Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Dr. James Holmes: The Naval Diplomat - 19FortyFive

Indo-Pacific Maritime Security: What Does the Future Look Like?

Dr. James Holmes, our Naval Diplomat, delivered the following remarks at a panel on “Indo-Pacific: Maritime Security,” Navy League Sea Air Space Expo, National Harbor, MD, April 3, 2023. 

F-35C Aircraft Carrier
SOUTH CHINA SEA (Oct. 25, 2021) Lt. Nicholas Eppler, from Exeter, Calif., directs flight operations as an F-35C Lightning II assigned to the “Argonauts” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 147 launches from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Oct. 25, 2021. The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is on a scheduled deployment in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations to enhance interoperability through alliances and partnerships while serving as a ready-response force in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific region. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Emily Claire Bennett) 211025-N-TY704-1241

Editor’s Note: Dr. James Holmes, our Naval Diplomat, delivered the following remarks at a panel on “Indo-Pacific: Maritime Security,” Navy League Sea Air Space Expo, National Harbor, MD, April 3, 2023. 

Question: On the nature of the Chinese gray-zone challenge to the freedom of the sea and the rule of international law in the South China Sea. How can we “win without fighting,” and how can we best focus our efforts to shift the dynamics at work here?

Answer: I want everyone to undertake an act of imagination this afternoon: imagine how the situation in the South China Sea looks through the eyes of a Philippine or Vietnamese fisherman, coastguardsman, or sailor. It looks grim; to succeed we need to make things look less grim. Our strategic goal should be to give Southeast Asian mariners heart in the face of Communist Chinese coercion. We should strive to give that fisherman the confidence to go out and make a living for himself and his family without undue fear of abuse at the hands of a domineering coastal state that’s asserting itself unlawfully—but effectively—in defiance of international law.

Now imagine what that fisherman sees around him on a daily basis: the Chinese fishing fleet, the maritime militia embedded in it, and the world’s largest coast guard, all backed up by the PLA Navy and shore-based aircraft and missiles. This force utterly outmatches his coast guard and navy, his ostensible protectors. A U.S. Navy task force puts in an appearance once in awhile and looks impressive, only to soon steam away—leaving Chinese maritime forces in possession of disputed waters. Our mariner is once again subject to that abuse we want to guard against. He could well be disheartened. 

And our strategy will have fallen short of its goal. 

So my basic insight today is very basic: you have to step onto the field of competition and stay there for the duration of the contest if you hope to prevail. It’s the same principle as in sports. I doubt my Georgia Bulldogs would have won two straight national championships had they only shown up on the gridiron once in awhile to display their awesomeness. The same goes for UConn and San Diego State on the court tonight. Similarly, come-and-go operations such as freedom-of-navigation operations and military exercises are helpful in many ways, but they apply a feeble deterrent at best in the gray zone. To embolden that fisherman to ply his trade, and to empower his nation to exercise its sovereign rights at sea, we and our partners need to stage a constant presence in force. 

Coming and going is not enough. We have to go and stay. 

That’s what Admiral J. C. Wylie meant in his book Military Strategy when he proclaimed that the “man on the scene with a gun”—the soldier, marine, or sailor toting superior firepower—is the final arbiter of who controls something. And controlling something is the goal of military strategy, in wartime and peacetime alike. 

Control is how you win. 

And it’s only prudent to try to control that something, in this case maritime geographic space, with the least violence possible—preferably none at all. Our Chinese friends are always talking about “winning without fighting.” That sounds cuddly. But make no mistake: aggressors love peace, as Clausewitz teaches and as Chinese strategists confirm. They would love for the aggrieved to give in without a fight, and save China all of the costs, dangers, and hardships warfare entails. Never forget that win takes precedence over without fighting in that simple formula, or that peace is war without bloodshed for China. 

Now, we can win without fighting if we convince our opponent, our allies and partners, and third parties able to influence the outcome of the competition that we would win with fighting if it came to that. If we make that absolutely clear to all parties, our opponent should scale back its provocations as a losing effort, and the region can deescalate to beneath the gray zone. Allies and partners would gain the confidence to stand up for themselves. I doubt we can deter China for all time given the importance it attaches to its claim to “indisputable sovereignty” over regional waters and landmasses; but we may be able to deter it day by day. That may be the best we can do. 

And who knows, good things may happen if we can do it long enough.  

As far as what kinds of forces we should stage in the region to compete to good effect, this is a law-enforcement challenge as much as a military challenge. It’s about sovereignty, meaning who makes the rules, where. So in a sense we should take a page from China’s book and make coast guards—law-enforcement services—and light naval forces our implements of choice, backing them up with heavier naval forces and shore fire support should things go sideways. That’s why recent news of our return to the Philippines is so welcome, as are reports that multinational coast-guard patrols may soon take to the sea. Let’s experiment with how to harness joint and combined maritime forces along with geography for strategic and political effect—giving comfort to our hypothetical fisherman. 

Question: The other week you published an article in 19FortyFive examining the recently released Joint Concept for Competing. Tell us more about your reactions to that document and where we need to go from here as we better develop our understanding of maritime competition short of armed conflict in joint and service doctrine.

Answer: I’m going to be like President Truman’s three-handed economist here and veer from critique to praise and back again. My general critique was that it’s hard to judge the concept from what you see on the page. It describes itself as “adversary agnostic,” prescribing a general approach for the joint force to integrate its efforts with fellow U.S. government agencies and foreign partners to face down gray-zone aggression. It’s not tailored to any theater or competitor, and thus it feels unmoored from strategic and operational reality. It’s also service agnostic, treating the “joint force” as an undifferentiated unit rather than an alliance of supported and supporting arms of military might that play their parts in different proportions and different ways depending on the contingency. And it reads as though it’s all about us, much like “capabilities-based planning” and other overly abstract approaches that ignore the fact that the adversary gets a vote in the success of our strategy and will undoubtedly try to veto it. It’s about what we intend to do rather than how we will interact with friends, partners, and potential foes to get our way.

