What's new

Quad push against China ? who will be Chinese counter Allies

And ended up with having a Chinese sub surfacing in middle of their carrier group. :lol:
yup, you cannot proof the otherwise so you start spewing non sense and try vainly joking around, truth is you know that Iron brother China is now surrounded from the Pacific and the Himalayas. and there's nothing you can do about it.

let me know when the promised PLAN fleet sailing towards the Mexican gulf happened, or the more restrained promise to send PLAN carrier strike group to the Falklands. :lol: :lol:

the US has just finished their third Taiwan strait lap since Biden take office.:wave:
 
.
yup, you cannot proof the otherwise so you start spewing non sense

Cannot prove? :lol:

When a Chinese Submarine Appeared In The Middle Of A Carrier Battle Group



A Chinese Submarine Stalked an American Aircraft Carrier


 
.
Cannot prove? :lol:

When a Chinese Submarine Appeared In The Middle Of A Carrier Battle Group



A Chinese Submarine Stalked an American Aircraft Carrier


I'm not talking about the submarine, I'm talking about your iron brother superpower getting caged in the 1st and 2nd island chain where important chokepoints are controlled by US and it's allies such as Japan and there's not going to be any change to that situation soon. not to mention that countries near the 1st and 2nd Island chain had excellent navies which could be a huge help to US fleet in case a conflict broke out.

the real sole superpower on the other hand had open access to the Pacific and Atlantic with no challenger whatsoever. Canada is a US ally and Mexico is kinda pacified.
 
.
So USA has a lot of allies and friends.
Are they for real?

:coffee::sarcastic::sarcastic::sarcastic:

“We must push back on China together and show strength in unity”, Antony Blinken said.
There was complete silence and no response whatsover from all the senior ministers who were gathered in Brussel.

The reticence shown by EU to USA Secretary of State Antony Blinken must be both shocking and an eye-opener for USA .
 
.
The real fight will be on the dollar. US is in a panic mode and will hasten uncertainty. US will speed up the demise of the dollar reserve currency. And that will bring in the end of the US empire. It is a shame, and though people are cheerleading the US demise, what they dont realize is that the alternative can infact be much worse. I wished the US figured a way to work with China - as China deserves it rightful place in the world. But I dont think that is likely to happen and we are heading towards a clash. The Thucydidian trap is set.
 
.




Hong Kong (CNN)US President Joe Biden's administration entered the White House this year aiming to unite allies in efforts to contain China's territorial claims across the Indo-Pacific.
On Friday, Biden takes his biggest step toward that goal so far, bringing together a virtual gathering for leaders of the Quad -- the loose alliance of the United States, Japan, India and Australia that Beijing has called emblematic of a "poisonous" Cold War mentality.
Washington said Covid-19, economic cooperation, and the climate crisis will be topics of discussion on Friday, while New Delhi said its Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, would be discussing a "free and open Indo-Pacific" with Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

US President Joe Biden.
Absent from those statements was any mention of China. But it was the rise of the Asian economic and military superpower that led to the Quad's revival in 2017 -- and it's Beijing's power plays that keep the bloc's four leaders up at night heading into the summit.


The Quad, or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, is an informal strategic forum, featuring semi-regular summits, information exchanges and military drills. While not a formal military alliance like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it is seen by some as a potential counterweight to growing Chinese influence and alleged aggression in Asia-Pacific.
While members have emphasized the more benign aspects of the relationship, such as recent cooperation on the coronavirus pandemic, the potential for military encirclement by the Quad countries has not gone unnoticed by Beijing.
And it's no wonder.
US Navy Adm. Philip Davidson, the head of the US military's Indo-Pacific Command, on Tuesday called the Quad grouping a "diamond of democracies" in the Indo-Pacific.
Davidson said Tuesday he hoped the organization could "build into something bigger."
"Not in terms of security alone, but in terms of how we might approach ... the global economy, critical technologies like telecommunications and 5G, collaboration on the international order. Just much to be done diplomatically and economically," he said.



