From RT - CHINA'S MILITARY CAPABILITY

I include this article because it mentions wars in recent history about which I know nothing.  In discussing the Peoples Liberation Army, that includes the nave, and the article does not include China's aggression against the Philippines in the South China Sea.  Still, it is a short article that opens possible research into many little known battle spheres.  I hope you find it informative.  Hugh Murray 

Think China is a ‘nation that can’t fight’? Think again

The West has mocked Beijing’s military for decades – it may soon regret it

By Vasily Kashin, Political Science PhD, Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE

FILE PHOTO. ©  CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images

The internet is flooded with quotes attributed to Chinese philosophers. Who hasn’t seen a meme with a “Confucius” saying or heard of the so-called “ancient Chinese curse” about living in interesting times? In reality, 99% of these quotations are fake, reflecting Western projections of Chinese wisdom rather than its reality. Yet one saying – “good iron does not make nails; good men do not make soldiers” – is genuinely Chinese. Known since at least the Song Dynasty (late 10th – early 12th century), it remains in use today, much to the irritation of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) political officers.

Globally, the proverb helped fuel a myth that China “never liked to fight” and “always lost wars.” Yet the absurdity of this view is clear if one simply looks at the world map today. Nevertheless, it persists – and now, as China becomes a true superpower, this misconception could have dangerous consequences for the world.

Historical roots

To understand the proverb’s origin, we must look at the structure of the Song Dynasty's military. Early Chinese empires such as the Han relied on conscription, but over time, mercenary armies became the norm. Chronic shortages of volunteers were addressed by drafting criminals and debtors – turning armies into collections of society’s “undesirables.”

Officers, by contrast, came from privileged classes who passed imperial military exams. These exams, though less prestigious than their civilian counterparts, still conferred status. But it is crucial to remember that the civil bureaucracy was tiny, making its officials extraordinarily powerful, while rank-and-file soldiers remained socially degraded.

Read more

 The West is breaking up – here is what Russia and China must do

This pattern closely resembled Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries: a privileged officer corps and low-status, often criminal, enlisted men. Wellington’s remark in 1811 that “only men of the worst character enter the regular service” could have been said about China too. Military service was a punishment; soldiers were feared more for their misbehavior than admired for their valor. In that context, the “men and nails” proverb made perfect sense – and was hardly unique to China.

The modern Western glorification of the soldier – tied to mass conscription, nationalism, and industrial militarism – only emerged in the 19th century. In China, where social and political backwardness lingered longer, this transformation began only in the 20th century with enormous difficulty.

China’s true military record

A regular, centrally commanded, professionally trained army – the PLA – was only created in the 1950s, after the Communist victory. Almost immediately, the PLA demonstrated its effectiveness by intervening in the Korean War, inflicting a series of defeats on UN forces and saving North Korea. The Soviet Union, by contrast, limited itself to sending small air and anti-aircraft units.

In 1962, China launched a well-timed, surprise offensive against India, achieving a quick victory and territorial gains. Beijing struck while the world was distracted by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Throughout the 1960s, China also provided major military support to North Vietnam, at times deploying up to 170,000 troops – considerably more than the Soviet Union ever committed.

In 1969, Beijing provoked and fought small border clashes with the USSR – a calculated show of strength aimed at achieving key foreign and domestic policy goals, including paving the way for rapprochement with the United States. The military component was minor; the political impact was enormous.

Meanwhile, the PLA fought a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Tibet, defeating US- and Indian-backed guerrillas by the early 1970s. It also engaged in recurring military action against Taiwan, demonstrating clear superiority across the Taiwan Strait.

Read more

 Fyodor Lukyanov: Forget land – this is Russia’s main demand from the West

Risk-taking and adaptation

In February 1979, China launched an invasion of Vietnam, a newly minted Soviet ally. This bold action risked conflict with a nuclear superpower. The campaign exposed PLA shortcomings but also demonstrated its resilience, willingness to absorb heavy casualties, and ability to carry out major offensives.

