Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[Cloud Cover]

Is Telus run by the CCP politbureau? https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/telus-5g-huawei-1.5462994

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is Telus run by the CCP politbureau? https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/telus-5g-huawei-1.5462994

I take it you're not buying the Chinese military's denials, then?  ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

The start of a post that I hope summarizes the current Canada/Huawei/5G situation, based on excellent Globe and Mail reporting:

here’s a nicely leaked story in the Globe and Mail. The newspaper has been admirably on the Chicom case for quite some time (see from 2015: “Spookery in Canada: China, CSIS and…the Ontario Government“); overall this coverage firmly illustrates the need for well-staffed, well-paid and smart media (whatever the platform) if a democracy is in any sense to make informed and intelligent decisions:
...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/huaweis-5g-vs-canadian-national-security-or-do-our-cringeing-capitalist-compradors-win/

Mark
Ottawa

Note who's saying this--Justin Trudeau better wake up right fast:

‘Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump see Huawei the same.’ 5G in Europe aligns America’s top political rivals

MUNICH ― U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed President Donald Trump’s warning to European allies that letting Chinese telecom giant Huawei build their next-generation communication network, or 5G, poses a grave threat ― a rare note of bipartisan harmony after a divisive impeachment.

In front of the cameras and behind the scenes at the international Munich Security Conference, Pelosi, Trump administration officials and lawmakers of both parties warned allies that China’s communist leaders could force the company to use its equipment for cyber espionage and and other subversive aims.

“Nations cannot cede telecommunications infrastructure to China for financial expediency,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “Such an ill-conceived concession will only embolden [Chinese President Xi Jinping] as he undermines democratic values, human rights, economic independence and national security.”

With her remarks, Pelosi lends a strong voice to the Trump administration’s hard push for a blanket ban. She’s taken a less abrasive tack toward America’s European allies than the Trump administration, and sources say her position is fueled by years on the House Intelligence Committee and by constituents in the Bay Area, near Silicon Valley.

Pelosi said there was no bipartisan divide on the topic.

“We have an agreement in that regard, we put it in our [2020] national defense authorization bill because we believe it is a real danger,” she said. “We have to be very careful about how we go forward.”

Pelosi cast the adoption of Huawei equipment as enabling an autocracy over democracy, saying that the “most insidious form of aggression” would be to allow a communications network to be “dominated by a government who does not share our values.”

“We must invest in other viable options that will take us into the future while preserving our values and institutions,” she said, adding that Western leaders ought to build “something together that will be about freedom of information."..
https://www.c4isrnet.com/congress/2020/02/14/nancy-pelosi-and-donald-trump-see-huawei-the-same-5g-in-europe-aligns-americas-top-political-rivals/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GR66]

Note who's saying this--Justin Trudeau better wake up right fast:

Mark
Ottawa

In some ways it doesn't matter if the risk of using Huawei can be mitigated in our 5G network like some (CSIS and the UK) suggest.  The fact is that we are deeply integrated with the US as our most important defence and trading partner.  If they refuse to let Huawei equipment be used due to the perceived risk then using that equipment ourselves with hurt our relationship with them. 

There may be an economic and technological cost to NOT using Huawei equipment but I doubt it would be as high as the political and economic cost that we'd face if we DO use Huawei equipment.

 

[CBH99]

Our economic and political relationship with the US will always be more important than any with China, period.  Especially over the long run.

That loyalty needs to be strong, and deeply ingrained in both countries if both countries are to protect each other - and that is a VERY real requirement.  Today.  Not at some point in the future.  Today.

I'm not a tech guy, but I'm guessing the Chinese can still do plenty of catastrophic damage even with a 30% share in the IT infrastructure in place.  I'm not sure how 'limiting' them to 30% somehow 'protects us' when information is exchanged at lightning speed throughout the network, and it also automatically gives them a 30% foot in the door if they choose to be dicks.  And it's the Chinese, they've already proven they aren't our friends.


Someone should also be telling Telus "absolutely not" - especially doing so before the Canadian government has made a decision on the 5G issue.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Our economic and political relationship with the US will always be more important than any with China, period.  Especially over the long run.

That loyalty needs to be strong, and deeply ingrained in both countries

Loyalty? You mean like 'friendship', right?