See massive US-Japan military exercise kick off 01:14
Four keys for the Quad
Writing in Foreign Policy this week, four fellows at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, including former US Defense Secretary James Mattis, said the Quad can play an important role in four key areas going forward: maritime security, supply chain security, technology and diplomacy.
In maritime security, the Quad members can bring substantial naval assets that can help the US Navy counter China's shipbuilding surge, which has given it the world's largest fleet. India, for example, has an aircraft carrier; Japan has a fleet of quality destroyers and submarines.
On supply security, the Hoover fellows argue that the industrial and manufacturing bases of the four large Quad economies can be leveraged to end advantages held by China in areas like medical supplies and pharmaceuticals that some allege have been problematic during the pandemic.
On technology, Quad members need to pool resources to provide information security and develop new systems that don't require Chinese hardware or software that might present security risks, they say.


And on diplomacy, the Hoover fellows say Japan, India and Australia maintain more influence and deeper relations with countries around the Indo-Pacific than the US now wields.
"Many countries in the region, especially Southeast Asia, will likely welcome the closer cooperation among the Quad members to balance against China's power," said Timothy Heath, senior analyst at the RAND Corp think tank.
There's no guarantees any of this will happen, however. Remember, the first incarnation of the Quad wilted and cracked under pressure from China in 2007. China portrayed the organization as an attempt to encircle it and the possibility that Beijing could retaliate economically had the three US partners backing away from any strong positions.
If the Quad tries to rein in China now, expect Beijing to retaliate, experts say.
"It will likely bring more tensions with China, including the possibility of economic retaliation against India, Australia, and Japan," Heath said.
That could prove difficult for all three. For each, China is the largest trading partner

Rare footage shows US patrol of South China Sea 02:56
Comfort for Beijing
But RAND analyst Heath points out that the Quad is far from a united front. Fissures between the members can be places of comfort for China, he said.
"It remains an informal gathering, with very little institutional backbone. In this sense, the Quad is most definitely not an 'Asian NATO,'" he said, referring to the formal Western alliance that stood fast against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
"The Quad members may share concern about China and about the need to uphold a rules-based order, but they also lack consensus on what to do about China. The priorities differ among members, with India mostly focused on the Indian Ocean while Australia and Japan are more concerned about the South China Sea," Heath said.
And, to use a sports analogy, Beijing controls the tempo of the game right now, he added.
"If China steps up its military aggression against other countries, there is a possibility that the Quad could evolve into a more robust military alliance," said Heath.
But so long as China avoids confrontation, experts believe this potential will remain low -- a view shared by many in official Chinese circles, too.
Chinese state-owned newspaper the Global Times dismissed the grouping as an "empty talk club" in a report earlier this month. Citing experts, the report suggested that the framework of the group was flimsy and symbolic, and would ultimately come to nothing.
CNN's James Griffiths contributed to this report.

It is telling that the
largest economy and most powerful military in the world > America
plus, second-largest population > India
the third-largest economy in the world > Japan

With populations of 1.3 billion, 330 million, and 120 million need to join hands not to defeat, but just to hold China, a China that has still not fully risen.
They are still looking for more allies.

If it requires all this much effort at this stage, then they have no chance in hell of succeeding. These countries need to wake up and look for a different vision. A peaceful one.

Australia is just a large airstrip, nothing more.
 
.
Not in China's interest to do this. Chinese profit more than anybody in the world from the current system. Look at who gets richer and has the nice new things. Chinese profit even more from the current system than the Americans do.
Only loser, lazy, stupid, backward nations who cannot compete want change.
That’s why all of the anti China propaganda is a joke because why would China want to **** up the system when they are on a roll?
 
.
It is telling that the
largest economy and most powerful military in the world > America
plus, second-largest population > India
the third-largest economy in the world > Japan

With populations of 1.3 billion, 330 million, and 120 million need to join hands not to defeat, but just to hold China, a China that has still not fully risen.
They are still looking for more allies.

If it requires all this much effort at this stage, then they have no chance in hell of succeeding. These countries need to wake up and look for a different vision. A peaceful one.

Australia is just a large airstrip, nothing more.