While Vietnam held out thanks to Soviet military threats against China, Beijing’s ability to act – and to compel both Moscow and Washington to recalibrate their policies – was a major achievement.

The Sino-Vietnamese conflict evolved into a decade-long border war marked by artillery duels, naval clashes, and raids, culminating in China’s decisive naval victory in the Spratly Islands in 1988.

Comparing China’s record from 1949-1989 to the Soviet Union’s reveals a striking fact: China used military force more frequently, and arguably more effectively, than the USSR during the Cold War.

Modernization and patience

After Mao’s death, the PLA underwent profound modernization, both politically and socially. Military service gained prestige. During the Cultural Revolution, the army became a pillar of governance and society. Yet, China’s foreign policy turned defensive from the 1990s onward – not from weakness, but from strategic calculation.

After the Soviet collapse, China faced a unipolar world dominated by the United States. Survival and development required patience. Beijing avoided major military engagements for nearly 30 years, instead focusing on economic and technological breakthroughs. Shows of force were reserved for defending “core interests,” such as during the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis.

Read more

 Challenging anarchy: Russian roulette in post-Assad Syria

By the late 2010s, the global environment had changed. American dominance weakened. The unipolar order eroded. China’s rise, both economic and military, became undeniable.

Beijing’s gradual reassertion of military power has been cautious but unmistakable: expanding operational reach, forging military partnerships, and conducting exercises in potential conflict zones.

A dangerous myth

The myth of Chinese military incompetence is not only historically false; it is potentially catastrophic. In the past, underestimating China’s capabilities led adversaries to miscalculate – to their great cost. Today, as China carefully prepares for its first major combat operations in decades, its adversaries would do well to shed illusions and study history more carefully.

Beijing will not rush into war. It will act only under conditions it judges favorable and under circumstances it has painstakingly prepared. But make no mistake: when it acts, China will not be the passive, incompetent power that outdated stereotypes imagine.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

ANALYSIS

SPEAKER OF HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI CORRECT IN GOING TO TAIWAN

            By Hugh Murray

   I was surprised to find different reactions to the trip by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan this August 2022.  She had earlier announced that she would go, the government of the People's Republic of China objected.  There was debate in the US.  Pres. Biden asserted that the American military discouraged her trip.  Pelosi planned to stop in Singapore, the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, as well as Taiwan.  Some hawks in China threatened to prevent her from landing or even shoot her plane down.  On the other side, some conservative Republicans thought her trip a good idea, and hoped she would ask them to accompany her.  She did not announce her specific plans, but on Tuesday 2 August she arrived in Taipei, was presented an award by the leader of the island, and soon thereafter, continued to her next destination.

    I was shocked by Pat Buchanan's reaction, contending that she was risking war with China with no specific purpose.  Even more surprising, the reaction of Fox News star Tucker Carlson, who deemed her Taiwan venture, irresponsible, dangerous, a provocation to a war with China.

    I am usually an opponent of every political act my Speaker for the past few years: her impeachment of Pres. Trump; her 2nd impeachment of Trump, the January 6 one-sided inquiry into the fracas on the Capitol, her support for the Democratic Party pandemic policies, and her left-wing agenda.  Why then do I support her reviled trip to Taiwan.

    When House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited Taiwan in the 1990s, the PRC may have objected, but so what?  The American military and naval forces were far superior to those of the People's Liberation Army.  True, on the Asian mainland, the PLA's "volunteer" forces stole an American military in North Korea, and restored the border to where it had been when Kim Il Sung invaded the South in 1950.  But the US had no desire to invade the mainland now.  The American navy, which had defeated that of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, was far superior to that of the PLA-N in the 1990's.

      The question of who would win a war for Taiwan today is not so clear.  In war games, China often wins.  But games are not reality.  Still, it would be a closer call.  On Wednesday morning, I was pleasantly relieved when I turned on my tv, and it worked.  A first strike attack today will not be like one on Pearl Harbor in 1941.  We will not find out by listening to our radios or tvs.  The first thing to go in the star war age will be our electric grid and satellites.  We may not have electricity, a phone, or water.  Welcome to America 1820.  Or China may suffer that black-out.  Nukes may not be necessary to win a modern war.