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Lord Palmerston

 

[MarkOttawa]

Note who's saying this--Justin Trudeau better wake up right fast:

Mark
Ottawa

Now this after Nancy Pelosi in above post--Trump admin. is making all this rather confusing (as usual?):

US won't change intelligence sharing policy with UK despite Huawei decision

Munich (CNN) The Trump administration will not change its intelligence sharing policy with the United Kingdom despite contentious disagreements over the UK's recent decision to rely on China's Huawei to help build its next generation of super-fast wireless networks, senior administration officials said Friday.
Robert Blair, a top adviser to President Donald Trump who was recently named special representative for international telecommunications policy, said the United Kingdom would have to take a "hard look" at its decision to use Huawei equipment, but asserted that "there will be no erosion in our overall intelligence sharing."

The Trump administration had been pressing for a total ban on Huawei products, alleging that Beijing could use the equipment for snooping. It had warned that US-UK intelligence sharing could be put at risk.
Last month, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson opted to go ahead with plans to let the Chinese company develop Britain's 5G network as part of his agenda of "leveling up" regions across the country through improved infrastructure.

Trump "tore into" Johnson in a phone call after the announcement was made, according to a person familiar with the call.

Following the UK decision, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US would have a conversation with the UK "about how to proceed" after its decision. He noted that the US needed to evaluate what the UK's decision on 5G actually means.

"It's a little unclear precisely what they're going to permit and not permit so we need to take a little bit of time to evaluate that," Pompeo said in January. "But our view is we should have western systems with western rules and American information should only pass across a trusted network. We'll make sure we do that."

The UK argues that there is currently no alternative to Huawei and so it's forced to rely on the Chinese company until there is a compatible western technology...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/politics/us-uk-intelligence-sharing/index.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

And then this--what is going on?

Senior US delegation to fly to London to urge government to change its position on Huawei
In what will be seen as a sign of strain in UK-US relations, the delegation is expected to deliver a “b-----king” to British officials

A delegation of senior US officials, including Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff, will fly to London on Wednesday to raise concerns over Boris Johnson’s decision to give Huawei 5G access.

Mick Mulvaney is planning to come to Downing Street to “call for government to change its position,” a source close to the White House delegation said.

In what will be seen as a sign of strain in UK-US relations, the delegation is expected to deliver a “b-----king” to British officials, the source said.

They added: “One thing is on the agenda, and it’s not a trade deal. It is Huawei.”

Mr Johnson is set to publish the UK's mandate for trade talks with the US after next week’s half term recess.

It came amid concerns over the UK’s decision to downgrade its presence at the Munich Security...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/14/senior-us-delegation-fly-london-urge-government-change-position/

How tough will the admin. be on intelligence sharing with Canada, given the close intertwining of our networks, the power imbalance in the Americans’ favour, and the much greater benefit we get from the sharing than they do? Interesting times ahead.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

This post and "Comments" tries to pull several of Trump admin. and Huawei/5G developments together--title and conclusion:

What Exactly is US Policy on Five Eyes Intelligence Sharing and Huawei/5G?
...
Will the US be tougher on intelligence sharing with Canada, given the close intertwining of our networks, the power imbalance in the Americans’ favour, and the much greater benefit we get from the sharing than they do? Interesting times ahead.
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/15/what-exactly-is-us-policy-on-five-eyes-intelligence-sharing-and-huawei-5g/comment-page-1/#comment-14546

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Post on China and US universities, Canadian angles at end:

See What China is up to at US Universities
...
One really wonders how much the Chicoms are up to in Canada since almost nothing becomes public and criminal cases are astonishingly rare. But see this [Harvard] case...

   

Canadian government scientist under investigation trained staff at Level 4 lab in China

    Still no answers in probe of government scientists expelled from National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg

One is almost tempted to think that CSIS and the RCMP are at least tacitly discouraged by our politicians in power and by senior civil servants from looking too closely at what the PRC is doing in this country. Especially now given the Meng Wanzhou extradition conflict with China and the taking hostage in response of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. And then there’s that dicey little matter of Huawei/5G.
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/18/see-what-china-is-up-to-at-us-universities/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

One shudders to think what US may soon be saying to us about Huawei/5G:

Furious senior Tories blast the government’s ‘incomprehensible’ attitude to Huawei and demand ministers act on the ‘deadly serious’ 5G warning from the US that intelligence sharing is at risk

    US officials today met UK officials in Downing Street to discuss Huawei decision
    White House said giving Huawei role in 5G will impact on intelligence sharing
    Senior Tories now increasingly concerned and urging No10 to reconsider move
    Owen Paterson said granting Huawei a role in 5G network is 'incomprehensible'

Senior Tory MPs have demanded ministers act on 'deadly serious' warnings from the US that the involvement of Huawei in the construction of the UK's 5G network will put intelligence sharing at risk.

Owen Paterson, the former Cabinet minister, said the government's attitude to the Chinese tech giant was 'incomprehensible' given White House opposition to using the firm.

Mr Paterson is one of many Conservative MPs who are urging Downing Street to reverse its backing for Huawei and his intervention came after Donald Trump's acting chief of staff had crunch talks on the issue in Number 10 today.

Mick Mulvaney is understood to have led a delegation of US officials in a meeting with UK counterparts including Sir Edward Lister, one of Boris Johnson's top advisers.       

The meeting came after Mr Mulvaney told an event last night that the UK's 5G decision on Huawei will have a 'direct and dramatic impact' on intelligence sharing with the US. 

Washington has urged its allies not to do business with Huawei due to security concerns. But Huawei has always denied that it poses a security risk.

Mr Johnson announced at the end of January that the firm would be given a limited role in the UK's 5G network.

The decision sparked fury across the Atlantic and there is a growing Tory rebellion on the issue...[read on]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8023923/Donald-Trumps-acting-chief-staff-issues-stark-Huawei-warning-UK.html

Rather a barracking as the Brits say.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of a lengthy post:

The Dragon vs the Kangaroo and the Beaver

1) The head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation pulls few punches short of actually naming the People’s Republic of China. ‘Twould be nice if his Canadian counterpart, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) would speak so frankly but our current Liberal government would never permit that (see also the end of this section of the post):
   

Australia spy chief warns of “unprecedented” foreign espionage threat [actually counter-spy chief]...

https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/25/the-dragon-vs-the-kangaroo-and-the-beaver/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of a post, note my comments on defence aspects at end:

Canada and the Indo-Pacific Century: A Military/Naval Role?

Our former ambassador at Beijing, David Mulroney (tweets here, is very tough on the Chicoms), has some very good suggestions below but one on defence that I think should be avoided; first on China and India:

Navigating a New Canadian Course in the Indo-Pacific

This talk was delivered at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s annual dinner on February 19, 2020 [video here]

...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/canada-and-the-indo-pacific-century-a-military-naval-role/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

Realistically, I don't know how much of an effective force we could contribute to a conflict against China anyway.

Between Japan, South Korea, USA, Australia -- as well as smaller countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, etc -- there are plenty of players, already allied, in any sort of military conflict against China.


We have 1 AOR & a handful of frigates available at any given time, and they are usually tied up in NATO operations around Europe, Persian Gulf, Africa.  Maybe, MAYBE we'd have 1 submarine available (Which we did have a deployed sub in that region of the world, monitoring North Korea sanctions), and that's about it.

On the air side, we could contribute a handful of fighters, a refueller, and maybe a few cargo planes to help with allied logistics.



Between the naval side & air side of things, sure...we could send over a force that could help contribute/reinforce allied efforts, and perhaps take up some secondary tasks so the adults can focus on the warfighting. 

I would think a solid focus on ASW between the Cyclones & new CSC, and being a real partner to the USN in the Atlantic would be a better & more useful area to focus our resources.    :2c:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Realistically, I don't know how much of an effective force we could contribute to a conflict against China anyway.

Between Japan, South Korea, USA, Australia -- as well as smaller countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, etc -- there are plenty of players, already allied, in any sort of military conflict against China.


We have 1 AOR & a handful of frigates available at any given time, and they are usually tied up in NATO operations around Europe, Persian Gulf, Africa.  Maybe, MAYBE we'd have 1 submarine available (Which we did have a deployed sub in that region of the world, monitoring North Korea sanctions), and that's about it.

On the air side, we could contribute a handful of fighters, a refueller, and maybe a few cargo planes to help with allied logistics.



Between the naval side & air side of things, sure...we could send over a force that could help contribute/reinforce allied efforts, and perhaps take up some secondary tasks so the adults can focus on the warfighting. 

I would think a solid focus on ASW between the Cyclones & new CSC, and being a real partner to the USN in the Atlantic would be a better & more useful area to focus our resources.    :2c:

So we're doing (part of) a great job, according to Sun Tzu

"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak. If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him." Sun Tzu

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of an article at Proceedings of US Naval Institute:

China’s Navy Will Be the World’s Largest in 2035
By Rear Admiral Michael A. McDevitt, U.S. Navy (Retired)

It is difficult to appreciate just how fast China has been able to create a blue water navy. One way is to compare it to the other great navies of the world, as the chart below does. This comparison is not a top-to-bottom order of battle inventory in which every ship of every class is counted. Rather it is a comparison of the number of Chinese blue water warships to other nations that historically have demonstrated the ability to operate globally. The ship count totals are projected to the 2020-2021-time frame.

The chart shows that in terms of modern warships and submarines China far outstrips any erstwhile naval competitors, except for the United States. While the PLAN’s far-seas capabilities are impressive when measured against the rest of the world, the U.S. Navy’s still overshadow the PLAN—for now. Virtually all of the U.S. Navy’s warships are blue water capable because they are expected to operate globally. The United States has both a qualitative and quantitative advantage in aircraft carriers, high-end air defense cruisers and destroyers, large amphibious ships, and nuclear attack submarines. On the other hand, all of China’s ships—both the “blue water” ships listed above plus those not included in the chart because they are not “blue water” but are dedicated to “near seas” roles—are homeported in East Asia, providing a “home field advantage” over most of the U.S. Navy that is homeported thousands of miles away. What this means in practice is that on a daily basis virtually all of the Chinese Navy is either in port in China or operating in home waters in and around the First Island Chain. This yields a significant firepower advantage over the U.S. Seventh Fleet.

How Large will the PLAN be in 2035?

Chinese President Xi Xinping wants a “world class force.” He wants the naval modernization associated with becoming world class “to be largely completed by 2035,” just 15 years away. China has yet to publish its intended navy force structure objective, which remains a state secret. A few experts like Rick Joe and James Fanell, however, have published projections of PLAN strength in 2030. Building off their work and others’, here is my estimate of overall PLAN warship strength in 2035.

To speculate on what the PLAN will look like in 15 years, a good starting point is to assess what it has done in the past 15 years.  In this short decade and a half, China launched and/or commissioned 131 blue-water capable ships and built approximately 144 other warships destined for operations only in China’s near seas, for a grand total of approximately 275 new warships.  During several of these years China’s most modern ship yards were not yet in full production, so it is not unreasonable to forecast that over the next 15 years it could commission or launch 140 more blue-water ships to grow its far-seas capacity and to replace some of today’s blue water ships that were commissioned between 2005 and 2010. In sum, I predict the PLAN’s blue water capable ships in 2035 will number around 270 warships...
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/february/chinas-navy-will-be-worlds-largest-2035

Mark
Ottawa

 

[brihard]

Start of an article at Proceedings of US Naval Institute:

Mark
Ottawa

Adding on to the point about China's navy in its entirety being home ported in one part of the world- America, while possessing a huge navy, also possesses huge commitments. While starting with more blue water navy than China, their strategic interests are less resilient to combat attrition, I think. China doesn't need its navy to project power in the same way America does; America must preserve its navy so that it can. An American carrier sunk fighting China cannot project power to deter Russia, Iran, or North Korea. It cannot launch sorties against Syria, or supporting special forces in North or East Africa. Any fight America gets into will still exist concurrent with their other strategic interests and imperatives, so they can less afford to 'spend' their forces than China can. And I expect both sides know this.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of an article at Proceedings of US Naval Institute:

Mark
Ottawa

Friend familiar with naval and military matters observes about the PLA Navy:

Straight line extrapolations often don't make it into actual history.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of a post:

Considerate Chicoms Provide Uyghurs with Free Vocational Training

That’s the line their ambassador to Canada is taking at the CDA Institute’s Annual Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence–story by the CBC’s Murray Brewster (tweets here)...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/04/considerate-chicoms-provide-uyghurs-with-free-vocational-training/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[OldSolduer]

Start of a post:

Mark
Ottawa

Bahaha this makes me laugh - free vocational training meaning breaking big rocks into little rocks, also known as "re-education"