Error message

Deprecated function: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in include_once() (line 20 of /home/caucusni/public_html/includes/file.phar.inc).

Recent increased naval activity East Asia

Submitted by soryang on Thu, 04/30/2026 - 4:18am

Media bragging about US/Philippine/Japan/New Zealand/France/Canada joint military exercises in South China Sea. In the first video, NTD is an Falun Gong/Epoch Times related organization, mostly propaganda, but sometimes apart from the spin, the military news there is useful. Watch 5 min from where it's cued to start.

This video below from a Taiwan public broadcaster, also quite conservative, is worth watching because joint exercises on both sides are discussed and also some of the strategic fallacies it reveals, such as fighting a WWII style military campaign against China. Some of the same mistakes made in the Persian Gulf are potentially being recreated here. An exception to this would be the availability of submarine warfare to the allied forces and the presence of a more powerful ally, Japan, which is overtly adopting an anti-China posture, particularly as it relates to Taiwan and Indo-Pacific strategy. Obviously, ports and military bases supporting naval forces would be subject to massive missile attacks. Another thing to note, is that a major and lengthy combined forces exercise by Chinese forces off Shanghai, indicates that the development of joint forces coordinated operations desired by Xi are being carried out. This was postulated by some analysts as the primary reason for the purges of China's military committee and high command in the recent past.

The portrayal of PM Takaichi in Chinese propaganda videos is summarily dismissed, which may be a mistake. This is related to her "coming out of the closet" as it were, dropping the pacifist image that characterized Japan's self defense forces in the past. Japan's is participating in Balakitan for the first time with combat forces. The attempt to impose a huge new military budget on Taiwan by the US-DPP alliance is being resisted to some degree by the KMT under the banner of "fiscal responsibility."

Here's a Chinese military exercise that took place recently about the same time near Taiwan-

I saw in South Korean news reports that combined US/Japan/South Korea coordinated naval exercises with anti-submarine patrol aircraft and surface warships in the South Sea (Namhae south of the peninsula) were canceled in the last few days, when a Russian submarine and two Chinese warships entered the region. Contrary to a comment in one video above, I haven't yet seen corroboration of South Korean direct participation in Balakitan. There was a report of a combined NZ South Korean amphibious landing operation near Pohang SK, but that is nowhere near the South China Sea or Taiwan.

Tags:

China

Japan

Philippines

Balakitan

military

strategy

Vote

Comments

Submitted by QMS on Thu, 04/30/2026 - 7:37am

Just listened to a econo.casts (Yanis) piece

.
discussing maritime chokeholds around the globe
used by the empire to maintain strangulation of
otherwise free trade. One of the Asian routes the
hegemony wants to control is the Straight of Malacca.
Tightly bordered by Malaysia and Indonesia, it is an important
trade corridor for Chinese goods heading west. Suez, Panama,
Hormuz, and The Straight of Tears are also critical passages
which the US navy would like to control. Although this is not to be
with failing vessels and a weakened fleet.

—

Zionism is a social disease

Submitted by soryang on Thu, 04/30/2026 - 1:07pm

Singapore and ASEAN

@QMS

Seem to be neutral. It's difficult to foresee how they would react if the US wanted to block the Malacca Strait. They like to maneuver between China and the US. Bong Bong in the Philippines is an outlier. He likes to challenge China for domestic political reasons imo.

I like George Yeo's perspective on the situation in that region. It's over an hour. Despite his expertise and experience, he recognizes the limits of projecting outcomes in conflict scenarios. I like his perspective on the role of literacy, competence, judgement and proven ability, in Chinese governance, and distinguishes this from the current American situation and governmental system.

Singapore’s Ex-Minister on China, US, and a New World Order | George Yeo

The Yanis podcast sounds interesting. Is it behind a paywall?

—

己所不欲，勿施于人。

Submitted by QMS on Thu, 04/30/2026 - 3:08pm

No, it is free

@soryang
.
paying for content is against my religion

自由的

—

Zionism is a social disease

Submitted by studentofearth on Thu, 04/30/2026 - 10:25am

Does US now want a permenant base on Penghu?

Follow a couple of English language news sources Taiwan News began publishing 1949. and Taipei Times began in 1999. Mixture of local concerns, international news and subtleties of US/China relations before they become important enough to hit the other International news sites.

Military ships and airplanes are almost a daily occurrence around Taiwan claimed territory.

Interesting subject popped up this week regarding a group of islands located in the Taiwan Straight. Included a legal argument could also be attempted in the future to expand presence to other islands claimed by Republic of China (Taiwan) within the 9 dash line in the South China Sea.

Would Taiwan ceding Penghu to US be a bridge too far? Taiwan News April 25, 2026

While the physical presence of US military personnel on these islands, also known as the Pescadores, is sensitive, it is underpinned by a sophisticated legal architecture. This framework allows the US to project power and provide vital advisory support without the need for Taiwan’s formal diplomatic recognition.

While the concept of a formal ceding of Penghu’s bases to the US could introduce the appearance of insurmountable legal hurdles, it could nevertheless occur given the right circumstances and preparation.

