China’s military buildup

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its review of China’s growing military power.

Beijing already has a larger number of submarines than the U.S. Navy, and its overall fleet will exceed America’s by 2020. It’s growing naval power has given it the confidence and ability [to do more than] ignore international law. Reuters has reported that Chinese spy ships have shadowed the U.S. aircraft Carrier USS John C. Stennis. It’s not the first time the U.S. Navy was openly challenged by China. In 2007, the Daily Mail reported that “American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior NATO officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy. The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat. One NATO figure said the effect was “as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik” – a reference to the Soviet Union’s first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age. The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.” [The New York Analysis will provide a longer review of China’s naval strength tomorrow.]

A review in the South China Morning Post (in conjunction with the Associated Press) highlighted ten weapons that Beijing has unveiled over the past several years that underscore its rising military sophistication. They include:

the DF-26 missile, intermediate-range ballistic missile dubbed the “Guam killer”, with its 4,000km range putting it within striking distance of the US naval base at Guam;
the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile known as a carrier-killer with a maximum range of 1,450km;
the DF-5B The liquid-fuelled intercontinental ballistic, which can carry three or more nuclear warheads with a range of up to 15,000km;
the WZ-19 helicopter used to attack tanks and other heavy targets;
the Y-9 transport aircraft, a design platform for the air force’s early warning aircraft KJ-200 and KJ-500;
the H-6K nuclear strike strategic bomber; the ZTL-09 armored vehicle, with a 105mm gun that can destroyed armored targets over 2km away;
the ZTZ-99A main battle tank with a 125mm smoothbore gun and carousel-style autoloader
; the ZBD-04 Infantry fighting vehicle; and
the HQ-10/FL-3000N short-range air-defense missile, capable of expanding the navy’s force projection capability. The weapon is mounted on the navy’s most advanced Type 052D destroyers and Type 056 frigates.

Dianabol World’s most popular steroid – Methandrostenolone, also viagra pfizer pharmacie known as Dianabol. Cyclic GMP in body relaxes pelvic blood vessels and further enhances the blood flow to http://valsonindia.com/valson-india-annual-report/ cialis 10 mg penis. Take normal food after cheap levitra go to this drugstore this medicine and feel the change as well. It is noteworthy that in certain situation, a man suffers from the lack of ability to develop or else maintain an erection of the penis sufficient for a satisfactory sexual performance.An erection would usually occur as a result of normal sexual activity, leading to loss of penile erection can be a scary, troubling, and downright humiliating thing. tadalafil wholesale
To take the fullest advantage of its new technology and weaponry, Beijing is modernizing all aspects of its armed forces.

The English language edition of China’s Xinhua news source reports that. “China aims to complete the reform of its 2.3-million-strong army and have the most modern armed forces capable of ‘informationised warfare’ by 2020… China’s armed forces will realise ‘a significant increase of key combat capabilities,’ said the 13th five-year military development plan (2016-2020) issued by the Central Military Commission (CMC), the overall commanding authority of the People’s Liberation Army headed by President Xi Jinping.By 2020, the PLA will have finished mechanisation of all forces and made important progress in incorporating information and computer-technology…More resources will be directed to projects that enhance combat readiness…”

The reforms, notes the Wall Street Journal, “ could enable China not just to challenge U.S. military dominance in Asia, but also to intervene militarily elsewhere … the concern for the U.S. and its allies is that Beijing might use force in ways that conflict with Western interests…The PLA had begun taking tentative steps abroad even before Mr. Xi’s plan. It has sent ships and submarines into the Pacific and Indian Oceans, installed military equipment on reclaimed land in the South China Sea and challenged U.S. naval forces around China’s coast…Mr. Xi has indicated he sees a comparable capability as essential to the “China Dream” he outlined after taking power in 2012, when he ordered the military to prepare to “fight and win wars.” A defense white paper last year gave the PLA a new strategic task to “safeguard the security of China’s overseas interests” on top of its traditional defensive duties.

The Report concludes tomorrow, with a look at China’s naval prowess

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.