What's new

U.S. Intensifies Military Encirclement of China

Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
379
Reaction score
0
With the emergence of China as the world's second-largest economy and its concomitant renewal of (comparatively minor) territorial claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea, the stage is set for a U.S.-Chinese confrontation of a nature and on a scale not seen since before the Sino-Soviet split of 1960.

Following the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization throughout Europe over the past thirteen years - every European nation except Cyprus is now a full member of or involved in one or more partnership arrangements with the U.S.-led military bloc except for Cyrus, which is under intensified pressure to join the Partnership for Peace program - which has enforced a cordon sanitaire on Russia's western and much of its southern frontier, it was inevitable that the U.S. and its allies would next move to encircle, quarantine and ultimately confront China.

In the past decade the Pentagon has begun conducting annual multinational military exercises in nations bordering China (Khaan Quest in Mongolia, Steppe Eagle in Kazakhstan) and near it (Angkor Sentinel in Cambodia), has with its NATO allies waged war and moved into bases in nations bordering China - Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Tajikistan - as well as nearby Uzbekistan, and, even before the official announcement of the strategic shift to the Asia-Pacific region, acquired the use of new military facilities in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.

President Obama's current visit to Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's simultaneous trip to Australia, Cambodia and Thailand are exemplary of this trend.

Early this year NATO announced the launching of its latest, and first non-geographically specific, partnership program, Partners Across the Globe, which began with the incorporation of eight Asia-Pacific nations: Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Korea.

Since the summer of 2010 the U.S. has been courting the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), several of whom are embroiled in island disputes with China, for inclusion into a rapidly evolving Asian analogue of NATO which includes the eight above-mentioned new NATO partners and is intended to be a super-Cold War era-like bloc subsuming the former members of the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) into a systematic initiative aimed against China.

The so-called Asia-Pacific pivot also entails the deployment of 60 percent of total American naval assets - quantitatively the largest and qualitatively the most technologically advanced and lethal in the world - to the Asia-Pacific region. Even before that U.S. Pacific Command's area of responsibility has included over 50 percent of the world's surface, more than 100 million square miles, with U.S. Central Command bordering China and India in the other direction. The U.S. Seventh Fleet, tasked to patrol the waters of the Asia-Pacific, is the largest overseas naval force in the world and will be further enhanced by the U.S. Navy's intensified deployment to the region. The U.S. has eleven of the world's twelve nuclear aircraft carriers and all eleven supercarriers.

Washington is also incorporating several Asia-Pacific nations into its global interceptor missile grid, in its initial avatar launched in conjunction with NATO and the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach which will station increasingly longer-range land-based missiles in Romania and Poland and Aegis class cruisers and destroyers equipped with Standard Missile-3 interceptors in the Mediterranean and likely later in the Baltic, Norwegian, Black and even Barents Seas.

The Pentagon's partners in the Asia-Pacific wing of the international missile system, which targets China as the European version does Russia, include to date Japan, South Korea, Australia and Taiwan, with the Philippines reported to be the future host of two Forward-Based X-Band Radar-Transportable interceptor sites of the sort deployed to Turkey at the beginning of this year and to Israel in 2008.

China is a critically important component of the two groups representing
the greatest potential for a multi-polar world, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Russia, its partner in both, confronting the same threats from the West, must, in its own interest as well as those of world peace and equilibrium, support China against American brinkmanship and gunboat diplomacy.


OpEdNews - Article: U.S. Intensifies Military Encirclement of China
 
The author's hated NATO for 40 years, he wants to get China involved fighting it? Keep dreaming, China should rightly have no interest in fighting NATO, it has nothing to do with its regional neighborhood. Well, unless China attacks the continental US.
 
The report is both Inaccurate and simply, LIES, with regard to NATO and US Defence solution.

People need to understand these

1.) Nobody force anybody to join NATO, NATO is not triad, or mafia, it's up to the applicant country to join NATO and NATO does not consider every application automatically as they apply.

2.) US IS NOT INCHARGE OF NATO. NATO, unlike the UN, which United States have a big say in its share because of the UNSC, NATO leadership are rotated from NATO member to NATO member, i don't see since when did people think NATO represent United States and United States alone. Even US wanted to use NATO asset and NATO country, they have to ask like everybody else.

3.) MANY EUROPEAN COUTNRY ARE NOT PART OF NATO. Switzerland, Sweden, Crypus, Ireland, Finland are never part of NATO.

4.) Most of the treaty signed mentioned in the article are signed long before China is a threat to the US (If such threat do exist) and were signed on the on set of WW2

ANZUS - 1951
Central Treaty Organization - 1955 and have nothing to do with America
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization - have nothing to do with America
Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security - In 1955

I consider this article is full of .... and should be discredited in the utmost, anyone can write something like that without proper research, buy a domain and write away, how creditable is the writer is another different matter.
 
The author's hated NATO for 40 years, he wants to get China involved fighting it? Keep dreaming, China should rightly have no interest in fighting NATO, it has nothing to do with its regional neighborhood. Well, unless China attacks the continental US.

What does the author have to do with facts laid out? what part of the facts laid out in the report are wrong? I have quoted them below:

Following the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization throughout Europe over the past thirteen years - every European nation except Cyprus is now a full member of or involved in one or more partnership arrangements with the U.S.-led military bloc except for Cyrus, which is under intensified pressure to join the Partnership for Peace program - which has enforced a cordon sanitaire on Russia's western and much of its southern frontier, it was inevitable that the U.S. and its allies would next move to encircle, quarantine and ultimately confront China.

In the past decade the Pentagon has begun conducting annual multinational military exercises in nations bordering China (Khaan Quest in Mongolia, Steppe Eagle in Kazakhstan) and near it (Angkor Sentinel in Cambodia), has with its NATO allies waged war and moved into bases in nations bordering China - Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Tajikistan - as well as nearby Uzbekistan, and, even before the official announcement of the strategic shift to the Asia-Pacific region, acquired the use of new military facilities in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.


Early this year NATO announced the launching of its latest, and first non-geographically specific, partnership program, Partners Across the Globe, which began with the incorporation of eight Asia-Pacific nations: Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Korea.

Since the summer of 2010 the U.S. has been courting the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), several of whom are embroiled in island disputes with China, for inclusion into a rapidly evolving Asian analogue of NATO which includes the eight above-mentioned new NATO partners and is intended to be a super-Cold War era-like bloc subsuming the former members of the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) into a systematic initiative aimed against China.

The so-called Asia-Pacific pivot also entails the deployment of 60 percent of total American naval assets - quantitatively the largest and qualitatively the most technologically advanced and lethal in the world - to the Asia-Pacific region. Even before that U.S. Pacific Command's area of responsibility has included over 50 percent of the world's surface, more than 100 million square miles, with U.S. Central Command bordering China and India in the other direction. The U.S. Seventh Fleet, tasked to patrol the waters of the Asia-Pacific, is the largest overseas naval force in the world and will be further enhanced by the U.S. Navy's intensified deployment to the region. The U.S. has eleven of the world's twelve nuclear aircraft carriers and all eleven supercarriers.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report is both Inaccurate and simply, LIES, with regard to NATO and US Defence solution.

.

right the US has no circling of China policy taking place. It was all made up up by the author. Now can you go convince the Chinese about this? :D

While you are it , learn to read the article and comprehend it before posting. The claim was not all nations have joined NATO. Rather it was " every European nation except Cyprus is now a full member of or involved in one or more partnership arrangements with the U.S.-led military bloc except for Cyrus, which is under intensified pressure to join the Partnership for Peace program
 
What does the author have to do with facts laid out? what part of the facts laid out in the report are wrong? I have quoted them below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


right the US has no circling of China policy taking place. It was all made up up by the author. Now can you go convince the Chinese about this? :D

While you are it , learn to read the article and comprehend it before posting. The claim was not all nations have joined NATO. Rather it was " every European nation except Cyprus is now a full member of or involved in one or more partnership arrangements with the U.S.-led military bloc except for Cyrus, which is under intensified pressure to join the Partnership for Peace program

lol, why would i need to explain it to the Chinese?? I really wonder.

1st, NATO is a European/Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The problem with China is, they are NOT PART of EUROPE.

2nd, China can form their own treaty organisation, forming organisation is not a reserved right to US/European only. The problem is, if China were to form an organisation, who are there to join i wonder??

Yeah i know what i read and write. The fact that joing NATO expenditure does not mean they muct fulfill the member obligation of NATO, do you even know what is the Member obligation and one of those partner affiliate?? So, what did become a NATO affiliate get? NOTHING, maybe a medal.