 In that sense the concept is astrategic, if that’s a word, neglecting the interactive nature of human affairs. 

But don’t get me wrong; there is much goodness here. Strategic competition is a curious beast, isn’t it? Challengers compete for high stakes. In the South China Sea the stakes could hardly be higher; the nature of the international maritime order as codified in the law of the sea is at issue. And yet Beijing deploys minimal means in hopes of accomplishing these grand aims over time. And time is the key. China is prosecuting what Admiral Wylie calls a “cumulative” campaign, an effort that chips away at an antagonist by conducting small-scale tactical actions unrelated to one another in place or time. None of these actions amounts to much on its own, but many small things can add up to something big. Which is the idea. It takes time to wear down an opponent bit by bit. Though the Joint Concept for Competing doesn’t couch things in quite such theoretical terms, the notion that we confront a strategy of gradualism comes through clearly in the document. That’s a tonic for those of us who are used to thinking in terms of a sharp divide between peace and war. 

That being said, let me swerve back to critique. One thing that does worry me about the document is that despite describing competition as a seamless continuum, it still makes it sound as though the Pentagon sees an either/or tradeoff between competing strategically and preparing for war. It talks repeatedly about the opportunity costs of competing in terms of operational readiness. It seems to say that if we are competing, we’re not preparing for war. But as George Washington advised, riffing on the ancients such as Vegetius: if you want peace, prepare for war. I would add that you should prepare for war in such a way that you impress on all parties able to influence the outcome of a competition that you would win if a dispute came to blows. If you convince them of that, you gain a strategic advantage. Which is what it’s all about. 

So readiness is competing (and vice versa) if we do it right. China must be able to harbor no doubt about our capability and our resolve to use it under conditions we say we will. 

In the end, I am reserving judgment about the Joint Concept. We simply don’t know enough to reach a firm verdict on it. I suspect this umbrella document will be followed up by a series of directives tailored to various theaters and competitors, providing the concreteness the concept needs to be actionable. For instance, one would imagine the sea services, including the U.S. Coast Guard, would take the lead in the South China Sea, backed up by ground-based implements of sea power. That division of labor might be quite different from elsewhere on the map. Once we have such a family of documents, we may be on to something. 

Dr. James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College and a Nonresident Fellow at the University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs. The views voiced here are his alone. 

Written By

James Holmes holds the J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and served on the faculty of the University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs. A former U.S. Navy surface-warfare officer, he was the last gunnery officer in history to fire a battleship’s big guns in anger, during the first Gulf War in 1991. He earned the Naval War College Foundation Award in 1994, signifying the top graduate in his class. His books include Red Star over the Pacific, an Atlantic Monthly Best Book of 2010 and a fixture on the Navy Professional Reading List. General James Mattis deems him “troublesome.”



  1. AuldLangSyne

    April 8, 2023 at 7:40 pm

    There was once a song by a pre-woke-time-era singerthat went like this – “Who let the dogs out…”

    In the indo-pac maritime arena the answer as to who let the dogs out is crystal clear.

    Pyongyang just hours ago again tested its new underwater nuclear drone. Or nuclear-hell tsunami torpedo. The first test was around march 23 2023.

    If uncle sam hadn’t poked here & there and everywhere, it surely wouldn’t have acquired that armageddon drone.

    Who let the dogs out. Indeed.

    A future or post-2024 US chief executive could ostensibly or seemingly het invited to go on a relaxing ‘sightseeing’ tour of the DMZ in korea, only to get blasted by a mysterious explosion.

    Who let the c4 dog out. Who ?

    That letting of the dog out will result in ww3 happening right on the korean peninsula.And in our lifetime, too. The song’s craftsman was right on the money. Can’t recall id of that singer though.

  2. pagar

    April 9, 2023 at 7:18 am

    Robert david Kaplan, an EXPERT on foreign relations (& many other fields), once said US can’t afford to play the role of immortal hegemon in the pacific region and must accomodate other nations.

    But US, especially from obama time onwards, has refused to face up to the realities of the post-war and post-Cold War era and thus seen to be stoking all kinds of fears and dangers and ising tensions in the pacific.

    There is an arms race going on, and the US arms industry benefits greatly from it.

    War is ithout doubt a racket, and the US is the numero uno racketeer on this planet.

    Thanks to biden and his woke inspiration, people in the pacific region are now worshipping a nuke arms race.

  3. David Chang

    April 9, 2023 at 8:41 am

    God bless people in the world.

    The problem in the Western Pacific is that most of the people in East Asia see the conflict as America’s duty to provide cheap or free weapons for their defense. When people in America resist sacrificing their lives and wealth for others, they are accused of being selfish, conserve, or appeasement, even more denounced as favoring dictatorship or communist Party.

    But even more and more people in East Asia want to learn from North Korea for the acquisition of nuclear weapons. So it’s necessary for people in East Asia to make maritime defense confrontation, and the United States should declare these conflicts, so let people in East Asia admit the facts and prepare to fight by themselves.

    Moreover, the Presbyterian Church and the Democratic Party promote liberation theology and critical race thought to people in East Asia, so promoting morality, just war theory and protecting life and freedom are the most important missions of the United States in the Western Pacific. The United States should publish the report of risk and damage assessment of nuclear war in the Western Pacific.

    God bless America.

  4. Bob Roemer

    April 9, 2023 at 11:36 am

    General Mattis is correct … this guy is delusional “TROUBLE”!!

  5. Jim

    April 9, 2023 at 12:42 pm

    China in recent weeks has made a point of putting out statements about respecting & promoting International Law.

    But China’s claims in the South China Sea extend beyond the 250 Exclusive Economic Zone recognized by the U. N. Charter.

    Put China to the test… about their claims of respecting International Law.

    How to do that?

    Respect the “One China” policy regarding Taiwan.

    Taiwan’s status is NOT a Vital National Security Interest of the United States… certainly an interest, but going to war against China over Taiwan’s status is a recipe for, at first regional war, then likely full blown war… some would call it World War III.

    Others might call it the Sino-American War of the Early 21st Century.

    Frankly, we’re getting tied up in knots… the U. S. is the bellicose nation regarding Taiwan.

    Exposing China’s hypocrisy regarding International Law, i.e., their illegal claims to essentially the whole South China Sea is important… more important than the status of Taiwan.

    Be satisfied with Taiwan as a self-governing island… promote peaceful relations between the mainland and Taiwan… not encouraging Taiwan to seek an independence… which easily could see Taiwan get wrecked… just like we are seeing in Ukraine, today.

    And, hurt the United States of America.

    The warmongers have lost their sanity.

    Take the car keys away… they have already failed… how many more times do they have to fail?

    They will never admit failure and never agree to give up the keys to the car (power).

    It has to be taken away.

    You don’t double down on failure, you relieve it of command.

  6. David Chang

    April 10, 2023 at 12:03 am

    God bless people in the world.

    People in the District of Columbia and the intelligence community never say something important, the Taiwan Province Independence War is from the Communist Party’s socialism warfare before World War II, and it is related to New Culture Movement and May Fourth Movement. One of the policies of the Taiwan Province independence movement is to promote atheism and opposing Bible. Up to now, they promote liberation theology and criticized racial thought.

    The current situation is like the 1930s and 1960s, and the US military is suffering. However, the danger within French President Macron and the US Navy and Marine Corps are now in is not the same as the 1930s, but the major danger after the 1960s.

    Lieutenant Commander T. Wood Parker say:
    “Although considerable attention has been given to “tactical” nuclear warfare by some people in the U.S. Navy in the last 2 years, the Navy remains woefully deficient in this increasingly important area of operations. To be sure, the Chief of Naval Operations has directed the service to improve itself in this direction. He has established an office in Opnav, Op-65, that is directly responsible for nuclear warfare at sea, for appropriate weapons development, and for the employment of those weapons.

    However, the action taken thus far is only scratching the surface of the problem. With the exception of the one missile, weapons procurement actions seem to contradict the attention focused on nuclear weapons by the CNO. To cite an important example, Harpoon is limited to a conventional capability, and those people who indicate that the Navy will not deploy nuclear-armed Tomahawk are increasing in number and credibility.”

    While the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for conducting security operations for certain maritime activities in cooperation with maritime police in some East Asia countries, the CCP  maritime military operations often act as civilians, which seems to be from the United Nations’ space peace policy. But we should oppose the space peace policy of the United Nations, because people nature is sin, and space is the future battlefield. People’s behavior in space should be regular with Ten Commandments, just like maritime law and the doctrine of the law of nations.

    God bless America.

  7. Jacksonian Libertarian

    April 10, 2023 at 6:09 am

    You fight fire with fire.

    Arm the fishing and coastal vessels with cheap suicide drones, and organize them into coastal militias (the 2nd Amendment works). They will feel safer if they can defend themselves from pirates and communists (same thing).

  8. from Russia with love

    April 10, 2023 at 6:53 am

    “But China’s claims in the South China Sea extend beyond the 250 Exclusive Economic Zone recognized by the U. N. Charter.”
    very interesting…but then there is the question of what the US is doing in Japan, Guam and other countries thousands of miles away from the US. maybe the US will also return to the “250 Exclusive Economic Zone recognized by the U. N. Charter.”? if not, then this is an international precedent and China has full legal rights to place its bases, its missiles and its fleet in Cuba and or in South America. 😉
    the thesis that China threatens global shipping is generally complete nonsense. China did not seize other people’s ships. at the same time, the US regularly seizes other people’s ships. you can ask Iran. 😉 that is, the United States poses a real and proven threat to global shipping. 😉 and, for some reason, calmly violate international norms.

  9. Jim

    April 10, 2023 at 9:43 am

    from Russia with love,

    Don’t be stupid.

    Military bases on American soil (Guam) is not the same as claiming coral atolls in another countries’ Economic Exclusion Zone or international waters is Chinese sovereign territory.

    Now, you sound like a stupid Ivan.

    Countries, such as Japan, can invite & allow military bases on their soil much as Syria invites & allows Russia to have a naval base at Tartus.

    You should do a better job at tracking reality.

    China’s coral atoll military air strips are to claim territory (and sea bottom) they have zero rights to according to International Law.

    When China gets on its high horse about International Law at the same time they are manifestly violating International Law… I don’t respect their rhetoric… and suspicious about their motives & actions (see, Sino-Indian border incursion by China… and even renaming mountains and geographic features in the area).

    Hey, Ivan, it’s not about shipping… why would China want to limit shipping… they depend on it.

    No, it’s about massive, huge deposits of hydrocarbons, oil & gas, under the seafloor in the South China Sea… and for public consumption… fishing rights.

    China wants to STEAL hydrocarbons, oil & gas, from other countries.

    And, generally be a Big Dog in South East Asia.

    Be a Big Dog, fine, okay… but don’t steal other nation-state’s natural resources as defined by International Law, which you claim to respect.

    Ivan… epic fail.

  10. Jim

    April 10, 2023 at 11:26 am

    It’s a trap:

    Taiwan is the bait.

    Those coral atolls, which could be taken out with long range missiles in a heartbeat, could be used to intimidate shipping to Taiwan and conceivably interdict shipping to Taiwan.

    Should China defeat the U. S. A. in regards to Taiwan, what ability would any country have to stop China from harvesting the hydrocarbons, oil & gas, of the South China Sea?


    China, in one scenario, wants the war over Taiwan because after victory… they are locked in on all the hydrocarbons of the South China Sea.

    Official U. S. State Department position:


    Taiwan is part of China.

    Let it go…

    But be as hard as a rock about the South China Sea.