    So why risk war with China for a non-essential visit by Nancy Pelosi?  The main reason, as close as the 2 contenders are today, the US and the PRC, under Pres. Biden - the worst President in America history, our military will only get worse.  Better a confrontation today than a year from now.  The sooner a Republican is in the White House, America and begin to rebuild and repair the broken machine where a major ship is destroyed by a minor fire in the docks, and others cannot be properly steered so as to avoid collisions, and leaders are chosen by racial or sexual quotas, not on abilities.  Better the fright today so that perhaps some can begin to repair the Democratic Party caused damaged.  This is why, for once, I cheer Nancy Pelosi, whose visit may make a wake-up call to all America about the real danger we face.

    Now the dull stuff:  About 94% of our chips are made in Taiwan.  These are used in many American industries, and without them, we cannot finish auto production, or make washing machines or most other machines.  If China were to impose a blockade around Taiwan, that too might mean war.  Unlike Ukraine, we are dependent upon Taiwan, we need it to remain an industrial power.

     China lost Taiwan to Japan in war in the 1890s, and it remained Japanese until the Imperial defeat in 1945, when it was restored to the official govt. of China, the Nationalist govt.  In China's civil war Pres. Truman sent Gen. Marshall to handle things and he demanded that Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek form a coalition government with Communist leader Mao.  Chiang refused Marshall's demand, so Marshall refused to allow any arms to be supplied to the Nationalists, while Stalin was supplying Mao with captured Japanese arms from Manchukuo and Soviet sources.  Communists in the US Treasury Dept. and other departments sabotaged any later efforts to supply Chiang with aid.  Mao won the civil war on the mainland and proclaimed the PRC in 1949.  Chiang and his remnant fled to Taiwan and continued as the Republic of China.  In the effort to split the USSR from China, Kissinger and Nixon made deals with Mao.  Under Pres. Carter, we ditched The RoC, and recognized the one-China policy.

      Legally, that one-China policy gives Beijing a strong claim to Taiwan (it is harder to imagine Taiwan now conquering the mainland, which would also be a one-China policy).  But the PRC ignores the law, especially when the international court ruled against its fantasy claims to the South China Sea.  In the 1400s the Chinese probably had the largest fleet in the world and might have claimed that sea, but a new emperor around 1450 destroyed the fleet and all plans for such ocean-going vessels and established a new stay-at-home policy, which was not reversed until centuries later.  But China ignred the law and used forced to build and fortify islets in the South China Sea and threaten its neighbors and all sea-going vessels in the area with its lawless actions. 

AMERICA'S BIG MISTAKE IN UKRAINE AND TAIWAN///pART 2

By Hugh Murray 

 China just signed a deal with the Solomon Islands in the Pacific, not long after surprising America by signing another deal with Samoa.  China has cash to help build infrastructure, pay of bribes to politicians, and do other things, like perhaps construct a Chinese naval base located there.  The UP reports today that China is negotiating with 7 other island nations in the Pacific right now.  Well, it is a good thing the Hawaiian Islands are already American territory or perhaps China might soon have a base there.  Is Pearl Harbor up for sale now?  These new treaties will give China room to get to the other side of the Philippine Islands, possibly interfere with American shipping to Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, and if war comes, restrict our plans to defend Taiwan. 

 

     China was once the world's premier naval power.  But first an aside: during the American Revolutionary war, a young Andrew Jackson fought beside his brother against the British.  They were captured.  When a British officer commanded the 13-year-old Andrew to polish the gentleman's boots, the young Andrew refused.  The officer drew his sword, slashed Andrew's left hand to the bone and hit him on the head - leaving scars on both head and hand.  In the late 1300s, there were wars in China a leader of a Mongolian group killed in fighting the Chinese, and when his young son was questioned by his dad's opponents, the youth spoke defiantly.  He too was punished.  But there are cultural differences.  This youth was castrated, became a servant in the court of the victor's, and rose in rank.  By the early 1400s, this boy grown to manhood, becomes Admiral to the largest fleet ever to sail - some 28,000 sailors sailing from near Suzhou down the South China Sea, the Spice islands, India, Sri Lanka, even Arabia (Admiral Zheng He is a Muslim and goes to Mecca), and to East Africa.  They return to China with many goods and animals like giraffes that were unknown in the Middle Kingdom.  The Admiral, with several major expeditions to the Indian Ocean and Africa, may give the Chinese a claim to the South China Sea.  Compare his huge expeditions with those that came later: Magellan fewer than 300 men\; da Gama 170;  and Columbus, a mere 90 men.  Yet, which voyages changed the world?

     (One more aside: it is interesting to note that both He in China and Jackson in America begin on the bottom rungs of society, and in both lands, both rise to the top or near the top.  Andrew Jackson defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans and was later elected American President; He in China fought in the military there and became the most famous Admiral or one of the largest fleets on  several successful expeditions.  But he never became emperor.  Both societies may have been more open to talent than we are aware of.) 

 Moreover, by 1433 China had a new emperor, and soon he decreed that there should be no more ocean-going ships to sail, or to be built, and all those in existence and all their plans should be destroyed!  Surely China did not dominate the South China Sea after 1450.  China ceased to be a naval power.  There are cultural differences, and often these have huge consequences.  In the 1890s China even lost a war to Japan, a nation only "opened" to the world by the American navy's Commodore Perry in 1853.  Japan then quickly sought to catch up with the west, learning from imported military figures from Prussia and naval ones from Britain.  When China lost to Japan, it had to cede Formosa (Taiwan) to the Japanese.  The island remained Japanese until 1945, when Japan lost WWII.

     Formosa, no longer Japanese would go to the official Chinese government, the one recognized by the new UN organization and all major powers, the Nationalist government headed by Chiang Kai-shek.

      In 1944 there was no A-bomb, and even as Nazi Germany seemed destined for defeat, America faced the huge problem of invading the Japanese home islands.  FDR made promises to Stalin in order to get him to declare war on Japan.  It was agreed he would do so within 3 months of the German surrender.  In August 1945 the US dropped 2 A-bombs on Japan, the Soviets entered the war against Japan, quickly over-running the depleted defense forces in Manchukuo,  Japan surrendered.  Soviet troops were in Manchuria, dismantling factories to bring them to the USSR, but taking the Japanese weapons, and instead of giving them to the "official" Chinese government, gave them to the Communist rebel regime of Mao Zedong.  A Nationalist faction under Wang Jingwei, that had collaborated with Japan was totally discredited, but civil war increased between the "official" Chiang Nationalists and Mao's Communists, now supplied with weapons by the Soviets.  American Pres. Truman sent Gen. George Marshall to end the conflict, and he demanded Chiang form a coalition with Mao, or Marshall said there would be no aid.  This policy allowed the Communists to conquer more of China.  Finally, Marshall okayed help for Chiang, but Communists in the FDR Administration, like H D White in Treasury, obstructed any real aid to Chiang.  The result - in 1949 Mao broadcast from Beijing the creation of the Peoples' Republic of China.  Chiang, with the remnants of his defeated army, fled to Taiwan, protected by the US Navy.  Taiwan became what was left of the Republic of China.  This was the origin of the 2-China policy.

      In 1950 North Korea invaded its southern neighbor; Truman decided to send American troops to aid the South, and the war was on.  Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur was able to land forces behind the lines of the invaders, encircling the North Communists, and soon the whole peninsula was in anti-Communist hands.  Then in cold winter, the Chinese Communist "volunteers" crossed the Yalu using their large numbers and enduring heavy losses, but pushing the anti-communists back to the approximate border of before.  And so it remains.

