China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

Fallenangel · Dec 30, 2013

Sherman123 said:
No they couldn't. The article also hedges enormously:

"Kashin says it is "highly probable" that by 2020 China could defeat the US in a local conflict in the east part of the Pacific or slow down the transportation of US forces to the region..." Not that this is likely either but it is a vast difference.

Actually what Kashin said was this;
"It is possible that after the completion of the current cycle of military reform and rearmament by 2020 China will be quite capable in the local conflict to quickly defeat the U.S. allies and U.S. forces in the western Pacific Ocean, disrupting or slowing down the transfer of U.S. forces to the region from other parts of world. China may be able to achieve the political goals of the war before the United States in the region will focus the energy needed to complete a counterattack .

Trying to punish China and knock it out from its positions after an accomplished Chinese victory would mean for the U.S. entry into a protracted military conflict with a major foreign power - the first time since the Korean War. While no guarantee of victory and a real risk of a nuclear catastrophe. The strongest militarily U.S. allies will be in Europe and are unlikely to be able or interested in helping . The U.S. may simply have to accept defeat."

Cheers,
Fallen.

Hamster Buddha · Dec 30, 2013

Fallenangel said:
Actually what Kashin said was this;
"It is possible that after the completion of the current cycle of military reform and rearmament by 2020 China will be quite capable in the local conflict to quickly defeat the U.S. allies and U.S. forces in the western Pacific Ocean, disrupting or slowing down the transfer of U.S. forces to the region from other parts of world. China may be able to achieve the political goals of the war before the United States in the region will focus the energy needed to complete a counterattack .

Trying to punish China and knock it out from its positions after an accomplished Chinese victory would mean for the U.S. entry into a protracted military conflict with a major foreign power - the first time since the Korean War. While no guarantee of victory and a real risk of a nuclear catastrophe. The strongest militarily U.S. allies will be in Europe and are unlikely to be able or interested in helping . The U.S. may simply have to accept defeat."

Cheers,
Fallen.

That sort of sums up what I was thinking. The "war" will probably only last a few days to maybe a couple of weeks. Just enough for everyone to throw what they got in the ring, then let the dust settle. Neither side want's to escalate it any further so, that would be that. Good post.

Montecresto · Dec 30, 2013

joko104 said:
A deliberately falsified report of a naval attack on a US ship is what justified the beginning of the Vietnam war. But many wars have been started or pursued by the USA upon outright lies and false claims to the American public.

Exactly, almost all of them. Really makes one wonder why Americans never learn this lesson, but always, and nearly blindly, line up behind the government in solidarity to wage the next one! Strange isn't it?

Montecresto · Dec 30, 2013

Hamster Buddha said:
That sort of sums up what I was thinking. The "war" will probably only last a few days to maybe a couple of weeks. Just enough for everyone to throw what they got in the ring, then let the dust settle. Neither side want's to escalate it any further so, that would be that. Good post.

I'd say Russia nailed it, again. And that's not Russia throwing their hat in the ring on the Chinese side either!

24107 · Dec 30, 2013

Well if some Foreign country gives them a technology boost you never know, case in point..
ISRAEL SELLS ARMS TO CHINA, U.S. SAYS - NYTimes.com

Hamster Buddha · Dec 30, 2013

Montecresto said:
Exactly, almost all of them. Really makes one wonder why Americans never learn this lesson, but always, and nearly blindly, line up behind the government in solidarity to wage the next one! Strange isn't it?

Hey! We didn't bite on Syria! I was very proud that we learned out lesson so well and listen to those pacifist Russians.

shart attack · Dec 30, 2013

Montecresto said:
China could soon defeat the United States and its allies in a naval conflict in the East Pacific, says Vassily Kashin, a senior research fellow at the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

In a commentary published on Dec. 27 on the website of the Voice of Russia, the Russian government's international radio broadcasting service, Kashin says it is "highly probable" that by 2020 China could defeat the US in a local conflict in the east part of the Pacific or slow down the transportation of US forces to the region after it completes its current cycle of reforming and rearming the People's Liberation Army.

"China could be able of reaching its political goals even before the US localizes all the necessary forces for a full-scale counterattack," Kashin said.

China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

Well, we could only hope that such events need not ever be stress tested.

Maybe we should just go ahead and offer California to the Chinese as a concession.

We'll start with a high bid, and maybe eventually meet in the middle.

If the Chinese don't like it and want a fight, I'm sure Michael Moore and Bill Maher will be the first to suit up for the war.

Hamster Buddha · Dec 30, 2013

shart attack said:
Maybe we should just go ahead and offer California to the Chinese as a concession.

We'll start with a high bid, and maybe eventually meet in the middle.

If the Chinese don't like it and want a fight, I'm sure Michael Moore and Bill Maher will be the first to suit up for the war.

Morality Games · Dec 30, 2013

Hamster Buddha said:
Hey! We didn't bite on Syria! I was very proud that we learned out lesson so well and listen to those pacifist Russians.

... I doubt our failure to make good on our threat to attack Syria had much to do with an increase in wisdom.

(1) Democrats were tied up by their constituents

(2) Republicans do anything to undermine Obama.

(3) Our allies weren't really willing to match our commitment due to domestic politics

(4) Russia offered us an easier alternative to make good on our 'principles' and obligations to our Middle East allies, backed by a threat of turning Syria into a proxy war along with the intrinsic threat of it turning into a second Iraq. The highest and most practical levels of our government had little choice but to accept from a diplomatic and domestic politics perspective.

Hamster Buddha · Dec 30, 2013

Morality Games said:
... I doubt our failure to make good on our threat to attack Syria had much to do with an increase in wisdom.

(1) Democrats had to answer to their constituents.

(2) Republicans do anything to undermine Obama.

(3) Russia offered us an easier alternative to make good on our 'principles' backed by a threat of turning Syria into a proxy war. The highest and most practical levels of our government had little choice but to accept from a diplomatic and domestic politics perspective.

Did you miss Pelosi and Mccain talking about the morals reasons to attack? Or Obama's live speech? They really gave it their best shot...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

Morality Games · Dec 30, 2013

Hamster Buddha said:
Did you miss Pelosi and Mccain talking about the morals reasons to attack? Or Obama's live speech? They really gave it their best shot...

He did, mostly out of "obligation." The global and domestic political climate changed fast.

For example, if Putin had merely threatened the United States with a proxy war, then the outcome would have been very different. Instead, he presented a deal Russia had the ability to make good on (taking Syria's chemical weapons away) that allowed the United States to fulfill the barest provisions of its strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia and other Middle East allies. The threat of a proxy war was an addition to that offer; international relations are similar to relations between organized crime syndicates; a mixture of respect, veiled threats, and not so veiled threats, made to different people at different times to communicate complex messages.

Hamster Buddha · Dec 30, 2013

Morality Games said:
He did, mostly out of "obligation." The global and domestic political climate changed fast.

For example, if Putin had merely threatened the United States with a proxy war, then the outcome would have been very different. Instead, he presented a deal Russia had the ability to make good on (taking Syria's chemical weapons away) that allowed the United States to fulfill the barest provisions of its strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia and other Middle East allies. The threat of a proxy war was an addition to that offer; international relations are similar to relations between organized crime syndicates; a mixture of respect, veiled threats, and not so veiled threats, made to different people at different times to communicate complex messages.

My point though was that, even before the Russians came in with the deal, it still wasn't exactly polling very well with many Americans.

Morality Games · Dec 30, 2013

Hamster Buddha said:
My point though was that, even before the Russians came in with the deal, it still wasn't exactly polling very well with many Americans.

No, but that didn't really matter. There were still plenty of conservatives and liberals who would have supported military action.

There's a perception among Americans that our political leadership consists of disaffected ***holes who are out of touch with the concerns, beliefs, and challenges of the majority of the body politic. That's true, but the American people are similarly disaffected from the complexities of global economic and military relations, and mostly ignorant of the very tangible ways in which it affects their everyday lives.