    That is the China’s true object of Conquest.

    Taiwan is literally a province of China, by U. S. agreement in the One China Policy.

    That’s where you expose China to independent, non-aligned, countries as the Aggressor Nation, bent on stealing other countries natural resources, not to be trusted… or allowed to infiltrate your country.

    That’s where the Battle lays.

    Taiwan is the “shinny object” to get the U. S. in a position where, somehow, “We’re the bad guys,” and China is the White Knight of Asia.

    They’re Not.

    But if we get into a war against China… by the end of it (if Nuclear War doesn’t result), China will either be the White Knight or Something that can’t be resisted by any country in the region (Continent?).

    Defending Taiwan has to be the stupidest idea I could imagine.

    It will work out just like Ukraine.

    Epic Failure… which will Damage America and Empower China.

    Don’t do it… the American People are not a party to what happens in Taiwan.

    Only IF our leaders take the bait and fall into the Taiwan trap, with a war against China, will the American People be hurt.

    Our leaders have no problem hurting the American People… we’ve seen that already.

    It’s just a question of scale.

    War against China.


  11. Roger Bacon

    April 10, 2023 at 3:30 pm

    Jim. Taiwan is an independent country. The land mass (Formosa) was once controlled by Imperial China and they gave it to Japan as part of the peace treaty ending the First Sino-Japanese war. At the end of WW2 Imperial China asserted control over it again. NEVER has the Chinese communist party ever had a claim to it. In fact, if there is “one China”, Taipei is it’s capital and the pretenders are the ones in Beijing.

  12. David Chang

    April 11, 2023 at 12:07 am

    God bless people in the world.

    The first moral dispute of the one China policy is that America veterans who trust God recognize that Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times, and the Republic of China is the legitimate government that inherited China since 4 thousand years, while the CCP or PRC is a rebel government founded by Russia and China socialism parties. Moreover, Dr. Kissinger admits that Taiwan was once the history of China. Mr. Pompeo says one thing wrong, he only says that Taiwan has not been a part of China, he does not say that the moral dispute of the one China policy is a cause of major loss that Admiral Richard says. But the CNAS and CSIS of the Democratic Party oppose the one-China policy based on Ten Commandments, so Democratic Party instigated the Taiwan Province Independent War a long time ago.

    The second moral dispute of one China is that before World War 1, people in Japan who believed socialism and evolution threatened to murder people in China to occupy Taiwan Province. However, the Japan socialism government since 1864 and the U.S. Democratic Party and the CCP think that Japan therefore acquired Taiwan Province legally until Japan surrendered in 1945. In addition, this moral controversy was up to World War II and became the foreign policy of the Japan socialism party. The Japan socialism party thinks that Europe and the United States were empires. The Japan socialism party wants to help people in Asia to against the Europe-America empires, to liberate Asia and establish the socialism East Asia Alliance ruled by Japan socialism party. So the Japan socialism party is allied with the German socialism party and the Italian socialism party. To cover up the socialism alliance of Japan, Germany and Italy, scholars call this socialism alliance the Axis powers. But General Patton, MacArthur, and Eisenhower oppose socialism and believed that the United States should oppose socialism parties at all.

    The third moral dispute of the one China policy is the crisis of nuclear war after World War II. This is the major risk that Admiral Richard reminds us of, but the newspapers and television of Democratic Party in East Asia do not talk about this issue. Moreover, Democratic Party instigates the Taiwan Province Independent War by the first and the second moral disputes. They teach people in East Asia that the USN aircraft carriers will never be sunk by any weapon, so the people in East Asia think that the missile defense systems are not required, and they  do not need to fight by themselves. In addition, people who instigate the Taiwan Province Independent War try hard to lure the USN CVBG into the Taiwan Strait.

    The one China policy is to promote our faith in God, so the one China policy is good. If Congressman McCarthy agrees with the one China policy, he will admit that socialism parties are the enemy of people in the United States and China, and he will preach the grace of God and Ten Commandments to people in China. But if people in America and China don’t obey Ten Commandments any more, may God grant us the courage not to give up what we think is right even though we think it is hopeless. May God’s mercy upon us.

    God bless America.

  13. H.R. Holm

    April 11, 2023 at 5:22 am

    Indo-Pacific security would be more in the direction of the U.S. keeping its big nose out of, and its hands off of, places it does not belong. Remember what George Washington and the founders said about entangling alliances. Applies now just as much as it did then, no matter “how much the world has changed” !

  14. from Russia with love

    April 11, 2023 at 5:25 am

    let’s be legally punctual. 😉
    Let’s start with Guam. Guam is not a US state. in fact, it is a US colony under direct US control. how about a UN resolution on giving freedom to the colonies. The United States signed this resolution.
    you write that countries like Japan can invite other countries to host military bases. OK. BUT! Japan is in close proximity to Russia and China. you mentioned Syria, but I was talking about South America. guided by your logic, Russia and China can place their military bases and missiles in Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela, at the invitation of these countries, right? but we both know what will happen and how the United States will howl when missiles appear at its borders. 😉 You remember the Turkish crisis. you call it the Caribbean crisis, despite the fact that it began with the deployment of US missiles in Turkey.
    maritime law…
    in maritime law, it is nowhere written that it is impossible to artificially pour islands. China does not violate any paragraph of maritime law. the territory of the ship is considered the territory of the country. the territory of an artificial island in the ocean will also be the territory of the country that created this island and at the same time is the land about which it is written in the law of the sea. there are no regulations that would refute this, and therefore China did not sign them.
    and yes, China can create islands and will create islands and determine its economic zone in relation to these islands on the basis of generally accepted legislation. simply because they can and it is not against the law. and how is Guma different from what China is doing? the fact that China creates islands, and does not occupy?
    “China wants to STEAL hydrocarbons, oil & gas, from other countries.”
    If I were you, I would not mention this thesis given the US activities in Iraq, Libya and Syria. 😉 who really steals a lot and bloody – this is the USA. China can only be accused of doing what the United States, and you, do not like, but there is no legal basis for the accusations. in contrast to the illegal presence of the United States in Iraq and Syria and activities in Libya.

