The Great Game Changer: Belt and Road Intiative (BRI; OBOR)

[Hamartia Antidote]

I am just presenting our "Chinese view" on the blockage and warn to all that we are not going to stand pat to die. Like I said before, if we go down, we will bring our friends with us to hell.

Well get your cannon ready with shrapnel so you can knock out the riggings of the sails of our warships.

 

[xunzi]

Well get your canon ready with shrapnel so you can knock out the riggings of the sails of our warships.

We always prepare for the worse which is why we spent billions to build the silk road and talk of building Kra Canal. When our lifeblood and existence are threaten, we will do whatever is necessary.

 

[Aepsilons]

Well get your cannon ready with shrapnel so you can knock out the riggings of the sails of our warships.

*thinks of Pirates of the Caribbean*

"There she blows, matey, shiver me timber.."

LOL

 

[AgentOrange]

Thanks for connecting some of the dots for me. I wonder if you could complete the puzzle by assessing the following issues:

1) Given the devastating effects such a blockade would have on all of the world's major economies, what do you assess is the likelihood that such a tactic would be pursued?

2) Moreover, given the strength of today's China vs. the civil war-wracked China that Japan was fighting against, do you even view a naval blockade as achievable today?

3) Given China's reach into central Asia with its Silk Road 2.0, and its "great friendship" with Pakistan, is Russia still vital in China's ability to avoid the fallout of a naval blockade?

As you can see from my questions, I'm still skeptical that China needs Russia, even in such an extreme scenario.

With regards to your second point, would you view the 2nd Chinese/Russian oil deal as China directly hedging against such a possibility at least in terms of energy (however unlikely)?

 

[AgentOrange]

Great discussion guys. When considering naval blockade of China, people usually assume its closer to China's shores but I've read scenarios where Air/Sea battle aims to enforce a blockade (hypothetically speaking) outside the range of the DF-21. Now that's a huge expanse of water to cover, even for the USN. How likely do you guys think that scenario to succeed?

 

[AgentOrange]

In my opinion, both India and Japan are more than a match for the Chinese Navy in open seas today.

Japan I agree with. But India?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

With regards to your second point, would you view the 2nd Chinese/Russian oil deal as China directly hedging against such a possibility at least in terms of energy (however unlikely)?

I've been arguing for some time that this was an opportunistic deal for China, not one that was critical for it. China and Russia had been negotiating for years on price, and it's not coincidence that suddenly there was movement in the deal in the wake of the Crimea sanctions. It's not unreasonable to make an educated guess that China was able to exploit Russia's desperation in order to negotiate a good price. Until we have the details (and we may never have the details), we'll never know for sure.

But there is one other factor, about which I've been pounding the table incessantly on PDF: China simply doesn't need Russian energy, and is already extremely well diversified, which provides it with even more negotiating leverage. Do you think Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iran, Oman, Iraq, etc. would feel bound by any US sanctions against China, when China is such a major source of revenue for them? Yeah, I didn't think so, either. And with the Silk Road 2.0 project, a naval blockade becomes even less effective in terms of blocking the energy flow.

Since coal comprises the majority of energy production, and coal is fairly simple to source, that's one big obstacle for an embargo/blockade. Then there's the question of gas and oil, which again, would be extremely difficult to cut off to reach China's pain point:

Not to mention the domestic sources of energy yet to be tapped by China:

Oil

Gas

Not only are sources of energy well-diversified, but so are distribution channels:

Russia is icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Good for China, but again, this is an opportunistic move, not a strategic move.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Now that's a huge expanse of water to cover, even for the USN. How likely do you guys think that scenario to succeed?

We call them up on the phone and tell them not to send their ships to China and they say "ok"

Why do you think the US is going to stack ships off the coast of China? This isn't the 18th century.

@SvenSvensonov can you chime in on this nonsense?

 

[Oldman1]

Great discussion guys. When considering naval blockade of China, people usually assume its closer to China's shores but I've read scenarios where Air/Sea battle aims to enforce a blockade (hypothetically speaking) outside the range of the DF-21. Now that's a huge expanse of water to cover, even for the USN. How likely do you guys think that scenario to succeed?

No different than what happened in WW2 when fighting 2 oceans.

 

[AgentOrange]

We call them up on the phone and tell them not to send their ships to China and they say "ok"

Why do you think the US is going to stack ships off the coast of China? This isn't the 18th century.

@SvenSvensonov can you chime in on this nonsense?

Did I say anything about stacking ships off the coast of China? I was actually referencing an article on National Interest that mentioned a wide ranging blockade. Brilliant as you are, you equate China with Syria, Iran, etc where you believe a phone call is all it takes to make other nations stop their trade. I disagree. Apparently Leveraged Buyout disagrees with you - given China's economic size many countries won't pick up when the US comes calling. So back to my original point...

But anyways, do you have anything useful to add? Aside from your astute observation that it is no longer the 18th century. No? Didn't think so.

 

[AgentOrange]

还能说什么呢？美国在亚洲的存在本身就应该是建设性，而不是起反作用的。事实上，美国的亚洲战略在中国看来是具有强烈敌对和侵略性的，而且美国试图将他的这种冷战和遏制思维灌输给中国周边国家来遏制中国的发展，他至今依然是对华高科技产品禁运的最积极国家。显然，美国的做法不可能赢得中国的好感，更不可能得到中国的友好合作，对待朋友和对待敌人本身就不可能一视同仁。俄罗斯奉行的是现实主义，对中国而言，现实利益和长远利益相结合才是最好的做法，所以，现阶段如果中俄紧密联合，那就是说美国及其跟随者的做法不仅错了，而且错的越来越离谱。西方的多数观察家和学者从来就少反思自身，而坚持妖魔化丑化中国，这种误导将让国家间的理解和相互尊重变的越来越难以实现。如果亚洲不稳，责任不在于中国。中国周边的国家和非周边的国家如美国应该认真思考下，如果想在亚洲真正做到和平共处共荣，应该采取怎样的做法和中国相处。

Use English please. Those are the house rules. Or get banned.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Did I say anything about stacking ships off the coast of China? I was actually referencing an article on National Interest that mentioned a wide ranging blockade.

Got anything useful to add? No? Didn't think so.

I'm trying to say is that the US Navy isn't in the "blockade business". It's ludicrous to assume the US Navy would ever be within range of a country's Air Force. Even in WW2 US aircraft carriers had to launch the Doolittle raid 100's of miles out due to fears of getting within range of Japanese Air Force bombers.

Stating that the US is forced to do a blockade outside the range of the DF21 is crazy because even if you didn't have the DF21 they still would stay out of range of your Air Force. Any blockade would have to be far far far out and well it's a lot easier just to get people on the phone and tell them to simply not send ships to China or just hang out at shipping choke points around the world.

Hanging out off the shores of China is simply not a useful strategy.

 

[AgentOrange]

I'm trying to say is that the US Navy isn't in the "blockade business". It's ludicrous to assume the US Navy would ever be within range of a country's Air Force. Even in WW2 US aircraft carriers had to launch the Doolittle raid 100's of miles out due to fears of getting within range of Japanese Air Force bombers.

Stating that the US is forced to do a blockade outside the range of the DF21 is crazy because even if you didn't have the DF21 they still would stay out of range of your Air Force. Any blockade would have to be far far far out and well it's a lot easier just to get people on the phone and tell them to simply not send ships to China or just hang out at shipping choke points around the world.

Hanging out off the shores of China is simply not a useful strategy.

OK that makes more sense and is more inline with the article I read. The part about strategic chokepoints. Which is still a blockade, by the way.

In which case, how much of the navy would the US have to devote to enforce such a "non-blockade" according to you? Considering, as leveraged buyout pointed out, that many nations have far more to lose by stopping trade with China than listening to the US? China is no "axis of evil" country that everyone can easily gang up on with minimal economic fallout. The USN would have to search/check every ship that sailed by in which case her resources would be severely strained no?

 

[AgentOrange]

*thinks of Pirates of the Caribbean*

"There she blows, matey, shiver me timber.."

LOL

I don't think that's an actual quote from Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

OK that makes more sense and is more inline with the article I read. The part about strategic chokepoints. Which is still a blockade, by the way.

In which case, how much of the navy would the US have to devote to enforce such a "non-blockade" according to you? Considering, as leveraged buyout pointed out, that many nations have far more to lose by stopping trade with China than listening to the US? China is no "axis of evil" country that everyone can easily gang up on with minimal economic fallout. The USN would have to search/check every ship that sailed by in which case her resources would be severely strained no?

We are going to make an assumption that this isn't a US vs the Entire World scenario. If it was then it would be useless to try as we''d have far more militaries to worry about other than just China. We going to blockade the entire planet?

Let's make the assumption that most of the world powers are with us.