What's new

Chinese Navy Less Assertive: US Admiral

Lankan Ranger

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
12,550
Reaction score
0
Chinese Navy Less Assertive: US Admiral

A top U.S. officer said April 12 that the People's Liberation Army's Navy has adopted a less aggressive stance in the Pacific in recent months after protests from Washington and other nations in the region.

Adm. Robert Willard, head of U.S. Pacific Command, told senators the trend since January represented a "positive" step after mounting tension over territorial disputes in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

"There has been a retrenchment a bit by the Chinese navy, such that while we continue to experience their shadowing of some our ships that are operating in some of these waters, we have not seen the same level of assertiveness in 2011 that we witnessed in 2010," Willard told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The admiral said he was heartened by the development as U.S. military relations have resumed with China and "perhaps we can make an advancement in that regard."

Willard said China's more conciliatory outlook had followed "very strong statements" by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates over Beijing's actions in the region.

President Obama's administration has argued that the U.S. Navy and other countries have a right to operate in the South China Sea under international law, despite Beijing's insistence on an "economic exclusion zone."

Gates and Clinton have called on China to join in a regional effort to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Willard said that there was no doubt that China "aims to have great influence over that maritime space, and especially over the contested areas that they've laid claim to in both the South China Sea and the East China Sea."

China has claimed mineral rights around the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, and argued that foreign navies cannot sail through the area without Beijing's permission.

In September, Japan and China clashed over the disputed Senkaku Islands, known as the Diaoyu Islands in China.

Willard also told lawmakers that China's plans to deploy an aircraft carrier will have an effect on the balance of power in the region.

He said it would take some time before the aircraft carrier, an old Soviet ship that has been refurbished, is fully operational after a period of testing.

"But I think as a symbol, the feedback that we receive in our dialogue throughout the region is that the regional partners regard this step by the Chinese in the midst of what has otherwise been a remarkable growth in their military capability as significant," he said.

China's spending on new weapons has caused concern abroad but Beijing says its military is only focused on defending the country's territory.

The Chinese army is hugely secretive about its defense programs, which benefit from a big military budget boosted by the nation's runaway economic growth.

Chinese PLA Navy Less Assertive: U.S. Admiral - Defense News
 
The PLA is biding its time, upgrading and building up.
 
This article is part of the whole bs-package.

China wasn't even assertive/aggressive in the first place. This article's title: "Chinese PLA Navy Less Assertive" is only meant to warrant the previous notion of China's so called "assertiveness" when in fact is as baseless as WMD's in Iraq.

These "good cop/bad cop" articles are jokes.
 
I also agree that PLAN should not deploy one small aircraft carrier - it is a serious mistake -- in fact PLAN should consider deploying no aircraft carriers unless it can deploy very large carriers in quick succession
 
More over.. something along the likes of the Russains Oscar SSGN's should be considered.. a surprise swarm attack by cruise missiles out of nowhere..
 
I also agree that PLAN should not deploy one small aircraft carrier - it is a serious mistake -- in fact PLAN should consider deploying no aircraft carriers unless it can deploy very large carriers in quick succession
It doesn't work like that. You need an actual carrier to train your crew, map out tactics and operational procedures. Simply because the ships are built does not mean the crew can operate them to their maximum effectiveness.
 
The proper interpretation is this: if China showed any weakness the US will certainly press the attack. That is in their predatory nature. To press their attack, they will have to accuse China of being more and more aggressive.

Therefore, the US admiral saying that US navy is "less aggressive" really means that the State Department is anticipating a catastrophic erconomic downturn in the US and is desperately coercing the military to take a softer tone on China to support the State Department's charm offensive on China.
 
The proper interpretation is this: if China showed any weakness the US will certainly press the attack. That is in their predatory nature. To press their attack, they will have to accuse China of being more and more aggressive.

Therefore, the US admiral saying that US navy is "less aggressive" really means that the State Department is anticipating a catastrophic erconomic downturn in the US and is desperately coercing the military to take a softer tone on China to support the State Department's charm offensive on China.

cool story, bro!:lol:
 
Not one mention of the US spy vessels that constantly ply China's coast. When China defends its coasts, it gets twisted as "assertiveness" or "aggression" in the western media. This news article is a propaganda lie.
 
This statement can only mean a few things:

1. The PLAN's power projection is not up to capability. We know that the US would definitely complain about increased PLAN power, even if there's no so-called "aggressive stances" taken by the PLAN. In essence, this is how the US says "China, your navy sucks!".

2. Washington's policy changed to a softer tone. They may have said soft words to actually persuade PLAN commanders to scale down development. US is giving China a choice: to back down on development, or face further tongue lashing.

3. Washington can't afford to yell at China anymore. This could be economic or political. Either way, this is probably the most hopeful reason behind this.
 
Back
Top Bottom