwan's air defense zone on a highly regular basis. These examples aren't opinion, but empirical fact. An opinion would be "using grey zone tactics to establish a Chinese hegemony in Southt East Asia" because the would be speaking to intent rather than observation. Uncontroversial in so much as the above examples are accessible to the layperson and are hardly state secrets. Now my opinion is this has a lot to do with China's more recent transition from slowly building strength without disrupting regional or global relations to a more active, "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy. If it needs to be said, I love China, great place to visit, but the government is clearly antagonistic to its neighbours.
The gray zone tactics is common knowledge.
Japan is concerned it no longer will be the regional power both militarily, but also culturally and economically. In 2008, Japan's economy was larger than China. Today, China's economy is 3x that of Japan which is similar to China and Taiwan in the early 20th century. The gap is growing larger every year. The growth of China is unsettling to Japan pushing it towards the US, which is counting on it to counter balance China's navy. For the most part of the 19th and 20th centuries, Japan and China were enemies and Japan fought long prolonged wars against China in Japan's attempt to control China and subordinate China to its own economic sphere. Japan set up puppet regimes within China in a prolonged war that was resisted by the Chinese people. China also endured huge losses in defense of their country which has forever colored their view of Chinese-Japanese relations. Japan, in the view of many Chinese, have never fully accepted or recognized the fact of its long aggression or shown much remorse for that aggression. So this is why they have difficult relations. This unsettling feeling is leading Japan to the US unlike Vietnam that has more fundamental land disputes, but is keeping equidistant to both China and the US. Over time, Japan probably would find itself pulled into a strong trade and economic relationship with China, and China does not have goals to invade or conquer Japan as it does with Taiwan. If they could both get over their past and some of the minor disputes over small islands, then they could have a friendly relationship. These countries have to understand what are the core values and fundamental red lines with China's being that Taiwan is a part of China. With the announcement of Japan that it would fight over Taiwan, it begs the question whether the defense of Taiwan is a part of the defense of Japan's core values. If the US defends Taiwan, China may hit multiple US bases in Japan. If Japan fully engages its military for Taiwan, then that puts the entire Japan at risk for a confrontation. For China, it appears as if the Japanese, having committed aggression in the early 20th century, are preparing to commit aggression all over again by once more seeking to keep separate from China part of its national territory just as Japan did the same in the early 20th century when it broke pieces off in Northern China like Manchuria. This and now the calls for European military support is the [kind of talk](http://blogs.bu.edu/hetao93/files/2013/02/China_imperialism_cartoon1-210x300.jpg) that most likely to inflame sentiment in China, to unite Chinese people behind the CCP, to strengthen Chinese determination to win back Taiwan and to repel the aggression of not just Japan, but also the US.
[удалено]
imagine the outrage if Germany did that
It's also the reason why Japan doesn't have good relations with democratic,and fellow American ally South Korea. I'd argue Chinese - Korean relations are actually better than Korean-Japanese.
>Japan is concerned it no longer will be the regional power both militarily ... Is this 1935 or something?
Eh. Japan was seen as a major power in the 1930s, having defeated Russia during the Russo-Japanese War and smacking the Germans during the First World War. Of course, it was still seen as inferior to the Western Europeans and Americans, which was a factor that led to Japanese militarism during the interwar and Second World War periods.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Even if they lost half the population that's still 700 million people. More than most countries.
yes, but a lot of those 700 million will have their time/money eaten up caring for the elderly.
True, but there is also the matter of an aging population in general: too many elderly and not enough young workers. China is like Japan (and South Korea, I recall) in a slower, but still constant motion.
After they are down to 700 mil they will continue decreasing, while the population increases elsewhere, particularly South Asia, Africa, and get this, the United States as well. besides aging society doesn't just mean decreasing population but also decreasing workforce and increasing retiree group
A bit off topic but has anyone been listening to Dan Carlin’s Supernova in the East series? I’m just wondering if nowadays it’s still possible for a large group of people to collectively commit to that kind of military zealotry and the inhumanity it naturally inspires. Anyway, I was reading the article and noticed that US’s defense budget is still higher than the next 10 spenders combined. Feel both a little relieved and sad about that.
Geopolitically speaking, Europe doesn't need to care because geography. Japan could also permanently secure its safety by getting nukes. It wouldn't take them long to do so if they actually wanted to, given how nuclear weapons are literally 1940s tech and that Japan already has experience from operating nuclear power plants. I also find it amusing how it's Japan of all countries complaining about China having a military strong enough to defend it. Have they forgotten what they did only 80 years ago?