American policy in places like the Middle East is pre-established by generations of military action, diplomatic accomplishment, enduring economic reality, and statesmanship. All except the worst demagogues in government place that "tradition" ahead of the transitory opinions of the American public over whether our country should be an active power in the world.

Hamster Buddha · Dec 30, 2013

Morality Games said:
No, but that didn't really matter. There were still plenty of conservatives and liberals who would have supported military action.

There's a perception among Americans that our political leadership consists of disaffected assholes who are out of touch with the concerns, beliefs, and challenges of the majority of the body politic. That's true, but the American people are similarly disaffected from the complexities of global economic and military relations and mostly ignorant of the very tangible ways in which it affects their everyday lives.

American policy in places in the Middle East is pre-established by generations of military action and statesmanship. All except the worst demagogues in government place that "tradition" ahead of the transitory perceptions of the American people as a whole.

You really think with a military action being this unpopular, they would go ahead and attempt a strike? I think it was in large part due to it's unpopularity, along with the Russian deal, that is the reason we didn't end up attacking them. Seriously, at one point, Congress was more popular than military action against Syria. And you know, when you're polling is worse than congress... don't even bother.

joko104 · Dec 30, 2013

Montecresto said:
Exactly, almost all of them. Really makes one wonder why Americans never learn this lesson, but always, and nearly blindly, line up behind the government in solidarity to wage the next one! Strange isn't it?

The Lusitania was an armaments transport ship. North Vietnam did not attack a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Spanish did not sink the Maine. Iraq did not have WMDs.

Morality Games · Dec 30, 2013

Hamster Buddha said:
You really think with a military action being this unpopular, they would go ahead and attempt a strike? I think it was in large part due to it's unpopularity, along with the Russian deal, that is the reason we didn't end up attacking them. Seriously, at one point, Congress was more popular than military action against Syria. And you know, when you're polling is worse than congress... don't even bother.

The unpopularity complicated the issue, but in seriousness there's little chance America's political leadership would wilfully indulge the risk of the Middle East spiraling into a chemical weapons race/war. It will take a much higher level of dysfunction and demagoguery than the Tea Party has been able to bring to accomplish that. If necessary, they would have taken the plunge together.

Russia's intervention is read mostly as a rebuke of Obama, but that's because the American public is deluded by personality politics. In truth, Russia's intervention was much more of a boon to the U.S. (and that includes Obama) than a hindrance. Russia and U.S. are competitors, but they have no choice but to cooperate when it comes to defusing arms races and national rivalries in the Middle East.

I should mention that Russia itself was in an awkward position because the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East is a special taboo because it harms all of our interests to see one of the global economy's primary sources of energy spiral into sectarian conflict, and Syria is in their camp. From a diplomatic perspective, Russia dropped the ball in allowing Assad to use chemical weapons.

Montecresto · Dec 30, 2013

Hamster Buddha said:
Hey! We didn't bite on Syria! I was very proud that we learned out lesson so well and listen to those pacifist Russians.

Oh hell HB, unfortunately Syria is an anomaly. If the Russians are always wrong, they were right on Syria.

Hamster Buddha · Dec 30, 2013

Morality Games said:
The unpopularity complicated the issue, but in seriousness there's little chance America's political leadership would wilfully indulge the risk of the Middle East spiraling into a chemical weapons race/war. It will take a much higher level of dysfunction and demagoguery than the Tea Party has been able to bring to accomplish that. If necessary, they would have taken the plunge together.

Russia's intervention is read mostly as a rebuke of Obama, but that's because the American public is deluded by personality politics. In truth, Russia's intervention was much more of a boon to the U.S. (and that includes Obama) than a hindrance. Russia and U.S. are competitors, but they have no choice but to cooperate when it comes to defusing arms races and national rivalries in the Middle East.

I should mention that Russia itself was in an awkward position because the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East is a special taboo because it harms all of our interests to see one of the global economy's primary sources of energy spiral into sectarian conflict, and Syria is in their camp. From a diplomatic perspective, Russia dropped the ball in allowing Assad to use chemical weapons.

Ironically, I think keeping Assad in power is actually what is best for both the Russians AND the US. Russia gets to keep it's puppet, and we don't have to worry about a radical Islamist taking over a country with chemical weapons.