     Having been unofficially at war with the PR China, there were few relations between the 2 nations.  Then, the Vietnam war, found America in a difficult war.  Even though there were now many reports of a rift between the USSR and the PRC, America was on the outside.  Diplomat Henry Kissinger got Pres. Richard Nixon, a Republican, to try to put a wedge between those 2 Communist lands  Ping pong diplomacy.  The US urged less Chinese support for the Vietnamese, which did occur.  Under Pres. Carter, the US formally recognized a 1-China policy, and the Rep. of China was now simply Taipei.  The US overthrew the royal leader of Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk, who was soon replaced by the radical Khmer Rouge.  Both China and the US seemed happy with that, while Communist Vietnam (ally of the USSR) was furious that the Cambodians were murdering Vietnamese.  The Khmer Rouge then began a great extermination policy of its own people too, killing up to 2 million.  Anyone who had glasses was suspect.  To what extent did the US secretly work with the PRC in Cambodia?  As Vietnam was trying to overthrow the leaders of Cambodia?  China and Vietnam also had their own small war against each other along their common border.

      The late 80s, Tiananmen - the CP will continue to rule China.  But deals with the west for trade, very cheap labor assured will mean low prices in America.  Under Clinton and Bush, more trade deals, and China joins World Trade Organization, keeping its home market safe by requiring foreign corporations to  form partnerships (where Chinese can steal secrets on manufacturing).  When in the 1990s China cannot get missiles off the ground, the Clintons make deals, receive campaign "donations," and Chinese rocket problems are solved.  PRC makes honey deals with high ranking American politicians, the Biden family, the Clintons, Feinstein, Republican Senate leader McConnel.  The CPR leadership learns a weak link of democracy - corruption.

      Kissinger worked to separate Russia and China.  Biden, with his reaction to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, has made the Russo-Chinese relation ever closer.  Just as the Biden economic war against Putin may be making the US far weaker, the the ruble stronger today with the dollar than when Biden announced his policy.  Worse, the Biden, Democrats and Rhino Republican policies of giving Zelensky all he wants, simply keeps the war going in Ukraine.  Inflation is a problem in the US.  Now we just voted $40 billion more for that war.  UKRAINE IS NOT A DIRECT AMERICAN INTEREST.  Worse, we are facing a battle about Taiwan, which we need to win.  Will we have sufficient weapons?  Money?  Manufacturing capabilities for continued weaponry?  (Remember, we are dependent on Taiwan for the chips so necessary in the new weaponry.  If China attacks Taiwan, or merely surrounds it and blockades it, will the USA  be able to manufacture anything??  China has built up its navy so it is powerful.  Untested, yes, but are we up for the test ourselves?  China was testing hypersonic missiles last year - Gen. Milley called it a "near Sputnik moment."  The other day the US Air Force reported we too have had a successful test (after some failures).

       China ignores the World Court's decision on the South China Sea; the court denied it is China's.  China rejected the court's judgement and instead built up islands in the sea, then broke its word and militarized those islands.  China has signed contracts with 2 island groups in the Pacific since April 2022, and is trying for 7 more deals.  Will the Pacific be China's new lake??

     Some maintain that the recent virus lockdowns in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Xian, and even Beijing have nothing to do with any virus, but they are exercises in control in case there is a major war (with the USA).

If China were to strike first, and not just in Taiwan, but hit our shores too, Would we be able to respond AND WIN?  What about Chinese money near the Panama Canal?

      Instead of bowing to Zelensky's demands, we should tell him to make a deal and end the war, while we prepare for our own defense.  To the Chinese we seem at a weak point - an elderly, maybe senile leader, high crime rate, inflation, instability, and general confusion, more worried about proper pronouns than how effective is your missile.  They want Taiwan by 2049, but why wait?  Especially if the balance of power has changed, if the most advanced nation is the Middle Kingdom, which rests between heaven and earth?  Perhaps they will conclude this year is the time for the Middle Kingdom to take its rightful place.  Are we prepared to shatter that "cultural difference," and prove that their proper place is NOT a superior one to all the rest of the earth.  Are we prepared to prevent a modernized, 1984 one-party state from becoming a modernized one-party world?  Our democratic republic has its flaws, but it is the last best hope for humanity. 

 

     To prepare for the big one, let us end the Ukraine war now.