Holy cow, no need to paste the whole article. I've read it long time ago and it is old. Until now, most western analysts still don't accept his view. Although it is still common for oversea chinese nationalists to repeat his argument. But since you've taken the time to dig up the article and made a reply, I'll also make a proper reply:
As mentioned in the article, that treaty only lasted for 30 years so the PRC has the legal right to terminate it on 15 February 1979. The PRC don't even have to do anything to end that treaty. They were so insecure that they don't want to tell the soviet that the treaty has ended, even though they are already legally free from it. Only chinese nationalists think it is a major victory for China to end the treaty lol. And how is that a "goal" for the attack on Vietnam? which only started from 17 Feb 1979 when the PRC is already legally free from the treaty on the 15 Feb?
As Nicholas Khoo said, "It is one thing to terminate an alliance, and a totally different thing to enter into a war." Source: http ://tinyurl.com/p9424wc
Again, did China stop the Soviet from dominating Southeast Asia? as everyone knows, Vietnam ousted China's ally in Cambodia and reinstalled a pro-soviet/vietnam regime. Laos signed a treaty with Vietnam and Vietnam itself kept its alliance with the Soviet. It looks like the Soviet was dominating to me.
As for this "testing" theory, it is a silly argument. Argentina can use the same argument and declare that they've won the Falkland wars. You know, the Argentinian was just "testing" the Bristish to see how they would respond. It doesn't matter if the Brits repelled the Argentinians and continue to occupy the Falklands. The falklands is insignificant and the argentinians achieved their goal by "testing" the British. See the parallel here? this "testing" argument is silly. The PRC did not achieve anything with this "test".
That article claimed that it is a success because it proved that the Soviet won't intervene and help their Vietnamese ally and exposed them as a "paper polar bear". This is also a silly argument. The soviet amassed thier troops on the Northern Chinese border, and in your words, caused the PLA to pull out from vietnam to focus on the soviet up north. The article even mentioned that some soviet leader warned that they could intervene if the situation get worse. In fact, the soviet did send help by sending more frigates to vietnam to protect their weak navy. They send cargo and logistic support for the vietnamese troops.
What else do the author of the article expect? that the soviet should have sent their infantry into vietnam? there is no need, the Vietnamese defenders was mauling the PLA.
This is what a US analyst said in his recent assessment:
Although the PLA had a ten-to-one advantage in numbers of troops and had comparable weaponry to the PAVN, and although it had established an extraordinary ability to fight battles of quick decision, it had failed to fight an effective and efficient campaign.
The PLA had amassed an enormous force and planned a war of quick decision, but it had failed utterly to make progress against the better-trained and more experienced PAVN.
source: http ://tinyurl.com/nd8ub5u
The PLA did poorly in Vietnam so why would the Soviet need to send their troops to "help" the vietnamese? The Vietnamese didn't even bother to withdraw their forces from cambodia to reinforce their defending troops up north. And the PLA still haven't even face the elite troops who are stationed closer to Hanoi. It doesn't look like the Vietnamese need any more help from the soviet. The article made a political conclusion (that the soviet has no will to intervene) without thoroughly assessing the situation in the battle zone.
The article then conclude that the 1979 campaign exposed the soviet as a "paper polar bear" and proved that china is strong and capable enough to face the soviet-vietnam alliance.
Lets see the fact:
Fact 1: Soviet and vietnam destroyed China's ally and occupied cambodia. Signed a treaty with Laos. Vietnam mauled the occupying PLA. Soviet continue to support Vietnam and encourage it to stand up against China. The article's conclusion = Soviet is a "paper polar bear" and soviet-vietnam alliance is weak.
Fact 2: China's only southeast asian ally got kicked out and cambodia occupied for the next 10 years. China attacked Vietnam, got mauled then withdraw in less than a month. Didn't dare use the PLAN because of the soviets naval inforcement in vietnam. The article's conclusion = victory...China Strong!!!
The article admit that "western scholars have almost universally concluded that China's 1979 invasion of Vietnam was a failure." Why do most western scholars make this conclusion? because the opposite view expressed in your article is weak and stupid.