Again, you are in the Club does not mean you can do whatever the heck you want, NATO having a rotating leadership is there for a reason. Even without that point, you still have to debunk the 3 other points i have, good luck.
 
This time China did not dare to threaten also.....
 
What does the author have to do with facts laid out? what part of the facts laid out in the report are wrong? I have quoted them below:

Because the basic argument is that NATO is a threat to China, and that is ludicrious as it is currently.

A SEATO would potentially be a threat, but NATO? No, and it would be idiotic of China to antagonize all NATO members when they aren't even looking at China. Especially since they roughly correspond with a very very large portion of China's export market.
 
Why? You guys going anywhere? Don't worry about it if you guys claim you ain't expanding and coveting territories.

According to this post

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/219085-pla-aggressive-like-fight-war-4.html

Member GPit of Fellow Chinese think China NEVER invade or expand to any country since 1949

The action they do in South Korea is called "Military Pursuit" and "Setting up a Buffer Zone" and he did not gave an explanation for the incursion of Vietnamese soil.

so CHina, according to him, is not expanding nor expansionist. They just like to "Hot Pursuit" into other country, that's all :)
 
Its just uncle sam's nice dream to encycle China.


It's not a dream but a fact:

It already has military present in the Pacific, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Among all the China's immediate neighbors it already have some kind existing military understandings, however small, with Taiwan, Thailand, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Mongolia. For the past two years Obama also shamelessly courting Vietnam, Myanmar, Bangladesh and India. Of course selling military surpluses to these countries is also part of that strategy.

Only countries that are untouched by his magic fingers, besides China's second tier neighbors, are North Korea, Russia, Nepal, Bhutan and Laos. And who knows some days these countries might fall into his salesmanship too if China stands by idly.

Historically the US always needs a perceived enemy number one for its: 1) internal political struggles, 2) doomsday theory for internal and external consumption so that it'll justified her 3) military expansions (read: hegemony) and 4) expenditures; last, but not the least, puts fears into the minds of its 'enemy #1's neighbors so that 5) they will buy more second handed arms from her.

Power and money is the end game.
 
It's not a dream but a fact:

It already has military present in the Pacific, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Pakistan and Afghanistan..

No brother US has no credible Military Force presence in Pakistan, 60-200 training personnel cannot be termed are being in Pakistan for their objectives against China. CIA assets operating in Pakistan are being hunted down.
 
No brother US has no credible Military Force presence in Pakistan, 60-200 training personnel cannot be termed are being in Pakistan for their objectives against China. CIA assets operating in Pakistan are being hunted down.

Yes but if I should say so candidly the US & the International Community is hell bent on fabricating stories about what the Uighurs in Xinjiang are supposedly going through & that could have a blow-back in Pakistan where some of our Basterds who like to blow themselves up in the middle of a Pakistani market could look to China as another opportunity to exploit ! This will strain relations between two allies when the vast majority of us have nothing but well-wishes for China ! I hope our Security Apparatus clamps down on whatever Uighur terrorists who maybe getting training in Pakistan's border areas or in Afghanistan & could be using Pakistan's Northern Areas as a land route into China ! Thank fully the inhospitable climate & topography gives us a natural advantage to stop them & pump a couple of bullets in them if not hand them over to the Chinese for interrogation to get info out of them which we can both use.
 
This strategy of US will hurt them more then China, China plays cool and know it have all to bring down US to it knees, IT don't really need to run here and there to encircle US, while US do and put massive strains on it's already diluted economy. China is the new leader US can't sustain the overall dominance mere on weapon technologies.
 
Yes but if I should say so candidly the US & the International Community is hell bent on fabricating stories about what the Uighurs in Xinjiang are supposedly going through & that could have a blow-back in Pakistan where some of our Basterds who like to blow themselves up in the middle of a Pakistani market could look to China as another opportunity to exploit ! This will strain relations between two allies when the vast majority of us have nothing but well-wishes for China ! I hope our Security Apparatus clamps down on whatever Uighur terrorists who maybe getting training in Pakistan's border areas or in Afghanistan & could be using Pakistan's Northern Areas as a land route into China ! Thank fully the inhospitable climate & topography gives us a natural advantage to stop them & pump a couple of bullets in them if not hand them over to the Chinese for interrogation to get info out of them which we can both use.

Without Funds Pakistan can do nothing, absolutely nothing and China is not willing to give Funds considering corrupts in Pakistani Government.
 

Back
Top Bottom