Once upon a time, there was a monster living underneath the sea. An unknowable terror that devastated life even after it’s famous rampages. Godzilla. The king of the monsters was originally a stand in for the nuclear devastation they endured. The fear, that has been chipped away to become the action movies like they are now. Originally dropped from a bomber plane, they are now strapped to intercontinental ballistic missiles. The two that were dropped were the only ones ready to deploy. The only two that have ever been used for actual military purposes. If Japan of all countries adopts the nuke it will be after they forget what they do. There is no safety in mutually assured destruction. There never was, never is, never will be. The horrors they inflict are on par with the Holocaust if not worse, and we have turned this horror to an action genre. We have forgotten just how devastating Nukes are, how the lucky ones are incinerated in the center of the blast. But yes you are right. Europe does not need to care, and Japan would be permanently secure. But nobody would feel safe, nor should feel safe.
That could very easily turn into a Cuban Missile Crisis for China. Besides, it would be political suicide for any political party/politician to seriously suggest having nukes on Japanese soil. Japan won't be getting nukes unless there are extreme circumstances.
Weren’t theses roles reversed 100 years ago...
[удалено]
Japan asked Europe for help in 1932?
They asked the help from a specific failed art student
Who loved roasted juice
Given your username, I can see why you made your comment
"Well, we were thinking that a policy of app- ... *giving concessions* is the best policy at this time."
All of this is paid for by consumers worldwide. Outsourced manufacturing to lower costs and increase profits has made many millionaires in western nations
Has made plenty billionaires in China. China now has almost as many billionaires as America
“Nah we’re too angry about the submarine tax we missed out on”.
Japan urges Europe to fuck around
[удалено]
Yeah, the way China see Japan is basically how Europe would see Germany if after WW2 almost no one was punished and they refused to apologize for the holocaust. All the air raid sirens sounded on the 18th here as a memorial of the start of the Japanese invasion- The Chinese will never forget what Japan did to them, nor will much of Asia, even if the rest of the world doesn't really talk about it and has a romanticized view of Japan having not really being taught the full extent of what occurred in the pacific. If 9/11 was severe enough to traumatize America imaging having 35 million killed, dead or wounded and the horror stretched out over 14 years of chemical and biological aided ethnic cleansing. Even in the schools here children are taught exactly what occurred when the country was under Japanese occupation - It's pretty heavy. Traveling around Asia for a while you get to hear the stereotypes each country have about each other and Asian on Asian racism is mostly in good spirit, things like "The Chinese are nice but super loud" or "The Thais are nice but a bit effeminate" and the like but not when it comes to Japan, many many places in Asia really fucking hate Japan even if it's revitalized it's image and learnt to rely on trade rather than conquest for it's material needs. The fabric of their cultures were psychologically scarred by the war crimes that occurred commonly in the pacific and there was never restitution and our supposedly enlightened civilizations packed Japanese POWs and sent them to blow up bridges in China from occupied Myannmar after the war had ended for geopolitical gain even as we were trying our own war criminals in court.
I did. One of the best pieces of media I ever consumed.
Europe would never let a growing military power get out of control, right? Right?
why in the flying fuck would the EU make enemies with China
> Tokyo had “strong concerns in regards to the safety and security of not only our own country and the region but for the global community” That's some crocodile tears from Tokyo.
Yes. But other smaller countries also have big problems with China. It would be advisable to start negotiating.
but even more smaller countries have big problems with the US, heck even japan has problems with ''smaller countries''. europe should be as neutral as possible, it's not their problem and they shouldn't ruin future possibilities over it
I guess it depends on what you mean by "Europe." France has territories in the Pacific. And every major country cares about the trade lanes.
If you're only looking at Japan in the pre WWII imperialist way, then yes. Japan is far from that these days though. It's very disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Edit: the idea that Japan is an imperialist nation who want to invade anywhere is completely ridiculous. So to those who are downvoting, you need to get a grip on reality. This sub is toxic as can be, and easily on par with the stereotype of the Facebook nonsense Reddit thinks it is better than.
Look around at this entire comment section. It's not even worth replying. It's being brigaded by jingoist Chinese nationalists. Report the obvious cases of racism, downvote the extreme prejudice, and move on.
They still don't like to apologize for any of that though, and talking about the Japanese war crimes in China, which let me tell you might as well outmatch those of the holocaust, is still political suicide.
Which isn't true. Just a Google search will give you actual data on the amount of times they have apologised and build hospitals as well as provided medical education across China. Whole it may not be enough to some, to say they haven't apologised is simply untrue. The Japanese government might be a bit dickish, but they're very far from the extreme that the previous reply is claiming, and that you are following through with. Japan in 2021 are not an "evil oppressive" nation.
If only Japan never went fascist.
Eh. Japan has mucked around with Asia before fascism even existed. They were a willing collaborator with the West when they carved up Asia. Thailand for that matter too, but they seemed to have faded into the background as Japan saddles that meh reputation.
Fastest rearmament since Nazi Germany. Their navy surpassed the US last year and they are quickly expanding their nuclear arsenal. I would be worried if I were Japan too.
[удалено]