In an age of sword and spear, Alexander with 50,000 soldiers conquered Persia, population 50 million, multiple armies of 100k+ men.

In a war Australia with all those blond Australian war machines will be MUCH MUCH more than an airstrip.

How many warriors did the mongols have when they conquered China?

Just need to take out the gov't, leaders and fighters that keep them in power. Most other people will fall in line.
That’s why all of the anti China propaganda is a joke because why would China want to **** up the system when they are on a roll?

I think you are correct. All a show to help everybody rearm in preparation for the BIG fight against the REAL enemy who will eventually reveal himself.
 
. .
In an age of sword and spear, Alexander with 50,000 soldiers conquered Persia, population 50 million, multiple armies of 100k+ men.

In a war Australia with all those blond Australian war machines will be MUCH MUCH more than an airstrip.

How many warriors did the mongols have when they conquered China?

Just need to take out the gov't, leaders and fighters that keep them in power. Most other people will fall in line.


I think you are correct. All a show to help everybody rearm in preparation for the BIG fight against the REAL enemy who will eventually reveal himself.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I am unable to differentiate if you are joking or if you are still in primary school.
I'm here for a serious discussion, not someone's fantasies. If you believe Australia can defeat China or play a meaningful role, other than being a launchpad for an attack then you need help.
 
.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I am unable to differentiate if you are joking or if you are still in primary school.
I'm here for a serious discussion, not someone's fantasies. If you believe Australia can defeat China or play a meaningful role, other than being a launchpad for an attack then you need help.

then be serious and make serious comments. Look at history. Instead of thinking like an accountant and judging an army by numbers. War is more than numbers. Generals and true leaders understand this. Bean counters don't.
Hitler wanted those blondes, those killer Prussians, because they are killing machines. Fearless warriors bred and born.
 
.
then be serious and make serious comments. Look at history. Instead of thinking like an accountant and judging an army by numbers. War is more than numbers. Generals and true leaders understand this. Bean counters don't.
Hitler wanted those blondes, those killer Prussians, because they are killing machines. Fearless warriors bred and born.

I am serious but it is hard to reply to an unserious comment.

You are comparing apples and oranges,
Your examples relate to history, in your own statement you recognise the time period. A period when armies met face to face on a single battlefield. The training and leadership had a direct impact in that moment of time, losing a battle pretty much meant losing a war, because very likely you would have all your force in the game, as it were.

You are comparing that time period to a modern one, where the type of warfare has changed so drastically, we are living in a different world, might as well be a different planet. There is unlikely to be a single defining battle that will win you the war. You implied Australia could defeat China on its own. That is so beyond funny, that thinking can only come from fantasies.

Besides the size differential, the level of domestic industrial, technological and financial capacity would result in China stepping on Australia as if nothing more than a nuisance, and I am not even accounting for nuclear weapons. Inside the Quad, Australia stands a chance, but the only active role it can play is to act as a launchpad and nothing more.
 
.
I am serious but it is hard to reply to an unserious comment.

You are comparing apples and oranges,
Your examples relate to history, in your own statement you recognise the time period. A period when armies met face to face on a single battlefield. The training and leadership had a direct impact in that moment of time, losing a battle pretty much meant losing a war, because very likely you would have all your force in the game, as it were.

You are comparing that time period to a modern one, where the type of warfare has changed so drastically, we are living in a different world, might as well be a different planet. There is unlikely to be a single defining battle that will win you the war. You implied Australia could defeat China on its own. That is so beyond funny, that thinking can only come from fantasies.

Besides the size differential, the level of domestic industrial, technological and financial capacity would result in China stepping on Australia as if nothing more than a nuisance, and I am not even accounting for nuclear weapons. Inside the Quad, Australia stands a chance, but the only active role it can play is to act as a launchpad and nothing more.
The guy thinks that governments attack countries with EM radiation to kill people. He's off his rocker.
 
.
This is start of new cold war where realignment will take place. US has gained trust of many countries since Soviet US cold war while China has yet to bring countries to her side. If China can bring Russia and Russian allies into her fold, then there will be a showdown.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom