The United States renewed a warning Monday that it would defend the Philippines in case of an armed attack under a 1951 treaty, after Chinese ships blocked and collided with two Filipino vessels off a contested shoal in the South China Sea.

Philippine diplomats summoned a Chinese Embassy official in Manila on Monday for a strongly worded protest following Sunday’s collisions off Second Thomas Shoal. No injuries were reported but the encounters damaged a Philippine coast guard ship and a wooden-hulled supply boat operated by navy personnel, officials said.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. called an emergency meeting with the defense secretary and other top military and security officials to discuss the latest hostilities in the disputed waters. The Philippines and other neighbors of China have resisted Beijing’s sweeping territorial claims over virtually the entire South China Sea, and some, like Manila, have sought U.S. military support as incidents multiply.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    To give an idea of how batshit crazy China is being, the international waters they’re claiming as their sole jurisdiction extend as much as if the US claimed the entire Gulf of Mexico as its territory.

    There’s really no defensible argument, so instead they’re being belligerent and forceful. They know full well that they have no rightful claim.

  • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    China wants to close international shipping lanes in order to control the Asian market. Right now the United States Navy keeps those lanes open, but Chinese aggression is growing. It’s similar to Japan in the 1930s in its threat to expand it’s empire throughout the Pacific.

      • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Their three island chain policy is mostly secured, in theory, by their A2/AD (anti-access area denial) strategy of land based anti-ship cruise missles and sea, air, and satellite ISR.

        But yes, I agree that the ethos that underpines their perceived need of A2/AD is also what partially motivates these kind of moves.

        Well, that and their inability to recognize that one the main factors of American power is our alliances, and ability to apply softpower pressure and true alliance benefits to other nations. We don’t just ram our ships into there’s to literally beat them into submission.

        This doesn’t mean that the dark parts of American neo-imperialism don’t exist and aren’t real, they do and they are, just that you can’t be all bad bully all the time and still maintain those kinds of alliance based power structures which are necessary to be a true global superpower, or to at least a large enough regional power capable of dislodging America’s role in the Pacific. The former being their long-term goal, and the latter their short to medium term objective.

        At this point, all of their neighbors hate them. Not like how South American governments dislike the American government, but really really hate them. Many are building up their militaries and reaching out to America to strengthen their alliances, in anticipation of further Chinese aggression and expansion.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          China’s actions here are imperialism, of a kind. They’re claiming “land” they have no right to, and controlling it at the expense of the smaller nations. They’ve rammed into fishermen boats even.

          This is a land grab of international waters and subjugating the nations that use it.

          • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, but there is a rational to their concern around the three island chain. China is heavily import dependent, and a naval blockade would cripple them relatively quickly. They’re a net importer of energy, and raw materials, both of which are vital inputs for a peacetime economy, much less a wartime economy. I believe they are also a net food importer as well.

            But to your point, yes, instead of trying to bring their neighbors into a regional economic and military alliance, they’ve opted for the bullying and claiming others territory and territorial waters as their own, which has only pushed their neighbors to seek better ties with America and military armament from the West.

            Although, I should add that Japan, South Korea, and Australia are also significant regional military powers and are also strengthening their own bi-laterial ties. Each are also being sought out for greater relations by the smaller Pacific counties as well. Which, again, is all a direct result of Chinese policy.

            The irony in all of this, is that China has been the signal greatest benefactor of the post-WW2 globalization, which has been entirely underpinned by US Naval power projection.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Arguably they would be in a safer position if they didn’t try to control those waters. A blockade would’ve stopped Chinese imports, yes, but it also would’ve stopped Chinese exports. And their exports play a significant role in the global economy and international trade. They really didn’t need to secure the area militarily because they had economically guaranteed a blockade would be broken.

              This is pure speculation, but I think their belligerence may be what prevents them from rising to a superpower.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This doesn’t mean that the dark parts of American neo-imperialism don’t exist and aren’t real, they do and they are, just that you can’t be all bad bully all the time and still maintain those kinds of alliance based power structures which are necessary to be a true global superpower, or to at least a large enough regional power capable of dislodging America’s role in the Pacific. The former being their long-term goal, and the latter their short to medium term objective. At this point, all of their neighbors hate them.

          This is what I try to explain to some of my tankie friends who myopically utilize Lenin’s definition of imperialism, where imperialism can only be conducted by capitalist nations.

          If the definition of imperialism you utilize completely precludes yourself from being labeled as an imperialist, despite having the same material motivation, and despite requiring the same actions and reactions…then you’re just doing imperialism and calling it another name.

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Soft Allies” is annoyingly relevant here. My girlfriend is an officer in the Philippine Air Force. She was denied a U.S. tourism visa twice to come visit me. In the meantime, half of her unit was just sent to Hawaii for a multi month joint training exercise. So she can’t come here to travel and try American food with me or go to Disney World or whatever, but at any point she could be sent to a military base here for defense purposes.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s very frustrating, but a military training appointment is much different than a holiday trip

            • ditty@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They are different, yes. One could make the case that if you’re willing to give your life fighting to defend a foreign ally’s country they should celebrate you and welcome you to visit their country as well

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think it’s totally sensible to give military members of allied nations permanent visas for the US, for exactly why you say.

                • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No… that’s not realistic.

                  There are visa requirements and exclusions for reasons. Being an enlisted soldier in a foreign army can’t, and shouldn’t, make you automatically exempt from them, simply because that country is an ally.

                  You’re assuming that something about being a soldier makes you above the law, or precludes them from having any quality that a foreign county would feel makes them ineligible for visa entry.

                  I’m not saying that America’s immigration system isn’t flawed, or that this one guys GF isn’t getting a raw deal. Just that you don’t know the details of this case, and you definitely shouldn’t assume that every soldier in a foreign military is someone who should automatically be granted visa entry simply because their country may have some sort of military alliance with your country.

          • figaro@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude that’s so frustrating, that sucks. Is the wait for an interview for a visitor visa to the US still like 9 months?

            I was in a similar situation for a while. It sucks.

            • kautau@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure at this point. I’ve been to the Phillipines to visit her a few times, and we’re not planning on going the tourist visa route again. We are planning a trip to Japan early next year, and I’ll propose to her there. From that point we’ll begin the K1 visa process

      • Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not about keeping the US navy out, it’s about having an open lane for Chinese ships to get into the Pacific. The entire Chinese cosst is boxed in by islands (and South Korea) that are staunchly pro-US. World powers have always been willing to fight in order to secure their access to foreign markets and secure trade routes.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What’s crazy is they didn’t need to do any of this to get that. They could’ve opted for peaceful cooperation and diplomacy. But instead, they’re using force. Their neighbors loathe them for it, and they’re turning to the US for help. They have created a situation where the countries nearest to them are firmly on their rival’s side.

          Putin made this exact same mistake. Instead of trying to build friendships with the countries he wanted to stay in the Russian sphere of influence, he chose to force them into submission.

  • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    After binge watching Madam Secretary, a 4+ year old prime time CBS drama, which itself is based on events about 15 years ago, it’s hard to parse what’s real and what’s based on real events when things that happened in the show happen in reality so much later. The show got sooo much wrong, but when it lines up with real events it makes my brain itchy.

  • Squizzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    America about to be spread thin, maybe don’t support those in the wrong to free up resources

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Chinese are in the wrong here. The shoal where this occurred is within the Philippines’ EEZ. China is furthermore ignoring a Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that concluded their South China Sea claims have zero merit.

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The US navy has more tonnage than the Chinese and Russian navies combined (which isn’t surprising considering most of the Chinese navy is basically fishing boats with guns attached, and the rest is small low-quality chinesium boats that wouldn’t be able to withstand a kid throwing a few rocks at it), and the US navy by itself also has a larger Air Force than China’s actual air force (almost half of which is helicopters anyways, practically useless for combat in the sea); although if you consider the entire US Department of the Navy (which is Navy + Marines) then they’re the 3rd largest air force in the world, behind – you guessed it– the US Army Aviation Branch (mostly helicopters though) and the US Air Force.

      Then there’s the fact that the US has significantly better military technology available & experience to use said technology and to create more technology, along with the resources to actually utilise it; the same can’t be said about China and definitely not Russia. Most Chinese military “innovations” are basically terrible knockoffs of American technology.

      Plus the US military has significantly more skilled and higher skilled people available in the military, while rivals (China & Russia) have extremely corrupt military leadership, very little modern combat experience (relative to the US), in general just a very low-skill military and small pool due to authoritarianism & nepotism, practically zero capabilities outside of a small area from their territory.

      Based on all of that it’s safe to say that it’s practically impossible for the US military to be “spread thin”, there’s no way for anyone to take air & naval superiority away from the US in any location. The US military has more jets, helicopters & naval vessel displacement than the rest of the top 5-10 countries combined. With those vehicles having significantly higher quality (and having been tested out in combat, having issues ironed out) thanks to the US MIC being extremely competitive&lucrative and not really having crippling nepotism or anything similar to that of China/Russia. The US logistics network needs reworking now but it’s not that bad lmao. Especially compared to rivals.

      Also China is objectively in the wrong here lol, they’re directly attacking random Filipino boats for no reason other than China’s illegitimate water claims. China loves attacking its dear neighbours constantly because of its shitty authoritarian & imperialist government.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know, the US lost a war it started with Vietnam and very recently made an absolute mockery of itself over the course of 20 years in the middle East only to give the keys over to the guys they went there to destroy.

        Supporting Taiwan, The Philippines, Ukraine and the apartheid israeli nation is a lot given the US can’t even democratically elect a third in line for the head of state.

        Spread thin isn’t about equipment but yes even then the US can be spread thin.

    • Killer57@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The largest military on the planet is being spread thin… What are you smoking?

        • mrnotoriousman@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because the rest of the entire world could combine their militaries and still likely lose a war? China is in no position to actually fight the US, that’s why they constantly do these stupid moves. But we’re on Lemmy and it’s full of tankies and China simps so no surprise

          • Squizzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t say China was or show support for anyone. I’m pointing out the the US is being spread thin given they have pledged support to Ukraine, Taiwan, The Philippines and israel, all of which are looking like they have upcoming to immediate requirements.

            Also stop being a bootlicker if you’re going to call out tankies, the US can’t run a fucking election or get a speaker of the house but you can jizz yourself over military prowess. If we follow the US track record they will lose a fuck ton of their youth in a war in Palestine, commit war crimes, refuse to treat the survivors when they return to the US and then in 20 years give the keys to the State to Hamas.

            See Afghanistan for reference.