Montecresto · Dec 30, 2013

joko104 said:
The Lusitania was an armaments transport ship. North Vietnam did not attack a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Spanish did not sink the Maine. Iraq did not have WMDs.

And the Mexicans did not attack a US military encampment on US soil.

Morality Games · Dec 30, 2013

Hamster Buddha said:
Ironically, I think keeping Assad in power is actually what is best for both the Russians AND the US. Russia gets to keep it's puppet, and we don't have to worry about a radical Islamist taking over a country with chemical weapons.

Indeed. After Iraq, nobody in the U.S. (and that includes Obama) seriously "wants" to flex our military muscle. But we also don't want to lose traction on long established policies and goals.

Assad using chemical weapons antagonizes the fragile balance of peace in the Middle East, a peace we have devoted decades of resources to preserve. From that perspective, Obama had little choice but to draw lines and make threats.

Montecresto · Dec 30, 2013

Morality Games said:
Indeed. After Iraq, nobody in the U.S. (and that includes Obama) seriously "wants" to flex our military muscle. But we also don't want to lose traction on long established policies and goals.

Assad using chemical weapons antagonizes the fragile balance of peace in the Middle East, a peace we have devoted decades of resources to preserve. From that perspective, Obama had little choice but to draw lines and make threats.

You making a funny MG, or has it just escaped you that Obama's drone campaign is Bush on steroids, Libya, the recent "flexing" in the China sea?

Morality Games · Dec 30, 2013

Montecresto said:
You making a funny MG, or has it just escaped you that Obama's drone campaign is Bush on steroids, Libya, the recent "flexing" in the China sea?

... and you think that a black Chicago community organizer has greater personal motivation than the Bush family to assert our military presence?

Obama's actions are consistent with longstanding policies, decided generations ago. Policies that benefit many demographics and income brackets more directly than his, but which must be supported because they involve the fortunes of all Americans and our allies to some degree.

Obama's foreign policy is Bush on steroids because it is impersonal.

Montecresto · Dec 30, 2013

Morality Games said:
... and you think that a black Chicago community organizer has greater personal motivation than the Bush family to assert our military presence?

Obama's actions are consistent with longstanding policies, decided generations ago. Policies that benefit many demographics and income brackets more directly than his, but which must be supported because they involve the fortunes of all Americans and our allies to some degree.

Obama's foreign policy is Bush on steroids because it is impersonal.

Oh no, I don't think that at all, but the military muscle has been flexed under him. And I certainly agree with the rest of your comment.

Morality Games · Dec 30, 2013

Montecresto said:
Oh no, I don't think that at all, but the military muscle has been flexed under him. And I certainly agree with the rest of your comment.

America looks weaker the more it flexes its muscle because the reality of making your military presence felt in every corner of the globe falls short of the romance. The Roman and British Empires began encountering a similar trouble. There are all manner of ways alien populations can resist and destroy your rule that don't entail direct opposition that can be smoked out into the open and crushed by your expensive military.

Post-Iraq, we only flex our muscle where it is necessary based on global economic relations or pre-existing alliances.

China flexing its muscle does nothing but good for China, even if they don't get their way. Just facing the U.S. as an apparent equal has domestic political advantages for the Communist Party. Us responding to China reminds the rest of the world that we're still policing them, which is sometimes received positively but more often negatively.

The only win-win situation for the United States is when (1) everything works and (2) everybody knows we played a leading role in making that happen.

If we're flexing our muscle, that means something isn't working.

ecofarm · Dec 30, 2013

Montecresto said:
China isn't projecting itself in that way, it has hugely increased its military budget in the last decade, concerned about US imperialism.

Do you support or just excuse Chinese military spending based on "because of the US"? Do you support US military spending?

Montecresto said:
Exactly the point! But wait till China bitch slaps us one day and then these nay Sayers will understand.

If China acts militarily against the US, the debt is cancelled - causing China to fragment and the US to become the richest nation ever. Please, please China let the US cancel its debt.

China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

global liberation