China Places Country Dangerously Close To US Warship

[Revoltingest]

No, I was thinking of the Boxer Rebellion, the patrols on the Yangtze River, and US forces involved in China during their Civil War.

Oh, when Russia also sent forces into China.
Did you know that?

But yeah, we did support and help China against the Japanese in WW2.



Ha! Shows how much you know.

Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't compete with a Russophile.
Did you know that China sent troops there too?

The places you're talking about are far, far away from U.S. territory, so my point stands. Their territory is more directly threatened by us than anything that can be said about the reverse.

What threat do you think USA poses to China?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Part of me wonders whether the policymakers who come up with these PR slogans realize just how flat they fall among so many people in some parts of the world. It might be easy to sell them to a subset of the people who have never borne the brunt of hostile American hegemony and exploitation, but try to sell them to someone in much of the Global South, especially in parts thereof that have struggled and toiled to fend off American disruption, and the reaction is likely to be very different or at least much more polarized at best.

Rightly or wrongly I've always assumed the intended audience was primarily domestic, with some consideration for not making it impossible for other liberal democracies to publically support them, whether with words or actions.

 

[Revoltingest]

The claim is that the US navy is far away in the China Seas but it is China that is the aggressor. It really shouldn't take a lot of thought to put two and two together.

Whuh?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your cities would be decimated by their spinning devils.

It's a good point. I've also heard rumours they're planning to go all Jurassic Park, and bring Tasmanian Tigers back from extinction.

Can scientists resurrect the Tasmanian tiger?

The last thylacine is thought to have died in the 1930s. Meet the scientists who want to bring it back.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Debater Slayer]

Rightly or wrongly I've always assumed the intended audience was primarily domestic, with some consideration for not making it impossible for other liberal democracies to publically support them, whether with words or actions.

I have gotten that impression as well, although in recent years and amid increasing geopolitical competition with China, sometimes it seems to me that the US and a few of its Western allies were naively or obliviously expecting more countries to fully support them on a multitude of issues but realized that a lot of countries weren't so ready to do so. Saudi Arabia's refusal to grant Biden what he wanted and the continuing ties between Africa and Russia come to mind, as well as India's refusal to fully side with China or the West on Ukraine.

The bridges the US and its key allies have spent decades burning are now having major effects on international politics because of the growing influence of China and its exploitation of anti-Western sentiments.

Politico ran an excellent article about this and delved deeper into Western powers' need to understand that the global order is no longer almost monopolized by American and European policies as had been the case for two or three decades after the fall of the USSR.

Relations with Africa, Asia are on brink of collapse — to Russia’s benefit

Superpowers wish for these nations to pick a side, but this time, they cannot so easily be made to choose. Moscow understands this — the West doesn’t.

www.politico.eu

I found this part especially germane and resonant:

In what was perhaps the most tone-deaf faux pas of his entire trip, when repeatedly asked during a press conference to condemn Rwanda’s support for M23 rebels causing havoc in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — a situation closely resembling Russia’s semi-covert support for Donbas separatists in recent years — for all intents and purposes, Macron failed to do so. He even proceeded to lecture the Congolese president on freedom of the press.

Despite the French president’s effusive rhetoric about “new relationships” and “new starts,” his outburst was yet another bitter reminder of Europe’s long-standing paternalistic and dissonant attitude toward Africa — the same attitude whereby decades of European political and military influence on the continent has failed to generate meaningful progress, if not actively undermining efforts.

 

[Audie]

I can accept that at face value. I'm unsure what conclusion you're drawing from it about current policy.
You're not suggesting Xi Jinping is running the same foreign policy China was in the 80s, are you?

Taiwan= Republic of China. ROC

Mainland= peoples republic of China. PRC

 

[Wu Wei]

Good post but you are a few points off compass
RE Chinese naval vessels operating near the USA.

America is not trying to claim like the Caribbean as
the South USAican Sea, or in any other way interfere
with freedom of navigation in international waters.

Khadaffi tried to claim a chunk of international
waters.

Here came US navy...kind of like Barbary pirates days.

Libya tried to attack the USA carrier. Splash two miss.

Problem solved.

Let the Iranians drive boats up and down the US coast
in intl waters. Who cares. They'd just be wasting gas.
Oil. Whatever it is boats use.

I know, I mentioned in a post where China is expanding their waters arbitrarily, Pretty much assumed folks knew the US wasn't

But get a foreign warship to close to US waters I'm pretty sure the US military knows about it, exactly who is where and how close. We just don't send ships or planes out, as long as they are not TO close and we don't play games of Chicken.

 

[Wu Wei]

Oh, when Russia also sent forces into China.
Did you know that?

Boxer rebellion had Japan, Russia, Britain, the United States, France, Austria-Hungary, and Italy to name a few... want to see foreign intervention...look into the Opium war and Britain

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have gotten that impression as well, although in recent years and amid increasing geopolitical competition with China, sometimes it seems to me that the US and a few of its Western allies were naively or obliviously expecting more countries to fully support them on a multitude of issues but realized that a lot of countries weren't so ready to do so. Saudi Arabia's refusal to grant Biden what he wanted and the continuing ties between Africa and Russia come to mind, as well as India's refusal to fully side with China or the West on Ukraine.

The bridges the US and its key allies have spent decades burning are now having major effects on international politics because of the growing influence of China and its exploitation of anti-Western sentiments.

Politico ran an excellent article about this and delved deeper into Western powers' need to understand that the global order is no longer almost monopolized by American and European policies as had been the case for two or three decades after the fall of the USSR.

Relations with Africa, Asia are on brink of collapse — to Russia’s benefit

Superpowers wish for these nations to pick a side, but this time, they cannot so easily be made to choose. Moscow understands this — the West doesn’t.

www.politico.eu

I found this part especially germane and resonant:

It was an interesting article, thanks for linking.
Much of it made sense...I'm less convinced about the final conclusions drawn, though. It seems to be suggesting balance between economic pragmatism and idealism, and that makes sense in terms of public messaging.

But ultimately I believe Russia and China are making headway because there is less need for states they are assisting to take any strong idealistic position, at least internationally. It's very much economic pragmatism (at least in the short term) which is the lever, imho.

 

[Stevicus]

I definitely think this is part of what hurts the credibility of the US even when it makes valid points about Taiwan. In so many situations where American interventionism and flexing of force were driven by geopolitical interests and desire for hegemony, American demagogues and talking heads would pass off the disruptive activities and policies as "defending democracy and freedom," "liberating people," "defending human rights," and a medley of other PR-themed slogans that have fallen flat and rung hollow in so many American foreign policies since the 1953 Iranian coup and the Vietnam War, among other instances of self-serving but gilded disruption and aggression.

I think that many Americans were getting wise to this during the Vietnam War era, but for whatever reason, it didn't really last, since most of the general public fell back into somnambulance. It's not really that surprising that America grew into its present role, as we were a former British colony and had a similar perspective as our Mother Country, but we didn't really grow large enough to surpass them until after WW1. Up until then, Britain was the premier power which held primacy over Europe and much of the globe. Of course, they also shared some of that hegemony with the French - and later, the Americans. But for whatever reason, the British didn't want to share hegemony with the Germans or the Russians, which fed into the malignant nationalism which started to grip those countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I think a lot of American politicians over the years have understood that some of their policies would have a lot less popular appeal if not for these catchphrases. There's almost always a self-righteous professed cause at the forefront of the marketing for these foreign policies, such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," "Operation Enduring Freedom," and the "War on Terror." These efforts to state that noble intentions drive American policies continue even though there are multiple reasons to doubt that the US would spend billions and go to such great lengths to help Ukraine, Taiwan, or any other country if the stated ethical reasons weren't accompanied by crucial geopolitical interests—not to mention that unlike the situations in Ukraine and Taiwan, sometimes the policies of the US don't even include a positive or ethical goal (e.g., allowing Ukraine to fend off Putin's imperialism and war crimes or the CCP's hostility) in the first place.

Part of me wonders whether the policymakers who come up with these PR slogans realize just how flat they fall among so many people in some parts of the world. It might be easy to sell them to a subset of the people who have never borne the brunt of hostile American hegemony and exploitation, but try to sell them to someone in much of the Global South, especially in parts thereof that have struggled and toiled to fend off American disruption, and the reaction is likely to be very different or at least much more polarized at best.

I'm not sure, but maybe there's such a thing as "patriotic burnout." Pretty much my entire life, I've seen a constant barrage of flag-waving and patriotic hoopla, usually accompanied by something military-related, as if we're in some kind of "permanent war." And it's kind of been like that, too - permanent war. Of course, we're not "officially" at war with anyone, since the time-honored practice of "declaring war" went out a long time ago. We can't "declare peace," either.

Another thing that seems evident is that, the average American doesn't really get anything out of all this. In America today, a lot of people are struggling to survive, and they're not seeing their share of America's global "booty" that everyone seems to think we have.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Taiwan= Republic of China. ROC

Mainland= peoples republic of China. PRC

I'm aware, just what happens when I skim read on the train, apologies.
Okay, so your point is...?

I'm not here arguing that there's a 'good' team and a 'bad' team if that's in any way what you mean.

 

[Wu Wei]

The claim is that the US navy is far away in the China Seas but it is China that is the aggressor. It really shouldn't take a lot of thought to put two and two together.

You do realize that the South China Sea and the East China sea does not mean it is all territorial waters of China.

 

[Wu Wei]

But for whatever reason, the British didn't want to share hegemony with the Germans or the Russians, which fed into the malignant nationalism which started to grip those countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

There was a whole lot more to it than that. The treaty of Versailles had a whole heck of a lot to do with what happened in Germany... and the Balfour Declaration didn't help in teh middle east, butthat came later........but then this is getting waaaaaay off topic

 

[Stevicus]

Oh, when Russia also sent forces into China.
Did you know that?

Yes, I did know that. Tsarist Russia had imperial designs on the Far East. And there was a time in the distant past when they, too, were ruled by the Mongol Empire, just like China.

I can't compete with a Russophile.
Did you know that China sent troops there too?

Yes, they were part of a coalition. China was part of the Allies in WW1.

I don't know what point you're trying to make by saying that Russia and China have sent troops into each other's countries. Of course they have. I'm aware of that. But I still maintain my point that neither of them have sent troops to America (unless you want to count the Russian colonization of Alaska, but we made a peacetime purchase of that territory, and it's been indisputably ours ever since).

What threat do you think USA poses to China?

We have bases and forces operating close to their territory. I don't believe we have any legitimate reason to threaten them, although our purpose is ostensibly to protect proximate nations which our government claims is being threatened by China.

 

[Stevicus]

There was a whole lot more to it than that. The treaty of Versailles had a whole heck of a lot to do with what happened in Germany... and the Balfour Declaration didn't help in teh middle east, butthat came later........but then this is getting waaaaaay off topic

I was referring more to the period leading up to WW1, while the Treaty of Versailles and Balfour Declaration came afterwards.

 

[Wu Wei]

I was referring more to the period leading up to WW1, while the Treaty of Versailles and Balfour Declaration came afterwards.

OK

 

[lukethethird]

Freedom of navigation in international
waters near the USA has never been contested.

Anyone can dri e their boats around as they
please.

This is so all around the world thanks to the US Navy.

Which gets the expensive tiresome and dangerous job
of keeping sea lanes open despite the noise from
bad actors.

And ideological hacks who don't know what is actually going on.

US and CDN warships are well within "territorial sea," where one has to ask what business do they have doing so called maneuvers well inside these waters. International waters are further off the coast, 200 nautical miles and a different matter altogether, hardly newsworthy if that were the case.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

US and CDN warships are well within "territorial sea," where one has to ask what business do they have doing so called maneuvers well inside these waters. International waters are further off the coast, 200 nautical miles and a different matter altogether, hardly newsworthy if that were the case.

That's not accurate.

Territorial waters extend 3 nautical miles from the shore, plus a further 12 nautical miles for international waters.

The 200 nautical miles extension is around an exclusive economic zone, which limits fishing, etc.

Are you suggesting US warships were within 15 nautical miles?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Another thing that seems evident is that, the average American doesn't really get anything out of all this. In America today, a lot of people are struggling to survive, and they're not seeing their share of America's global "booty" that everyone seems to think we have.

It's relative though.

A 'lot of people struggling to survive' really doesn't speak to whether America is getting global booty, and would be of limited interest to people in poor countries.

GDP per Capita - Worldometer

GDP per capita by country. List by GDP at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and by Nominal GDP. Ratio to World's average GDP per capita at PPP

www.worldometers.info

 

[RestlessSoul]

"Now, I know what you’re thinking: what is a Chinese navy vessel doing in the Taiwan Strait, right where US and Canadian warships are peacefully conducting routine navigation exercises?"


https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/06/05/china-places-country-dangerously-close-to-us-warship/


How far do you think China is willing to go with this aggression?

Those 'peaceful' US and Canadian warships are a lot further from home than the Chinese vessel.