Martyanov's analysis on Two Major Theater Wars*

Generally I'm a fan of Andrei Martyanov's analysis. Agree with his assessment of the "leadership" of the government in DC. In his presentation, I only take exception to his dismissive analysis of the Chinese military. I think it's somewhat ethnocentric. It's the PLAN which is a bit different from the western concept of navy. That orientation implies the historical context of its role and development. The whole concept of struggle to offset the historical forces of imperialism in CCP doctrine puts this contest over Taiwan in a longer term perspective which frankly Americans don't understand. They dismiss the record of imperial aggression against China as ideological cant. It wouldn't be the first time the US and it allies blundered into another Asian debacle.

I follow others who are experts on the Chinese armed forces, and while they admit there are some weak points in the PLAN relative to the US Navy, it is the US armed forces who are not prepared to fight China over Taiwan. I don't think that either side wants war. Nevertheless, given the humiliating history of gunboat diplomacy in East Asia, China could be easily provoked to war over Taiwan. In that event, Chinese commitment would be higher than that of the US, whose policy views on East Asia are based more on custom and past practice than reality. It's not surprising that Martyanov also has this blind spot. After the Russian revolution, Russia saw itself almost in a big brother role to emerging Chinese military organization.

Other experts who acknowledge certain US advantages also recognize the US disadvantages. The Chinese will quickly compensate for any weaknesses and bring their strengths to bear to overcome them. Any conflict that takes place in the Chinees littoral around Taiwan or elsewhere in close proximity to China allows it to respond in a way that would gravely damage US and allied forces and resources. (For this reason I fear the US would entertain use of nuclear weapons sooner or later to "end the conflict" as it has in the past ).

Former Admiral Bill Owens has said there is no military solution to Taiwan. Other experts say sooner or later the US would likely be defeated in a conflict over Taiwan, or at a minimum sustain serious military losses. Chinese strategic depth, resourcefulness, and organizational skills should not be treated dismissively so close to its shores. Yes, the Chinese PLAN is not yet optimally ready. Yet it has enough resources and military assets to cause widespread damage in the theater which will shock Americans out of their China fantasy. The outcome of any such conflict cannot be easily foretold.

*Andrei Martyanov - Weekend Improv, youtube 8.6;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgJ8Q9RTmzM&t=541s

The US: Wages of Destruction

Adam Tooze wrote a book The Wages of Destruction: the Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. He outlines a now or never perspective among German industrial leaders who saw a closing window of opportunity to defeat Germany's European rivals to become a continental power like the US. The means to foreclose the possibility of slipping into second rate status as a world power was to be achieved by military conquest. Currently, the Russia-China partnership and the belt and road initiative present the MacKinder nightmare of "barbarian uncivilized peoples" controlling the so called "world island." In the Anglo-American geo-political perspective rooted in 19th and 20th Century notions of racial, ethnic and ideological superiority this cannot happen.

(Source- USNI Oct. 4) US aircraft carriers Vinson and Reagan with HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the Japanese small carrier Ise. Taiwan News reported these ships operating north of Taiwan, October 3 and 4, with 13 other allied warships.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4306367


The 2016 Rand study on the challenge posed to the US by the growth in Chinese power posits a window of US military superiority ending in 2025.* A few respected US analysts of China's military power consider this discussion dangerously mistaken. The Chinese already have conventional military superiority in their littoral seas and on the mainland. Nevertheless, the Rand discussion represents a similar now or never perspective in the US which is widely accepted: namely, act now, while the US has the advantage. In the first half of the 20th Century, Japan suffered from a similar syndrome as Nazi Germany and miscalculated the outcomes possible in the Pacific War.

*War with China, Thinking Through the Unthinkable, Rand Corporation, Gombert et al, 2016; https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf


The right in Japan currently and the US are in a negative feedback loop overestimating how they can make China submit to the US/UK/Japan imperial redefinition of geopolitical reality in Asia. Similar US miscalculations preceded the disastrous Korean and Vietnam wars, in which millions were killed. The ongoing current delusion shared by the prior early 20th Century allies, who carved up Asia and the western Pacific before their falling out during WW II, represents a revival of obsolescent geopolitical views. The US unfortunately appears ideologically and culturally incapable of engaging in any kind of geopolitical ceasefire with China as some critics of US foreign policy have sensibly recommended.