  15. from Russia with love

    April 11, 2023 at 5:54 am

    @Roger Bacon
    “Taiwan is an independent country.”
    where is Taiwan an independent country?!? in the imaginary world of Roger Bacon? 🙂
    Taiwan claims they are China. China claims that Taiwan is China. The US PUBLICLY admits that Taiwan is China. The state of Taiwan does not exist.
    you missed the juicy details of Taiwan’s history. 😉 Taiwan, this is the island to which the Chinese Nazis fled from the “Kuomintang” under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek after the defeat in the civil war in 1949. they hoped to take back China and always call themselves China, but communist China also rightly claims that Taiwan is China and sooner or later communist China will take control of Taiwan, just like they recently took control of Hong Kong. this is Chinese territory and under international law, China can do it.
    the question arises why the United States is friends with the most inveterate bastards like Chiang Kai-shek, and the SSs whom the United States saved from retribution in 1945? it is clear that now Taiwan is no longer what it was under Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomendang is not among the parties playing a key role on the island, but why is the tradition of friendship between the US and the Nazis still preserved? Does the US have no other friends besides the Nazis?

  16. David Chang

    April 11, 2023 at 10:26 am

    God bless people in the world.

    The Democratic Party, the Communist Party and the Nazis accuse  each other of Fascist, and the Democratic Party, the Communist Party and the Nazis do not obey Ten Commandments, but Jesus say that every people should obey Ten Commandments, so Representative Ocasio-Cortez imply that Jesus is a Fascist. Fascism is a special term for people who violate Ten Commandments. From the speech of Mussolini, we can find that fascist means believing atheism and opposing Ten Commandments, so the Democratic Party, the Communist Party, and the Nazis all are fascists. And Fascism and Greek philosophy are both Atheism, so Greek philosophy, democracy and classic freedom are also the origin thoughts of fascist, while German philosophy, which is also atheism, is the same as fascist thought. But only God is justice, and Ten Commandments are moral truth.

    However, Democratic Party helped the Communist Party to occupy mainland China and instigate the Vietnam socialism warfare. In the first half of World War II, Democratic Party ordered the U.S. military to bomb Taiwan Province, then the Communist Party incited people in Taiwan Province to oppose the United States. Rumor has it that General MacArthur opposed the bombing on Taiwan Province at that time. However, the Democratic Party’s order violated Ten Commandments and Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex. This sin is the same as the Democratic Party and Oppenheimer attacking Japan people with atomic weapons, and so the Communist Party will attack people in America, Europe, and Asia with nuclear weapons in the future.

    The Democratic Party cooperated with the French Jacobin, the French Jacobin is the mentor of Europe Communist Party, so Democratic Party and Communist Party claim to pursue liberation, equality, fraternity, and protect human rights. However, the Democratic Party and the Communist Party are the same as Nazis, all of Them violate  Ten Commandments, so Democratic Party, Communist Party and the Nazis are all wrong, Europe Union, Putin, Zelenskyy, and Biden should confess sin and repent to God.

    Therefore, I hope that French President Macron thinks about the future of France, remembers General George Washington’s words, and convinces the people in France to obey Ten Commandments, confess and repent to God. If French President Macron convinces people in France and Africa to obey Ten Commandments, people in Europe and Africa will live in peace.

    God bless America.

  17. Jim

    April 11, 2023 at 10:53 am

    I’m very sorry, sir, but China creating militarized islands from coral atolls in another country’s Exclusive Economic Zone and then claiming it as China’s sovereign territory is in violation of International Law.

    Besides the coral atolls built into militarized air strips, is the claim by China that they control nearly the whole sea and all it contains.

    Again, there is no recognition in International Law of the so-called “rights” you speak of.

    What you speak of is the Right of Conquest.

    But since you’ve responded so strongly to my thesis of what China is really up to… it’s a recognition of the real issue regarding these militarized coral atolls.

    And, the real issue:

    Stealing natural resources from other countries.

    And here you are defending China’s stealing natural resources, like a good little loyal sidekick.

    Does China carry you around in a little pooch pouch… sounds like it.

    The issue of hydrocarbons has not been raised in international forums, yet…

    That’s my contribution based on my understanding of the geology of the seafloor in the South China Sea basin.

    Each country in the South China Sea basin has a right to the hydrocarbons within their Exclusive Economic Zone.

    It just goes to show… China spouts high minded platitudes regarding International Law, but when push comes to shove, they engage in Acts of Conquest.

    By the way, what happens if China casts a wondering, coveting eye on Eastern Siberia?

    (This is not likely to happen for a number of years… but what China has done in the South China Sea could be a preview of what happens in Eastern Siberia.)

    Instead of blithely excusing China’s actions which violate International Law… you might keep an eye on them and see what they do…. I know all the countries in South East Asia are watching closely.

    A number of them have already seen what China does.


  18. from Russia with love

    April 12, 2023 at 7:51 am

    “I’m very sorry, sir, but China creating militarized islands from coral atolls in another country’s Exclusive Economic Zone and then claiming it as China’s sovereign territory is in violation of International Law.”
    let’s be honest, China declared its sovereignty over these islands even before construction. and what do you expect from China around which the United States is climbing everywhere with its dirty hands? and to Taiwan, and to Japan, and to the Philippines and everywhere. the fact that China is building military facilities on the border is more than justified in the vicinity of such aggressive bandits as the United States. about the violation of international law, the United States can not show anything to China. the maximum is that these territories are disputed. it has not yet been possible to prove that these territories belong to someone other than China, at least legally. Once again, if you personally, or the United States as a whole, really want something, this does not mean that it becomes legal. 😉
    “Again, there is no recognition in International Law of the so-called “rights” you speak of.”
    there is a definition of sushi. bulk islands fully fit this definition. try to prove to the Netherlands that the solid territory of their country, artificially created by irrigation and engineering, is supposedly not their country. 😉 or the Japanese that their airport on an artificial island is not their airport.
    “What do you speak of is the Right of Conquest.”
    once again, the territory on which China builds its islands is the territory of China and there is NOT A SINGLE legal document proving otherwise. before the announcement of China, these otolls did not belong to anyone. these are now the atolls of China. what is incomprehensible? what does not correspond to democratic principles? the indigenous population on the atolls was not destroyed (it was not), and therefore China cannot call them its territory? So? 🙂
    “And, the real issue:
    Stealing natural resources from other countries.”
    who is stealing? from the USA? The United States declares its claims to the entire Pacific region, and if China, in the Asian region (!!!), extracts resources, is this theft from the United States? those countries that dispute these territories from China (with the help of the United States) cannot independently carry out mining. since the United States is interested in this, it means that the United States is going to carry out production. but China has declared these neutral islands its territory and you declare that this is theft ??? Jim, this is the apotheosis of hypocrisy. For more than 100 years, the United States has been sailing around the world with its “White Fleet” of cananer boats and cruisers, and where they want to weave an American flag, kill everyone who disagrees and declare that “it now belongs to the United States”, as for example on the island of Guam. And this, in your opinion, is not theft? but when China planted its flag on islands that belonged to no one, and did not kill anyone, do you call it theft?
    “Does China carry you around in a little pooch pouch… sounds like it.”
    I’m just telling you the obvious facts and logical chains that substantiate these facts. easier with allegories. I’m not writing to you that you look like a whining toothless dog whose bone was taken away and he cannot return it. 😉 I propose to return to logic and facts and not stoop to personal insults.
    “By the way, what happens if China casts a wondering, coveting eye on Eastern Siberia?”
    this China will not. if you do not know, then it declares that China which is Taiwan. 🙂 and yes, we, in Russia, strongly support the desire of mainland China to deal with this ulcer of the Asian region called Taiwan. everything is very simple: no Taiwan – no China’s claims to Siberia. 😉
    “Instead of blithely excusing China’s actions which violate International Law… you might keep an eye on them and see what they do…”
    maybe you’re into Jim? Let me remind you that we are a bit busy in Russia right now. we are at war with NATO, and the United States as well. 😉 China is our reliable partner with whom we have mutually beneficial trade relations. I understand what you are implying. we both know what the US would do in China’s place, but luckily China is not the US.

  19. Jim

    April 12, 2023 at 11:45 am

    Sir, I see you’ll continue to carry water for China.

    No matter what the evidence and facts are regarding this issue… your credibility is shrinking with every response.

    See Guardian article, “Beijing rejects tribunal’s ruling in South China Sea case” — 12 July 2016.

    “the ruling from the permanent court of arbitration”

    This is a U. N. body which makes rulings on International Law

    “The judgment by an international tribunal in The Hague came down overwhelmingly in favour of claims by the Philippines…”

    Apparently, China while claiming to respect International Law, when confronted by an adverse ruling against China, then turns around and rejects International Law rulings it doesn’t agree with.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is China.

    Now, it needs to be stated I don’t agree with U. S. policy in many instances… and obviously, the U. S. can be accused of doing many of the same things as China… but for ONE issue: I’m not aware of the U. S. claiming territory out of thin air by taking coral atolls and converting them into “sovereign territory” of the U. S.

    The examples you cite are not comparable… these are “infill” to adjoining land or well within the classic 12 nautical mile territorial limits recognized by International Law.

    Sir, you really have to do better.

    Russia stated, “China builds its islands is the territory of China and there is NOT A SINGLE legal document proving otherwise.”

    False, see International Law ruling above.

    Now, I’m left wondering, is this guy uninformed or is he dishonest… I don’t know… but the evidence is stacking up… in one direction.

    Russia stated, “these are now the atolls of China. what is incomprehensible?”

    Only by the Right of Conquest do they belong to China and the Right of Conquest is not recognized in Modern International Law… only by the Law of the Jungle… which China claims to abhor & reject.

    Russia wrote, “what does not correspond to democratic principles? the indigenous population on the atolls was not destroyed (it was not), and therefore China cannot call them its territory? So?”

    Sir, the above is nothing but chowder-headed, b. s. reasoning… by your reasoning… Eastern Siberia, where nobody lives for miles is subject to colonization by China.

    Please, the U. S. doesn’t claim all the natural resources of the Pacific Ocean… you know that’s false.

    Sir, you’re not talking facts… you’re talking stupid gibberish… pretending it makes sense… with a stupid grin on your face… (you like using emoji).

    I tend to agree with you about personal insults, but when characterizations fit the person, I’ll state it.

    Russia states, “this China will not.” (Seize by Conquest & Colonization Eastern Siberia)

    You HOPE.

    But, China seized these coral atolls so why wouldn’t they seize & colonize Eastern Siberia… nobody lives there… for miles around, so… so… by your reasoning… it may only a matter of time… how much time… I don’t know, before China thinks it’s in their interest to colonize Eastern Siberia.

    International Law is about reciprocal treatment… also known as “putting the shoe on the other foot.”

    You’re an advocate for China’s position… I get it.

    But you’re of little or no use to China when your reasoning is so faulty & specious… and something you should know… China discards “useless” things and people when it suits them… someday… China may think that way about Russia & the Russian People.

    Keep that in mind.

    You’re stupid if you don’t. (I have never thought the Russian People where stupid… that’s a mistake, but I occasionally make exceptions for individuals, who through their own actions & words, demonstrate stupidity… I would be disappointed if you fall into that category).

  20. from Russia with love

    April 13, 2023 at 6:24 am

    “See Guardian article, “Beijing rejects tribunal’s ruling in South China Sea case” — 12 July 2016.
    “the decision from the permanent court of arbitration””
    are you serious? this is the same tribulan who recently recognized Putin as a war criminal. the same tribunal that arranged the trial for Kosovo. this is a completely EU-controlled (never UN) decision-making structure that the US needs and regularly spits on the law. this organization is the personification of mockery of international law! Jim, is that all you can appeal to? Jim, this is embarrassing.

    “Russia stated, “China builds its islands is the territory of China and there is NOT A SINGLE legal document proving otherwise.”
    False, see International Law ruling above.”
    the decision of some organization that a bunch of camps created to promote their own interests? organization with an extremely tarnished reputation? an organization whose decisions are recognized by less than 10% of countries in the world, the actual beneficiaries of this organization? By the way, the United States has publicly stated that if they do not like the decision of this court, they will not comply with it. 🙂 the decision that was made after China claimed the rights to NOBODY owned otolls? a decision that is made in favor of the beneficiaries of this organization (God, how amazing)? Jim, this is not a law and not a legal decision, these are American rules that no one cares about for a long time;) and this is definitely not international law! international law is recognized in the world, the decisions of the Hague Tribunal are recognized by a handful of countries, but the whole world does not care about them.

    “Only by the Right of Conquest do they belong to China and the Right of Conquest is not recognized in Modern International Law… only by the Law of the Jungle… which China claims to abhor & reject.”
    Jim, conquest is when someone took away part of the territory from someone, such as Guam or Texas who took the USA. The otolls did NOT belong to the Philippines. these were NEUTRAL otolls and China declared NEUTRAL (belonging to no one, if the meaning of the word “neutral” is not clear) otolls as its territory.

    “Sir, the above is nothing but chowder-headed, b. s. reasoning… by your reasoning… Eastern Siberia, where nobody lives for miles is subject to colonization by China.”
    very awkward attempt to get out, Jim. 😉 Siberia is a territory of Russia with delineated and recognized borders. just like Texas was Mexican territory before the US took over. but the otolls to which China claimed their rights belonged to no one. these otolls did NOT belong to the Philippines. they did NOT cross the Philippine border. The Philippines claimed these otolls AFTER China claimed these OWNED otolls as its territory. Tellingly, the Philippines is doing this with US support. Jim, are you trying to put an equal sign between officially recognized state borders and non-man-made otolls? Do you even know what a state border is?

    “Please, the U.S. doesn’t claim all the natural resources of the Pacific Ocean… you know that’s false.”
    D.R. JAMES HOLMES maintains a whole section on this resource that is dedicated to maintaining US dominance in the Pacific region. American military bases are scattered throughout the region. all American strategists talk about the need to maintain dominance. the American fleet incongruously displays the flag and tries to show everyone “who’s in charge here.” but, no, no, no, this is by no means about resources! LOL 🙂 Jim, can I take your noodles off my ears already? 🙂

    “You’re an advocate for China’s position… I get it.”
    I stand for common sense, logic and international law! 😉 you are trying to prove to me that when the United States seizes FOREIGN territory, then this is normal and everything is in order, but if China establishes its sovereignty over ANYONE’S territory, then this is, suddenly (!), A violation of some kind of international law. please link to an article of international law prohibiting declaring land that does not belong to anyone as your territory. only I beg you, do not need clowns from The Hague. 🙂
    while all I see is “ahhh! we don’t like it and that’s why it’s not legal. there’s a bunch of guys that we pay for, called the Hague Tribunal, and they, for our money, also say that it’s illegal!” 🙂 funny and nothing to do with international law.
    Jim, you decide whether being outside the 250 mile zone is not legal and the United States must return all of its fleet and military bases to the United States and sit within the 250 mile zone, or whatever China is doing is legal. here, as in a joke about a Jew in a Russian bath, “you either put on shorts or take off your cross.” 😉

  21. Jim

    April 13, 2023 at 9:37 am

    Sir, it’s obvious, YOU & China don’t respect International Law… you give it lip service…

    But when International Law is pointed out to you… you reject it.

    And make a long… long, song & dance as to why International Law is beneath China… no Forum is legitimate to you or China.

    You recognize no reason, no law, no forum for International Law resolution.

    It means nothing if you don’t recognize International Law in the first place… you don’t… you live in a State of Nature… where the strong survive and the weak are subjugated.

    The Right of Conquest is all you understand… like a dumb, savage beast.

    Okay, I know where stand.

    See you on the battlefield… apparently that’s all you understand & respect… nothing new… that has been the way of the world since the dawn of history.

    It’s why countries have armies… to deal with other counties with an attitude like yours: belligerent.

    And lawless.

    Too bad.

  22. David Chang

    April 13, 2023 at 10:23 am

    God bless people in the world.

    Atheism parties such as the Democratic-Republicans, Nazis, Green Party, Conservative Party, Labour Party, SPD, and Communist Party are wrong, but we obey Ten Commandments.

    International law is morality and is about law of God, but not the law of people or of democracy. Earth was created by God, so it is ruled by laws of God, and no people has the right to make new territories, so as not to blaspheme God.

    But now the Democratic-Republican Party and the Communist Party do not obey Ten Commandments. As the moral disputes in the South China Sea and in Ukraine, people who participate in the socialism warfare think they are right. Putin, Biden and Zelenskyy think themselves as righteous but don’t obey Ten Commandments. while  Protestant pray for peace but don’t obey Ten Commandments, while the Roman Church opposes nuclear weapons but does not ask Putin, Biden, and Zelenskyy to repent to God, while the Eastern Orthodox Church agrees with Communist Party to use nuclear weapons but doesn’t confess their sin since 330 .

    Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, delivered a sermon to mark Orthodox Epiphany in Moscow, saying that “any desire to destroy Russia will mean the end of the world.”
    “We pray to the Lord that he bring the madmen to reason and help them understand…” he said in a Moscow cathedral.

