By Chris Trotter*
Had Zheng He's fleet sailed east, not west, in the early Fifteenth Century, how different our world would be. There is little reason to suppose that the sea-going junks of the Ming Dynasty, among the largest and most sophisticated sailing vessels ever constructed, would have failed to make landfall on the Pacific coast of North America half-a-century before Columbus. The colonisation of the Americas, from East to West, would have consolidated China’s global hegemony irreversibly. The cramped and fratricidal states of the European peninsula would have remained minor players in a Chinese world.
In the worst geopolitical nightmares of the United States and its Pacific allies, a China grown as powerful as the empire which sent forth Zheng He’s mighty fleet, threatens to transform the Pacific into a Chinese lake.
Technologically and militarily superior to the internally-riven United States, this China of the future regularly stations elements of its fleet off the Californian coast – in much the same spirit as the United States Navy currently navigates the waters of the South China Sea.
In a diplomatic reversal of the USA’s “island-hopping” strategy of the Second World War, an expansionist China will already have brought the tiny nations of the Pacific under its sway. The naval and air bases located on the territory of Beijing’s new “friends” will have extended its strategic reach alarmingly.
Completing this American nightmare would be the transformation of New Zealand into China’s unsinkable aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine base. Handily located off Australia’s eastern seaboard, China’s military resources would have strategically neutralised Australia’s eye-wateringly expensive fleet of Virgina-class nuclear submarines.
Beijing’s heavy investment in New Zealand’s failing infrastructure, coupled with her role as the principal consumer of its exports, made Wellington’s detachment from the West a much easier project than would have been the case if Washington’s “Indo-Pacific Strategy” had run to offering the Kiwis a generous free trade deal to replace their economically-critical FTA with China.
It is one of the key disadvantages of always being on the winning side of history’s great encounters: not being able to grasp the sheer contingency of such victories.
Had America’s carriers not been at sea on Sunday, 7 December 1941, and gone down in Pearl Harbour alongside her battleships; and had Japan’s bombers eliminated the USA’s Hawaiian-based fuel supplies; then an enemy fleet off the Californian coast would not have been the stuff of strategic nightmares; it could, very easily, have been the reality.
Certainly, with America’s fleet either destroyed or out of action, there could have been no Battle of the Coral Sea, no Battle of Midway, to save Australia and New Zealand from Japanese invasion and occupation.
Preventing the Pacific Ocean from becoming a Japanese lake in the 1940s required the expenditure of an awful lot of blood and treasure – as well as being on the receiving-end of an awful lot of luck. Had things turned out differently, the Americans, desperate to secure their eastern flank, may have been forced to let the Pacific go. And, if J. Robert Oppenheimer had been run over by a Los Alamos bus in January 1942, then they may never have got it back.
What we New Zealanders need to grasp is that America can no more allow the Pacific to be dominated by China in the 2040s than it could allow it to be dominated by Japan in the 1940s. Global hegemony is a zero-sum game. For every step America takes back, its rival/s will take a step forward.
While China was content to remain the world’s factory, all was well. But, the moment Xi Jinping committed his country to building a blue-water navy to rival Zheng He’s great fleet; the moment his Belt & Road project threatened to link the Global South inextricably to Chinese capital and technology; all bets were off.
That brief geopolitical respite, when the Russians were on their knees, and the Chinese were still getting up off theirs, was squandered by Washington in a profoundly compromising series of adventures in the Middle East. Twenty years of “forever war” in Iraq and Afghanistan has left America’s armed forces physically and morally exhausted, and its ruling class dangerously lacking in fortitude. What better symbol of America’s decline could there be than two old men swinging ineffectually at each other for the custody of an angry and divided nation?
The USA’s weakness at the top notwithstanding, the dice of geopolitical hazard cannot remain uncast indefinitely.
The new conceptual structure for the rebuilding of the USA’s global strength is its Indo-Pacific Strategy. To understand the theatre-shift, from “Asia” to “Indo”, one has only to study the actual voyages that Admiral Zheng He undertook in the early decades of the Fifteenth Century.
He’s great fleet swept south and west from coastal China, through the Indonesian archipelago, past Sri Lanka, long the coast of India, rounding the Arabian Peninsula, to journey’s end in East Africa – distributing gifts and collecting tribute all along the way. The economic and political logic was as strong for the Chinese then as it is now. Recognising that logic, the Americans have no real choice but to prevent it from unfolding.