The US will be encouraged to engage in further abandonment of the "three communiques" concerning the one China policy by the UK and Japan. Provocations in this regard will continue with respect to Taiwan. Exaggerated and false claims concerning Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Tibet and the South China Sea repeated in Enlish language media daily are accepted uncritically by insular domestic audiences who literally know nothing about East Asia. Already the anti-Beijing Olympics strategy is being rolled out for propaganda purposes. Anyone who studies the so called human rights campaigns sponsored by the US against various Asian states, knows that they signal the end rather than the beginning of negotiations, because they are an in essence interference in the internal affairs of those states and represent regime change efforts. It goes without saying that no objective analyst could take western claims of genocide in Xinjiang seriously. The domestic racism and xenophobia against China and its nationals in the US has been whipped up to a frenzy for political purposes and now really can't be contained. Anyone proposing diplomatic solutions will be ridiculed, accused of disloyalty or worse as 1950s era McCarthyism reemerges.

Cat and Mouse Games over Taiwan?

(Source- Shin In-kyun, Daily Defense 6.13) Flight path of USAF C-40 over Taiwan, June 9.

According to South Korean defense analyst Shin In-kyun, a U.S. Air Force C-40A, (737-700C) flew from Kadena AFB to the west coast of Taiwan in an unprecedented mission profile since the break off of official diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Shin's youtube presentation on this was entitled Chinese communist forces whine at first US-Taiwan combined forces exercise. While flying in the Taiwan straits, a Chinese Su-30 fighter from a PRC airbase approached and entered "ROC airspace" which Shin defined as being the midline in Straits. Technically, the midline is not a territorial limit but the Taipai Flight Information Region (FIR) border with the Shanghai FIR. The USAF C-40 appears to have been flying on an established airway within the Taipai FIR, which actually, in large part, lies within Taiwan's territory. Shin suggests that the C-40 was on a coordinated mission with the ROC Air Force, and speculates that the two F-16Vs sent to intercept the PRC Su-30 were "linked" to an integrated air defense with the US Pacific Command. It is probably wise for US aircraft to stay within the established airspace of the Taipai FIR well on the Taiwan side for safety reasons.

(Source- Shin In-kyun, Daily Defense 6.13) Graphic representation of encounter between PLAAF Su-30 Flanker and ROC F-16s over the Taiwan Straits. Xiamen Airport in Fujian province, shown in the insert, is contended to be the base of the Su-30.

According to Shin's typical hyperbolic style, the Chinese aircraft was the transgressor. As Shin described it, upon the encounter with the ROC F-16s, the single Flanker turned tail implying inferiority on the part of the pilot and his aircraft. A Chinese media report cited by Shin, Kwangyang Global Times, (6.10) reflected Chinese dissatisfaction with continued US military-ROC promotion of Taiwanese "separatism," and styled the Su-30's approach toward Taiwan as a warning that China's PLA forces stands firm to deal with any military challenge from Taiwan.

(Source- Shin In-kyun, Daily Defense 6.13) Depiction of entire flight path of the USAF C-40, June 9. Kadena to Guam, via Southeast Asia, said to be an eleven hour route.

According to the Taiwan Defense Headquarters, the Su-30 repeatedly entered Taiwan's airspace to the southwest after crossing the midline. After being giving the appropriate warnings, the Air Force directed fighters already in the vicinity on patrol to take appropriate measures against the intruding aircraft. The Su-30 departed. According to the ROC headquarters the Taiwanese fighters responded positively and safely.

(Source- Shin In-kyun, Daily Defense 6.13) F-16 v. Su-30 intercept?

The whole episode as described by Shin is overblown except to the extent that reports of ROC air defense integration with US forces are viewed as a provocation by the China. Integration of ROC military forces with US military commands is likely to be viewed as a threat by China to its core interests. The complex and overlapping FIRs of Shanghai and Taipei seem like a natural environment for misunderstandings and mishaps that could very well lead to unnecessary war involving the US. Shin seems to relish such a prospect.