    God bless America.

  23. from Russia with love

    April 14, 2023 at 6:21 am

    “Sir, it’s obvious, YOU & China don’t respect International Law… you give it lip service…”
    the only thing that can be reproached with China and Russia is that these countries do not yet fully use the “international law” created by the West. China and Russia have not yet invaded countries on the other side of the globe as the US regularly does. China and Russia have not yet built military bases and deployed their nuclear arsenals around the world as the United States does. but don’t worry Jim, everything is ahead. 😉 feature of international law is that it is the same for everyone, and for the US and for China and for Russia. and yes, the US will have to deal with it.
    “But when International Law is pointed out to you… you reject it.”
    what “international law”? what kind of court that is located in the EU, is funded by the US and the EU and serves the interests of the US and the EU? Are you seriously? you again forgot that the US and the EU is not the whole world? welcome to a new world where the US will not decide what is right and what is wrong. 😉
    “It means nothing if you don’t recognize International Law in the first place… you don’t… you live in a State of Nature… where the strong survive and the weak are subjugated.”
    amazing discovery! yes, for now we all live in this world where the US has approved these rules. For more than 100 years, the United States has been destroying those they don’t like and enslaving those they want, ignoring all norms of morality and international law. but the world is changing and the US is losing its hegemony. it’s time to choose Jim. do you want to disappear with the world of US hypocrisy or join a new, multipolar, world of mutually beneficial cooperation.
    “The Right of Conquest is all you understand… like a dumb, savage beast.”
    There is a saying “to live with wolves – howl like a wolf.” 😉 yes, the US will have to eat the porridge they have always cooked for others.
    “Okay, I know where stand.”
    well think Jim. 😉 stand on the sinking Titanic or in the boat?
    “See you on the battlefield… apparently that’s all you understand & respect… nothing new… that has been the way of the world since the dawn of history.”
    Quite right Jim! Libya had almost no army and we both know what the US did to them. Serbia had an army weaker than NATO and had no allies, and we both know what the US and NATO did to them. but Sirri already had allies and the US could not finish its crime, but still continues to illegally occupy part of the territory of Syria. Have you heard anything about Iraq? 😉
    Jim, every time the thought comes to your mind to say something about international law or legality, always, be sure (!!!), remember these countries and what the USA allows itself to do. until the United States is held accountable for its many crimes, all your appeals to the law are not worth a damn. 😉 It is very stupid to require others to comply with the laws that your country is constantly violating. 🙂

  24. Winston Smith

    April 14, 2023 at 5:20 pm

    Why are we trying to reform China when our own country is crumbling, political parties are arresting their opponents so they can’t run for president, and our debt is costing the cost of living to sky rocket?

    Maybe China could teach us a few things about running a society?

  25. Simon Beerstecher

    April 26, 2023 at 3:59 pm

    Taiwan controls 85% of the worlds top end chips 7 and 5 and soon 4nm.It would be an economic and industrial catastrophe for the USA,looosing access to those chips but also handing that high tech bussiness to China.Intel has struggled to even build 7nm chips let alone 5 and 4nm chips.

    Furthermore Taiwan is the key that keeps the Chinese bottled up in its littoral waters and South China Sea.Strategically the loss of Taiwan would eventually translate to the loss of S Korea and Japan, as the outright power in the region would be China ,both would have no alternative but to kowtow to China.Loose that and you hand China the West Coast of America.

    China is already growing political and economic capital in South America,handing them free reign in the Pacific will do nothing but allow that process to accelerate.

    The South China Sea and its surrounding nations are already subject to Chineses power and influence.Thailand is purchasing more and more military equipment from China,from Naval ships to tanks.Cambodia is firmley in Chinas pocket as is Maynmar.Malaysia is struggling to extract itself from Chinese economic influence.All this does not bode well for American markets,SE Asian middle class markets will represent the biggest in the world.Loss of influence means loss of bussiness.

    Even to suggest that the USA should just step aside is a phallacy and an act of geopolitical self harm unprecedented in American history.(Before the bleaters bleat,Vietnam is not China)
    Any withdrawel from supporting Taiwan will lead to America being the country behind an iron curtain of its own making.Insular,scared,disenfranchised globally with loss of prestige, and cut off from its own backyard ,but above all from its soul.America would not survive as a nation without its destiny as the torch bearers and proliferators of democracy and the rights of the individual.

  26. ATM

    April 28, 2023 at 2:37 pm

    Taiwan was fully recognized as part of China by the west when US sponsored dictator Chiang Kai‐shek took power on the island and completed the genocide of the local populations. We approved of Chiang’s constitution which stated specifically that’s that Taiwan is part of China. The expectation at the time was that Taiwan would invade the mainland and claim it. Thus the United States has always approved of one China policy except from the other direction.

  27. ATM

    April 28, 2023 at 2:39 pm

    Taiwan was fully recognized as part of China by the west when US sponsored dictator Chiang Kai‐shek took power on the island and completed the genocide of the local populations. We approved of Chiang’s constitution which stated specifically that Taiwan is part of China. The expectation at the time was that Taiwan would invade the mainland and claim it. Thus the United States has always approved of one China policy except from the other direction.

  28. Steven Naslund

    May 7, 2023 at 4:18 am

    Here is how you deter China, you develop a global strike capability from the continental US that can put any ship, city, or military base at risk without thousands of US sailors dying.

    Putting a naval base in the Philippines is a fantastic way to put a fat juicy impossible to defend target within reach of China’s navy. Dumbest move ever.

    Frankly defending Chinese fisherman is about the Philippine coastal forces. If China attacks a Philippine Coast Guard vessel in Philippine waters, the US should launch a long range strike and put the Chinese vessel on the bottom. That is deterrence and that sends a message to your friends and foes. You also keep your naval forces far away so if China wants to escalate, they have to reach US territory to do so.

    The days of a surface ship sailing around being scary to a major power ended last century.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *