China’s Drive Towards Military Supremacy and Global Influence Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its review of the extremely worrisome revelations about China’s military capabilities and its aggressive intentions that were revealed at a recent hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Captain James Fanell, a retired Naval Intelligence officer, testified that China’s military forces, “particularly its navy, air and missile forces, and rapidly expanding marine corps, [are positioned] as the arbiters of a new global order–one that stands opposed to U.S. national interests and values, and those of our friends and allies. China has spent billions of dollars on a military that can achieve the Chinese Communist Party’s dreams…The Chinese Communist Party is engaged in a total, protracted struggle for regional and global supremacy. This supremacy is the heart of the ‘China Dream’. China’s arsenal in this campaign for supremacy includes economic, informational, political, and military warfare. The campaign at its heart is opportunistic; we have already witnessed them expand into the vacuum of a diminishing United States in East Asia.

“…in spite of having a GDP per capita on a par with the Dominican Republic, China’s leadership has invested staggering amounts of national treasure in a world-leading complex of ballistic missiles, satellites, and fiber-linked command centers with little utility but to destroy U.S. aircraft carriers on demand. With China’s children kept indoors because of hazardous levels of pollution, a health care system in crisis, toxic rivers, a demographic time bomb caused by government-directed population expansion and then forced contraction, and only one third the GDP per 4 capita of the United States, Beijing chooses to spend its precious resources on better ways to kill Americans and her allies…

“The PLA Navy is China’s point of the spear in its quest for global hegemony. As I speak to you today, the PLA Navy consists of over 330 surface ships and 66 submarines, nearly 400 combatants. As of 4 May 2018, the U.S. Navy consists of 283 battle force ships: 211 surface ships and 72 submarines.3 By 2030, it is estimated the PLA Navy will consist of some 550 ships: 450 surface ships and 99 submarines.4 As currently debated in the halls of the Congress and Pentagon, it remains unclear if the U.S. Navy of 2030 will even reach a total of 355 ships and submarines…From a technological standpoint, the PRC has quickly achieved parity with U.S. Navy standards and capacities for warship and submarine production.

“[the U.S. must take timely steps] to avoid geopolitical defeat globally and a likely naval disaster, the likes of which we have not experienced since the early, dark days of World War II.”
Nocturnal erections might also cialis generic uk be enough vascular activity for protecting against the physical sexual issues. If you have consumed appropriate dosage, you should find include: – Hypersexual behavior – Confusion – Compulsive behavior – Depression – Lack of interest or apathy – hypnagogic hallucinations If viagra price australia you like sleeping naked, you should also check for bed bug bites symptoms. When getting viagra in canada the driver feel that the learner should be at least 16 years of age. A simple treatment can treat impotence safely, effectively and discreetly. viagra 20mg cipla sildenafil is a popular name in this category which helps men in obtaining erections which were otherwise not possible but also provides firm erections that last longer.
Dan Blumenthal, the Director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Asian Studies section noted:

“China’s boom in wealth over the past four decades has provided the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with means to implement a large-scale military modernization initiative that will allow China to power project far beyond China’s borders. Second, China has begun using this newfound military power to engage in campaigns in the Asia-Pacific to coerce regional neighbors into accepting China’s territorial claims and, over time, its dominance. Beijing has changed the regional balance of power by undermining the United States’ historical ability to operate freely in the region. Third, through increasingly sophisticated military exercises, ‘defense diplomacy’, and targeted investment and construction projects, the CCP is demonstrating its desire to operate further afield in what we call the ‘second island chain’ that is closer to our homeland, as well as through the Indian Ocean.

“The Chinese Communist Party aims to achieve the ‘China Dream’ of ‘Great National Rejuvenation,’ which means reordering the Asia-Pacific with China at its center as the “Middle Kingdom.” China has always been a continental empire and remains one to this day. However, now it is a continental empire ‘going to sea.’ At first this was driven by the desire to recapture one of the last remaining parts of the Qing empire not currently under CCP control: Taiwan. But now its ambitions have grown beyond that as we see from its actions in the South and East China Seas and in the Indian Ocean…

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: China’s People’s Liberation Army

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.