The primary international legal basis for US involvement in Penghu is the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Under Article 2, Japan formally renounced all claims to "Formosa and the Pescadores."

Crucially, the treaty did not name a recipient state. This created the undetermined status of Formosa and Penghu in international law. Since sovereignty was never formally transferred to China, legal scholars argue the US, as the principal occupying power of Japan and its territories (including the Ryukyu and Daito Islands that includes Okinawa and the Senkaku Islands until 1971), maintains a residual legal interest in "Formosa and the Pescadores.”

Under Article II of the US constitution, the president holds broad authority to deploy forces to protect “vital national interests.” If the president determines that a presence in Penghu is essential to US national security — such as protecting global semiconductor supply chains or ensuring freedom of navigation — the president could order a deployment citing executive prerogative.
...
While the US does not recognize Taiwan's de jure (legal) sovereignty, it recognizes its de facto (actual) authority over the territory. This distinction allows the US to enter into a memorandum of understanding, or an executive agreement with the Taiwan authorities.

These instruments bypass the need for a formal Status of Forces Agreement, which would imply sovereign recognition.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by soryang on Thu, 04/30/2026 - 12:00pm

my opinion of this bogus legal theory in 2021

@studentofearth @studentofearth

This is just an excerpt below-

One China Policy legal review claims the Allies have title to Taiwan

Currently there are disputes about the "One China" policy and what it means. One, admittedly older, penumbral style legal analysis of the One China policy and what it purportedly means runs through a historical examination of the events leading to the current ambiguity or dissimulation, if you prefer, giving rise to the dispute over what the One China policy means. Frank Chiang's law review article merits review.* Some no doubt will find the legal discussion supportive of their view that the One China policy means something other than one China. In other words those who agree that Taiwan is not in fact Chinese territory may like the article. The opinion expressed here, is that the logic applied in the legal thesis is specious and fanciful, satisfying foreign policy objectives of the US, UK, Japan, and Taiwan separatists.

*One-China Policy and Taiwan, Y. Frank Chiang (2004)
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1950&context=ilj

The Chiang article was published in 2004 and had reappeared in some media format in 2021 when I came across it. These legalistic arguments are spurious.

SOF, thanks for bringing up this issue. It's really fundamental. The PRC perspective on this, is that the US and its allies can try to revamp the post WWII order all they want. The old imperialist days are over. Taking over any Chinese territory whether that of Taiwan or the mainland is a provocation that won't be tolerated.

It would be a very serious misstep by the US to occupy these islands. In fact, I have felt for some time that the Penghu islands, and Kinmen and Matsu, off the China coast would be the first to be attacked by China in a Taiwan confrontation.

Professor Anthony Carty discusses similar machinations by the west concerning China's South China Sea claims. Basically, the Philippines claim is bogus. UNCLOS did not confer jurisdiction to adjudicate preexisting territorial disputes. Yet the 2016 UNCLOS PCA ex parte "arbitration" to which the Chinese never acceded is cited in most western articles on the SCS disputes.

Follow a couple of English language news sources Taiwan News began publishing 1949. and Taipei Times began in 1999. Mixture of local concerns, international news and subtleties of US/China relations before they become important enough to hit the other International news sites. Military ships and airplanes are almost a daily occurrence around Taiwan claimed territory. Interesting subject popped up this week regarding a group of islands located in the Taiwan Straight. Included a legal argument could also be attempted in the future to expand presence to other islands claimed by Republic of China (Taiwan) within the 9 dash line in the South China Sea. Would Taiwan ceding Penghu to US be a bridge too far? Taiwan News April 25, 2026 While the physical presence of US military personnel on these islands, also known as the Pescadores, is sensitive, it is underpinned by a sophisticated legal architecture. This framework allows the US to project power and provide vital advisory support without the need for Taiwan’s formal diplomatic recognition. While the concept of a formal ceding of Penghu’s bases to the US could introduce the appearance of insurmountable legal hurdles, it could nevertheless occur given the right circumstances and preparation. The primary international legal basis for US involvement in Penghu is the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Under Article 2, Japan formally renounced all claims to "Formosa and the Pescadores." Crucially, the treaty did not name a recipient state. This created the undetermined status of Formosa and Penghu in international law. Since sovereignty was never formally transferred to China, legal scholars argue the US, as the principal occupying power of Japan and its territories (including the Ryukyu and Daito Islands that includes Okinawa and the Senkaku Islands until 1971), maintains a residual legal interest in "Formosa and the Pescadores.” Under Article II of the US constitution, the president holds broad authority to deploy forces to protect “vital national interests.” If the president determines that a presence in Penghu is essential to US national security — such as protecting global semiconductor supply chains or ensuring freedom of navigation — the president could order a deployment citing executive prerogative. ... While the US does not recognize Taiwan's de jure (legal) sovereignty, it recognizes its de facto (actual) authority over the territory. This distinction allows the US to enter into a memorandum of understanding, or an executive agreement with the Taiwan authorities. These instruments bypass the need for a formal Status of Forces Agreement, which would imply sovereign recognition.

—

己所不欲，勿施于人。