There was a time when the USA could have done it all alone, but now it seems that the retention of American hegemony in the Pacific requires the diplomatic mobilisation of the English-speakers who invaded Iraq in 2003 – the US, the UK and Australia. Hence AUKUS – also known as “bringing the old imperialist band back together for one last tour of an ungrateful and increasingly uncooperative world”.
Can New Zealand stay out of AUKUS? Should New Zealand stay out of AUKUS? The answer to the first question, sadly, is: Only if its people are happy to turn their country into a battleground, upon which Beijing and Washington will wage an ideological war for the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of what both superpowers recognise as a critically important piece of strategic real-estate. Which, even more sadly, answers the second question.
Helen Clark may have got away with keeping New Zealand out of the invasion of Iraq, but that was because, in Iraq, only American pride was at stake. In the looming struggle for the Pacific, the option of “sitting this one out” will not be on offer. Washington will insist that blood is thicker than milk, and Beijing will remind us that milk is New Zealand’s life-blood.
Like it or not, the Kiwis are either going into “Pillar 2” – or they are going to China.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
105 Comments
... or , we could just maintain a neutral line , which has served us well for several decades ... and saved us a fortune , just look at the incredible $ 100's of billions Australia is wasting on nuclear subs ...
Our greatest ally throughout our history hasn't been the USA , nor Britain ... it's been Australia ...
... lest we forget , we don't have a free trade deal with the USA .... their farmers & lobbyists will never allow that to happen ...
Is this realistic though? If war erupts in the South China Sea, pulling the USA, China, Japan, Australia, and either/or the Phillipines/Taiwan (depending on where the spark is) into conflict, do you really think we can continue to sail our milk powder exports through that corridor to China?
The USA/Australia would certainly cut trade ties to China in such a conflict, and likely sanction them. These sanctions may be 'enforced' on New Zealand, redirecting the milk powder to friendlier, tariff-heavy markets.
I could also see an Australian occupation of New Zealand under such circumstances, to prevent China from using us as a base to invade Australia from. It would be rather benign as occupations go, but a curtailment of our ability to operate independently on the world stage, and especially to engage with China, would be a key part of it. At the very least I would expect significant attempts, enforced when necessary, to curtail the range of foreign affairs options available to us.
There is after all, significant precedent for neutralizing or seizing neutral assets in the early stages of conflict to prevent them falling into the hands of the enemy. An example would be the British bombing neutral Copenhagen, and seizing their fleet to prevent it falling into French hands in the Napoleonic wars.
In WW2 the Danes again tried to stay neutral, and eventually had to scuttle their fleet to avoid helping the Germans. I find it very hard to believe that even if we were 'neutral' we could continue to freely supply China with crucial proteins without a peep of protest from Australia or the USA.
We can stay neutral due to our geographical location. If it all turns to shit, nobody will be interested in NZ except a few billionaires heading for their Queenstown bunker in their private jets. We can avoid taking sides, we have nothing to offer in any form of conflict.
That's not the way it works in the real world though. Our participation is symbolic, we stand with our traditional allies or we are locked out from trade, intelligence, travel and we will be a pariah. Our standard of living today is in no small part due to those brave men who left our shores to fight on NH battlefields all those years ago.
You keep saying this. It doesn't make it true. We have a military strategic importance, we also have the capacity to produce food surplus and we will be relatively less impacted by climate change. We will be a very desirable location for geo-strategic interests of it all goes to shit.
Naive yourself. Update on maps yourself Murray. Maybe do Wordle puzzle every day. Long supply lines define our place.
We are in a lonely part of the planet, and our oil supply can be completely disrupted in a hot war. Even just as collateral.
Our food depends on diesel. We could not adapt quickly enough to feed ourselves.
Those long supply lines are why we need to choose a side. Without belonging to an alliance we would be sidelined and isolated. If China chooses to go to a shooting war, they will need to expand to the Philippines and other areas just to give themselves a buffer. Australia has lots of mineral resources as does Antarctica. If China has any success we will become a target. True neutrality has a cost and that cost is a strong military. something we do not have.
And you and Zwifter forget our history. Much of NZ's credibility throughout Asia is due to our military contributions to past conflicts. Helen Clark's choice the neuter our military has long term negative impacts that will diminish NZ to third world status. The evidence of that occurring is already there. We are rapidly becoming irrelevant and sidelined.
Is this realistic though? If war erupts in the South China Sea, pulling the USA, China, Japan, Australia, and either/or the Phillipines/Taiwan (depending on where the spark is) into conflict, do you really think we can continue to sail our milk powder exports through that corridor to China?
This may be true, but I think it is more likely that we will be pressured to join in with anti-China trade sanctions long before conflict breaks out (if it ever does). Why would we do that unless we have to?
There's a strong appeasement flavour to the debate in NZ (not that there is much debate given the insular media) with shrill cries that they'll never invade, which is a straw man argument in itself. History tells us appeasement of bullies never works.
The question I think we need to answer is why Australia (on both sides of politics) is very concerned yet seemingly many NZer's perceive no threats. Is it Anne-Marie Brady's exposure of PRC "magic weapons" shown to be working rather well here or are some of us just blind or naiive?
Why does the PRC have few friends in SE Asia? Why is NZ special?
What makes you think China would invade unless we were allied with a country they are at war with? Ask yourself, when did China last start or even become involved in a war? When did the US?
All Chinese belligerence to date has been focused on Taiwan, Tibet, and the South China Sea. They show no signs of interest in military intervention elsewhere.
In my opinion, China is a military threat only if we make it one, and with the current massive shifts in geopolitics that would be a remarkably shortsighted and stupid thing to do.
You talk of appeasement. We can appease China, the US, or both to a degree that suits us. We are nowhere close to having to make a decision one way or the other.
I don't think PRC would invade NZ, it would be difficult and they don't need to. It's a strawman argument from those who think we don't need to spend money on defence.
It's very isolationist to ignore the threats from PRC elsewhere in our region and believe that it won't impact our freedoms.
I think that tying ourselves to the US politically, economically, and militarily is going to look more like the isolationist position a decade or so from now.
There will be a watershed moment at some point that might look something like a large traditionally western-aligned nation (Mexico? They have expressed interest) joining BRICS or a US dollar crisis. When that happens, we don't want our hands to be tied.
Heard of Tibet and how about India's border areas with China? And China is invading foreign territory in the South China Sea.
You and other commenters do not seem to recognise that with the range of modern fighters and bombers, NZ is easily within strike range of the eastern population centres of Australia. From that perspective alone this land is strategically important and of value to a belligerent like China, and then there is access to Antarctica....
You're being far too naive.
Well said to be honest. Best Quote "In my opinion, China is a military threat only if we make it one". and think carefully, smartly, this is what the US is doing now, making China a threat and what next? What benefit the US after making China a treat? US Dollars? US Global dominance? This is the truth behind what US is trying to do. Our kiwis are blinded by the US global strategy and believe in those values which US often has double standards on
Neutrality means nothing. Ask Belgium. Or ask, hypothetically speaking, firstly if a power that was so supreme that it in the Pacific, it over ran the USA, Japan and Australia that it simply would leave NZ untouched. And secondly, in the interests of picking sides, simply ask yourself would you prefer to live under the rule of the like of Washington DC, Canberra or that of Moscow, Beijing.
I don't think we know what “Pillar 2” is yet. From what has been released, I looks like an obligation to buy expensive and very mediocre military equipment from the US and a chance to get dragged into an expensive war that we would unlikely to win (what is winning here? setting up a naval blockade?).
I think our govt will be under a reasonable amount of contortion to sign up and the US can threaten us with various things like a FED rug pull on the NZD so maybe we will get forced to but otherwise I see no reason we just can't drag this out for the rest of the decade until it all falls over. I don't see any reason on the surface that we can't just be neutral.
Keep in mind the US navy recently lost (or in the very least did not win) vs the Houthi.
The USA counterstrike threat is seated heavily in the 90 or so nuke subs it operates whereabouts unknown. Together with traditional allies they outnumber Russia & China more or less three to one. Numbers don’t really matter, the devastation from the salvos from any one vessel from any one side, offensive or counterstrike are beyond description if nuclear warheads are employed.
Yet for such an important vessel, Virginia doesn’t have many sisters. There are only 21 Virginia-class subs in service... Link
The Columbia program, which recapitalizes the sea-based leg of the U.S. military’s nuclear triad, has a razor-thin schedule margin because each boat needs to replace the submarines in the Ohio class one-for-one. To provide some cushion, the Navy is planning to perform short extensions for up to five Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines that would stretch each boat’s service life by three years. Starting with USS Alaska (SSBN-732), each boat would undergo an 18-month maintenance availability for the extension. But the service has several years and budget cycles before it needs to make a final decision on the extensions.
Under U.S. Strategic Command requirements, the Navy’s submarine force must be able to surge 10 ballistic missile submarines should a nuclear contingency arise. There are currently 14 SSBNs in the Navy’s inventory. Without a service life extension for the Ohio-class boats, the inventory would dip to 13 in FY 2027, then 12 in FY 2029, according to the FY 2024 long-range shipbuilding blueprint. Without the extension, the number would then decrease to 11 in FY 2030 through FY 2032. Link
Planning To Talk...... about it tomorrow. I am talking about this:
Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
It is a good document by the intrepid Congressional Research Service, which exposes a rather sad state of the affairs in the US military industry but it also exposes a very dramatic lag in air and anti-missile defense in the US across the board. This was prepared in February this year, before Iran demonstrated capabilities or rather lack thereof of all those systems. Moreover, the rigidity of the "planning" in terms of positioning US Navy's Aegis DDGs as possible ABM "outposts" completely ignore the fact that no US Navy system can intercept anything similar to 3M22 with its Mach=9+ and 1,500 kilometer range. Yet, they still grasp for the obsolete systems and operations based on them.
What is this? reddit?
How many billions of "aid" has been sent to prolong the war. Where is this echo chamber that still believes that old NATO equipment is any better than what rolls of Russian production lines? There's not so much messaging from media these days that Ukraine is winning or can.
We won't get this stuff for free, we will have to pay close to list price for it.
Russia has not fully mobilised and logically, with such a numerical advantage, their older type of weapons could have been deployed first. Where they have come unstuck though is ignoring their own history. The industrial/urban belt in the Donbas region was a difficult feature even in the civil war of the 1920s and was the cause of four major battles in WW2 for Kharkov which is the key to south east Ukraine as forces can funnel down south using the Dnieper to secure their west flank as Ukraine is now doing. Now Russia is faced with having to move up through Donbas bit by bit from the south and each sizeable centre is a fortress as was say Stalingrad.
Can we stick to whether NATO/US weapons in Ukraine are anything more than adequate or mediocre? Buying this stuff at export prices will be large part of "Pillar 2" along with some even more expensive naval equipment.
There is way too much war propaganda around for a concise and productive discussion on if Ukraine still has a chance of winning or not.
AATCAMS, Silver shadow, etc. Depends on what equipment is being compared. Given Russian numerical superiority and equipment superiority in March when it started they have not done very well. Couldn't even take Hosotmel airport, with benefit of surprise and use of special forces.
I understand people take sides, as do I.
I'm not sure what the reddit comment means.
What is special about AATCAMS or [Storm] shadow? Is there a source telling you these are not readily intercepted?
Sure they work and some get though but Russia, Iran and probably China (and maybe some far poorer counties) have better or equivalent to AATCAMS. SS requires an air-force so not everyone will have that equivalent. This the area NATO is most behind in. AATCAMS is up against hypersonics on the other side and SS are no more effective than any Kh-?? missile which have far greater production.
Thing is Russia can't win the war either. Russia has lost an estimated 500,000 men killed or wounded. Is press ganging prisoners and other foreigners (guest workers) into military service. Russia is just as desperate as Ukraine for men. Equipment loses by Russia are significant with limited capacity to replace the loses and the cupboard is running bare.
There was an interesting video on YouTube which was discussing the Baltic states and their response to any Russian attempts to invade. Basically the Baltic states will not hesitate to shoot at any attempt by Russia to occupy those countries. No invasion by little green men, no salami slicing - and Russia knows this. Ditto Finland.
Russia has rolled the dice and showed that it's war machine is not as mighty as it seems (the deputy defence minister has been detained for corruption) .
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/24/russian-defence-minister-…
( is the blame game in the Kremlin beginning.....)
(there was even a story that Lavrov had or was to be arrested - and he was livid - take that story with a large pinch of salt).
I am not sure the US will really give a hoot about NZ far less offer us any sort of 'deal' to stay in the club.
As per Trumps statement that if nato NOTA members dont spend 2% on defence then USA wont help them out...... if we arent a member of NATO and we arent doing our bit they will simply leave us to trade with and be ruled by... China and use us as an example for what happens... for others that follow such a foolish path.
For me its a simple choice to be part of a democratic West and play our part in protecting that - or be ruled by One Party and all that entails for our kids.
For me its a simple choice to be part of a democratic West and play our part in protecting that - or be ruled by One Party and all that entails for our kids.
This is the part I don't understand. Could you give an example of China ruling or having designs to rule another country (with the obvious exceptions of Tibet and Taiwan)? To me, their meddling seems to be of an infinitely lesser degree than that of the US - who have through their actions proved that they are actively hostile to many democratically elected governments (to the point of resorting to invasions, assassinations, and coups).
No comparison. Remember the broken promises China made to HK about their "1country 2 systems" & the subsequent crushing of all democratic dissent.
China has it's Emperor, Russia has it's Tsar & the powers that be simply cannot comprehend & will not accept any alternative systems.
The USA has millions of people who will say "hell no, they can't do that". That's democracy.
You choose.
There are clearly no winners in the confrontation Chris contemplates. How can we optimise our position? The UN seems hopeless. Can we learn from the Nordic nations? How can we make ourselves into such a pain that both sides woo us, and neither side crushes us? That should be our goal. Not tooling up for a war that is unwinable.
No winners depends on the scale of the confrontation. Obviously the goal is to avoid it, but diplomacy and appeasement has failed already.
But the choice is fairly simple. Choose who the winner will be? China is not a democratic state. 'Freedom' is not something encapsulated in their laws. Only state control is. Contrast that with the US. Who's side do you want to be on. If the Chinese win, neutrality will mean nothing. they will take us over. It the US win the benefits will depend on what we contributed. We need a viable balanced military. Not a big one, but certainly a capable one.
Finland and Sweden were never part of Russia were they ? Ukraine is basically Russia anyway. Don't hit me with that sovereign country shit, it was once all part of Russia. They all carry on there the same as the Russians anyway, same same along with the same bunch of crooks at the top and the same levels of corruption.
Finland was part of Russia between 1807 until declaring independence in 1917.Many Ukrainians would disagree that they are "Russian" - just look at the actual ethic makeup of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
BadRobot. The 'Ukraine has always been part of Russia' line is classic Kremlin propaganda to validate its claim of sovereignty over UKR (and Belarus). The whole 'greater Russia' story is a political construct supported by carefully crafted myths, some of which date back to Czarist times. Ukranians have their own set of foundational myths but unarguable are the facts that Ukranian culture is identifiably different to that of Russia and that Kyiv was a thriving sophisticated city when Moskva was still a collection of mud huts on an obscure river bank.
Distant & forgotten. In their haste to get out of fighting WW1 the Bolsheviks etc virtually ceded Ukraine to Germany. Luckily for Russia the entrance of the USA meant that Germany lost & Ukraine thus was returned and then came the civil war and then came Holodomor (twice.) Lucky Ukraine! No wonder they wanted out at first opportunity.
Ukraine (and Russia) is an ethnic patchwork. The idea of a nation, different from the next one, and a clear line between is an illusion.
But people kill each other over it.
Look at Bosnia in the 90s. Live next door and friendly for decades. Comes a time, go next door and cut their throats.
Rwanda ?
Many Kiwis are woefully unaware of the extent of CCP influence in, and control over, our near neighbours. Tonga is only 1,000nm from Auckland, the Chinese have, what is in effect, a military fort and naval base right in the heart of Nuku'alofa. They have a dysfunctional government dependent on Chinese finance that can never be repaid.
What would we do if Beijing overtly (rather than covertly as it is now) took over the whole outfit. What could we do?
There are people saying we must have an independent foreign policy. Fair enough, but is that realistic? Being forced to Kow-tow to the CCP is as far away from being independent as it's possible to be.
China has never had an overtly expansionist mission in the way that most other human civilisations have had.
When had a massive technological edge over the West and other neighbours for hundreds if not thousands of years, they didn't use this to expand their tentacles around the word either physically or culturally. In fact they were peculiarly insular.
Having being invaded and humiliated firstly by Europeans and then the Japanese over the last 150 years, China want to secure their backyard to ensure their sovereignty isn't threatened again. This is understandable. The US on the other hand faces zero threat to its mainland apart from ones it manufactures itself.
The way to solve this problem is to carve the world into spheres of influence and for the major powers to not tread on each others toes. This will prevent arms races and escalation.
China has never had an overtly expansionist mission in the way that most other human civilisations have had.
Well that's just completely untrue. The Han Chinese have, through conquest and subjugation, come to be the dominant ethnic group in China. China conquered and ruled Vietnam, annexed Tibet, annexed Xinjiang, claim huge parts of northern India, Taiwan, and don't forget the hilarious 9 dash line.
Worth looking over this list on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Now compare with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
There is just no comparison in terms of the danger these states represent to other countries. Or do you think China will take a leaf out of the US book and seek to violently overthrow our government because it isn't communist enough? It's just fear-mongering to suggest China represents some military threat to people in NZ - unless we join an alliance in a war against China of course.
Whatever happened to 'trade is the best assurance against conflict'? Are we going to abandon that idea because it no longer suits the US?
China does not need to stump into someplace and declare them selves the government.
There are better ways. What do you think Belt and Road is. Of the bribery in the Pacific.
Come the time, they will tell countries what to do. Including New Zealand. Expect nasty.
Another nasty is when the USA sanctions us, cuts off trade, for trading with China. You know they do like to throw tanties.
Nasty world.
Australia we must cultivate. Have to. Even with the daft subs.
Huge effort on the subs. Which negates other spending and are likely to become irreverent with any tech change.
A hot war is possible. But also we should put similar effort into making sure China just can't destroy us economically if we do any 'wrong thinking'
Which is more than likely from them.
You are well brain washed by the media and have no sense at all about their history. A Country is not defined by race, under your logic, the Han Chinese should be a one race nation? Your view on Taiwan is also subjective and shows a significant lack of historical knowledge. Taiwan is indeed Republic of China by their own constitution, well surely you don't even know that, and under Taiwan's (Republic of China) constitution, all of the mainland China,Mongolia and part of Russia is their territory. There are of course disputes and complicated historical reasons, but people like you who does not even do basic research.
Only if its people are happy to turn their country into a battleground, upon which Beijing and Washington will wage an ideological war for the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of what both superpowers recognise as a critically important piece of strategic real-estate.
Being actively courted by two opposing parties can also be beneficial if negotiators are up to the task.
I think it would be shortsighted to join AUKUS at this time. In a worst case scenario of wide scale conflict breaking out between the US and China, do you think China would be more or less likely to cause problems for NZ if we were a member of AUKUS?
What is the real benefit of joining that alliance at this time? We don't have a defence industry to take advantage from an economic point of view. Our strong cultural ties with the anglosphere are almost certainly enough to ensure other economic ties will be maintained without joining the alliance. On the other hand, we stand to lose a lot if we isolate ourselves from China.
People often forget, but often when faced with two options, the best choice is to do nothing.
It should be pretty clear to all by now that the 'unipolar moment' is over. We need to be thinking about how to position ourselves in the new multipolar world. We are uniquely positioned to do that. As much as some people might resent it, we are in many ways a part of Asia - not just geographically but demographically with about as many Asians as Polynesians (including Maori) in Auckland. We have strong cultural ties to Europe, the wider Anglosphere, Polynesia, and all of Asia (the subcontinent, east, and south). What other country has this? There is real value in this and we should leverage it.
Well if the West had done nothing Ukraine would likely be part of Russia by now as well as Moldova. That is more serious than at the first glance because there becomes then several hard borders with NATO countries and the fellow European undertakings of defence attached to each. In part the status of the war in Ukraine is precluding that but Russia is still obviously pressing on.
Well if the West had done nothing Ukraine would likely be part of Russia
Russia will prevail in Ukraine regardless of Western support. Ukraine will still not become Russian (though areas in the east might), so no, they will not have NATO on their border there but will have the buffer they sought.
The subsequent expansion of NATO to Finland is of course another issue.
Russia has some way to go though. They are not anywhere near Kharkov yet, still bogged down in the Donbas industrial zone that frustrated both the Wehrmacht and Red Army in WW2 and they will need to break out of there by the end of summer. Russia is highly unlikely to be able to establish and secure a salient on the west bank of the Dnieper and therefore they need to be far enough north to get around it and move west towards Kiev and for that, just as per the above two armies, they must possess Kharkov. Alternatively Russia could go to full, or near to full, mobilisation and enlist a seperate force to move on Kharkov from the north east. Suggest this summer obviously has quite a bit riding on it.
FG. Your parallels with the military tactical challenges Russia experienced during the great patriotic war are valid, even after allowing for the availability modern technology. But I doubt the population has the same capacity as in WW2 to absorb the grinding human attrition. Western intel estimates Russia has lost 100K+ KIA and another 300K+ seriously wounded in its invasion of Ukraine. It's a staggering casualty toll. And an estimated 1 million Russians have fled the country, which must be worrying the Putin and his brutal henchmen.
Russia has already lost with Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Despots like Putin eventually die and then the game will change. Right now it is a good bet for the west to supply weapons , but not people to the fight. Exhausting Russia will weakon them like Vietnam did first to the French and then the Americans.
This Ukraine/NATO issue is a large part of why Russia re-militarised. The idea of it having the effect of exhausting Russia's military resources couldn't be further from the truth. Their arms production increased substantially following 2014 and has increased further since the invasion of Ukraine.
Had the US engaged with Russia in good faith since the 90's as was hoped and expected on the Russian side, Russia would not have become a superpower again. It's a massive own goal for the US.
But they have nukes and capacity to launch them intercontinentally. Therein lies the rub compounded by firstly what might be classified by Putin & co as an existential threat and secondly , by way of precedent, there was another mad dictator in1945 who determined that if he was going to go down, then what was left of the whole damn nation, would then have to go down with him.
"There is little reason to suppose that the sea-going junks of the Ming Dynasty, among the largest and most sophisticated sailing vessels ever constructed, would have failed to make landfall on the Pacific coast of North America half-a-century before Columbus."
That's a laugh out loud moment. The reverse is true. There is EVERY reason why these behemoths would never have made it to North America. (Hint: They were incredibly slow and far from seaworthy. Largest? Yes. Sophisticated ? No. Packed with skilled seamen? Um, No.)
"Had America’s carriers not been at sea on Sunday, 7 December 1941, and gone down in Pearl Harbour alongside her battleships; and had Japan’s bombers eliminated the USA’s Hawaiian-based fuel supplies; then an enemy fleet off the Californian coast would not have been the stuff of strategic nightmares; it could, very easily, have been the reality."
Sorry Mr Trotter. There was simply no way Japan was large enough to seriously threaten the US mainland. Where on earth are you getting this nonsense from?
Yes geographical reality. The vast territories of the USA/Canada, Russia/China are simply not possible to invade in terms of boots on the ground. Israel is currently demonstrating the difficulty in subduing even a small territory with modest industrial/urban development.
ChrisONF. Correct. The Japanese knew that and it was never their plan in 1941 to do so. Despite the astonishing transformation of Japans technological and industrial capacity in the early 20th century the farthest they could physically have gone eastwards was achieving control of Hawaii. Their territorial expansion strategy was a simple but monumentally high stakes gamble of securing enough natural resources to create a breathing space for themselves.
You are reading too much into CT's comments. He doesn't say 'invasion'. Japan's aspirations that led to their invasion of China and the attack on Pearl Harbour were about resources and territory. A fleet off the coast of California would only have been to protect territory.
And your and Foxy's comments re the possibility of invasion of the US continent; China itself is almost as large, and that did not deter Japan from invasion. How they planned to hold it though was a different question. I agree with you that would have been nigh on impossible, but that clearly didn't deter them. Their military leadership clearly thought they had bodies to burn. Add in the fact that their culture of the time was essentially extremely racist and every other culture and ethnicity was considered inferior, so I guess they thought they could have an empire of slaves?
FG. While the Japanese army wanted to attack the Soviet Union, its Navy was adamant Japan's destiny lay to the south. This as yet unresolved division resulted in alarm in Tokyo after the local Japanese commander engaged in unauthorised combat with the Soviets at the disputed border. The high command quickly sought to deescalate the clash, including by by not deploying its Kwantung army forces en masse. Had they done so the Soviets would have been routed. In support of this witness the winter war between Finland and the Soviet Union late in 1939 when Mannerheim's tiny army gave an incompetent Russian army a bloody nose.
Yes the Red Army was badly exposed in the winter war in Finland. But very different terrain to Mongolia in terms of basic manoeuvring, especially heavy armour, and takes me back to my main point being vastness of territory is in itself a great defence. For example in operation Barbarossa the Wehrmacht struggled with the vast openness of most of Ukraine, so too Napoleon and the West in supporting the White Russians. It is unimaginable that any military force might think to land troops and think to conquer continental territories.
Murray. Yes, resources and slave labour was the plan. But as for their thinking on conquering and holding China, consider that by the late 1930's they'd already achieved this in the vast areas of Manchuria and Korea where they had successfully set up the puppet state of Manchuko to govern it. While the Chinese campaign was tying up huge amounts of resource there was every reason to believe their Kwantung army could subdue the entire region.
Mr Totter makes a big deal about our "strategic importance". I think he needs to pick up a globe and have a good look at it. Using 2D maps is wildly misleading.
Well done CT - you have got a few people thinking about the issue
Why join AUKUS - well intelligence for a start - contribute and receive. And we should not be fooled for a moment that the CCP is not already doing the same to us.
Will Putin attack NATO - unlikely. Will the CCP attack an alliance of Japan/Korea/Indonesia/Philippinese/ USA/ Australia - you would think not so deterrence is best means of defence which we can be a party to without being provocative
Also future conflict - or conflict avoidance will involve lots of unmanned "combat". Right now its drones and actually we could become a useful contributor in the drone and satellite space - and also already a reason why we could be a target -so AUKUS, I would rather be in than out
NZ in WW1 paid for battlecruiser HMS New Zealand. Not HMNZS. This was a contribution to NZ’s security in the South Pacific. For example Germany had military bases,p such as W.Samoa , Tsingtao and a naval squadron. NZ might then on that precedent, contribute to one of Australia's forthcoming nuclear subs. As per a previous vessel HMAS Anzac would be a fit. Just idly speculating.
FG. Appreciate you are largely tongue in cheek but suggest you could have chosen a better parallel given the German garrison in Apia largely consisted of a handful of officials and a gunboat meaning Samoa was never going to be a strategic threat to NZ. Likewise Tsingtao. The blockade of Germany by a superior English fleet meant the Germans had no hope of projecting naval force in the distant Pacific or Indo China theatres.
It has always amused me that in the celebrated Michael King’s history of NZ he makes a great play that the NZ “invasion force” only just missed the southward bound German naval squadron. Omitted was the fact that NZ force was well escorted including HMAS Australia more formidable than anything else in those waters at that time. In terms of Tsingtao the German garrison resisted for three months or so. The British coerced the Japanese into the war and had them doing the hard yards of the fighting. So much so that in the eventual victory parade the German prisoners turned their backs to the British as they passed. Out of that Japan secured the foothold to launch their Manchurian invasion & genocide plus a number of Pacific Islands & harbours to fortify and eventually cause the Allies much grief in WW2. Yep, a bit of an own goal there by the Brits.
FG. Yes, the cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau materialised off Apia a month or so later but didn't fire a shot, so not really an 'only just missed' case. Bit of a blot on the family history is that my grandfather was part of that invasion force. He then went on to a notable war career and on his demob was appointed to a senior position in the occupation governance of Samoa. This was a period of heavy handed, bungling and often racist administration that is a shameful chapter in NZs history.
Beyond geopolitical considerations, if this isn't an urgent, klaxon call to diversify our economy away from fragile, low-value-add agricultural products and tourism, what will it actually take to get us to make ourselves less vulnerable?
Decades of governments of all stripes who seem to be hostile to innovation - or worse, don't understand it other than in terms of being "too hard". I can't see there is any party with the depth of talent to make it possible to adapt to a fast changing world.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.