Your attention is my motivation, and your support is the direction we are heading. Follow me and you can see my latest article, in the midst of America's fear and anxiety about China, the "balancing strategy" has become a new strategic option to deal with the so-called "Chinese hegemony". However, whether this strategy is effective and whether it can prevent China's rise is a question worth pondering. This article will examine the significance and feasibility of the U.S. "balancing strategy" for China and give some reflections on it.
The current U.S. military power is no longer able to reliably support its security commitments and deter China, so abandoning the pursuit of military supremacy and shifting to a balanced strategy has become a seemingly viable option. At the heart of the strategy is a focus on the major industrial powers in the Asia-Pacific region, such as India, Japan, and South Korea, to ensure that they are not controlled by China, to help them develop self-defense capabilities, and to reduce their dependence on the Chinese economy. This balancing strategy is sustainable and less risky, adapting to the unique geography of the Asia-Pacific region.
However, it remains to be seen and verified whether the U.S. balancing strategy will be able to achieve the desired results. First, China does not seek regional hegemony, so the U.S. balancing strategy is unfocused on this point. China has never wanted to control India, Japan, and South Korea, nor has it pursued a so-called "balance", so there is no point in balancing China strategically. In addition, the development trend of international strategy in the future is that countries will maintain strategic autonomy, and countries such as India will be less likely to rely on the United States, and the main demands of South Korea and Japan in developing relations with China will also be based on interest considerations, rather than completely obeying the command of the United States.
On the other hand, the United States has also proposed a strategy to control key waterways in response to the rise of China. In particular, focus on the Strait of Malacca and parts of the South and East China Seas, and seek help from India, Japan, the Philippines and Singapore. This strategy of grasping the key points is more feasible in reality, and it can be said that the United States is a more realistic goal at present.
However, even if the United States adopts a strategy of controlling key waterways, it will be difficult to change China's military predominance in Asia. China's military capabilities in the South and East China Seas are already quite strong, and its self-defense capabilities are growing. The United States balances China by pushing neighboring countries to develop self-defense military capabilities, which will only exacerbate the regional arms race and cannot truly achieve effective strategic control.
In the process of guarding against China's rise, the United States has also strengthened military cooperation with its allies, helping them strengthen their self-defense capabilities, reduce their security burden, and give full play to the supporting role of the US military. For example, the United States has established a comprehensive strategic partnership with Vietnam and signed a new defense cooperation and joint production agreement with India. However, Biden's coalition-building efforts are still not enough to maintain U.S. military dominance. To achieve a better military balance, Washington also needs to push allies and partners to shift from expensive** to cheaper and more mobile military assets, such as unmanned ships, drones, mines, anti-ship missiles, and air defense systems. In addition, Washington needs to make clear to allies and partners that U.S. involvement is limited.
However, there are also some problems with the U.S. approach to balancing China by strengthening its allies' self-defense capabilities. First, it could lead to a further escalation of the arms race in the region, thereby increasing the risk of conflict. Second, such an approach would not fundamentally alter China's military superiority in Asia, and therefore would not be truly balanced. Finally, limited U.S. involvement could also call into question its leadership in the region, making allies and partners less dependent on the U.S.
The "balancing strategy" of the United States has some difficulties and challenges in dealing with China's rise. China's military superiority in the Asia-Pacific region is gradually strengthening, making it an important force in the region, while the United States' military strength in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively lagging behind and cannot maintain its military hegemony for a long time. As a result, the United States has had to seek other strategies and try to prevent China's rise through a balancing strategy. However, the current balancing strategy has certain problems in terms of strategic objectives, feasibility and effectiveness.
China has never sought regional hegemony, so the U.S. balancing strategy lacks strategic focus. The development trend of international strategy in the future is that countries will maintain strategic autonomy and will be less likely to rely on the United States, and the cooperation between allies and partner countries will not be completely under the command of the United States.
Moreover, while it may seem feasible to stop China's rise by controlling key waterways, it is difficult to change China's military superiority in Asia. Pushing neighboring countries to develop self-defense military strength will only intensify the arms race in the region, and it will not be possible to truly achieve effective strategic control.
Efforts to strengthen allies' self-defense capabilities can indeed reduce the security burden on the United States to some extent, but there are some problems, such as the possibility of further escalation of the arms race in the region, and the failure to fundamentally change China's military superiority.
Therefore, the U.S. balancing strategy in dealing with China's rise does not really solve the problem. China does not pursue regional hegemony, but pursues peaceful development and mutually beneficial and win-win cooperation. In order to achieve long-term stability and security, all parties should build and deepen mutual trust through dialogue, cooperation and exchanges, rather than changing the existing balance in the region through competition and military confrontation.
Follow me to get the latest and hottest information, so that you can keep up with the pace of the times and understand the latest trends! Every bit of yours, I will remember in my heart; I appreciate your words and deeds.