In recent days, news of the presence of Chinese warships off the coast of Australia has dominated the world media. This Chinese fleet is actually the 055 Zunyi naval formation that passed through the Basilan Strait earlier this month, scaring the Philippines. After the Philippines, it has also scared Australia. And the trend is expected to grow.
In response to the 7.2% annual increase in China's defense budget by 2025, Hayashi Yoshimasa, Japan's Minister for Mitigation of the Impact of US Forces in Okinawa, said at a press conference: "China continues to increase defense spending at a high level, lacks sufficient transparency, is broadly and rapidly building up its military power, and is intensifying its attempts to drastically change the status quo in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. This is a matter of serious concern to our country and the international community."
How, at the current rate of development, will China's military power surpass that of the United States in just 10 years?
An analysis by Chinese military experts provides an account of how, for them, this could happen.
There are three main factors: the first is "the ultimatum that China's manufacturing civilization will impose on the civilization of US financial hegemony." As China completely rewrites the rules of war with industrialization, the weapons that once dominated the world of the United States will ultimately be just the last elegy of the old empire. The second is the"Speed competition." The theme is China's technological boom versus the US's talent gap. Scientific research cannot be conducted without people. This is especially true for military scientific research. Furthermore, China's military industry is mainly composed of state-owned enterprises. As for state-owned enterprises, although they have their own problems, they do not dare to compromise when it comes to implementing national strategies. Instead, American companies are mostly private enterprises, and people work for money. How can they have the feeling of "forging swords for the country" like China's military industry? The third is the "ultimate goal of military power" that China has set for itself to change the world order.
by Gabriele e Nicola Iuvinale
The Central News Agency, The National Taiwan News Agency reported today that the Chinese government announced that the 2025 military budget will officially reach RMB 1.784665 billion (about $250 trillion), an increase of 7.2% from the previous year. Japanese government spokesman and chief of staff Yoshimasa Hayashi stressed that "China's military movements are a matter of serious concern to Japan and the international community."
Japan's Mainichi Shimbun reported that in response to the 7.2% annual increase in China's defense budget by 2025, Hayashi Yoshimasa, Minister for Mitigation of the Impact of U.S. Forces on Okinawa of Japan, said at a press conference: "China continues to increase defense spending at a high level, does not have sufficient transparency, is broadly and rapidly strengthening its military power, and is intensifying its attempts to dramatically change the status quo in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. This is a matter of serious concern for our country and the international community."
In reality, as we reported in one of our 2023 articles, “The hidden balance of China's military spending. The outlay is greater than previously believed” lUS intelligence had discovered in 2023 that China was spending up to $700 billion a year, allowing it to challenge the US for military supremacy much earlier than initially believed.
An article published today in the Chinese newspaper Guancha on the official account “Cat Brother's Vision, Cat Brother's World”, behind which there is certainly a PLA military expert, gives us an account of how China's military power could surpass that of the United States.
We report the considerations.
In recent days, news of the presence of Chinese warships off the coast of Australia has dominated the media around the world.
This Chinese fleet is actually the naval formation 055 Zunyi which crossed the Basilan Strait earlier this month, startling the Philippines.
After the Philippines, it also scared Australia.
Al current pace of development, China's military power will surpass that of the United States in just 10 years.
1 The ultimatum of manufacturing civilization
We all know that over the past 20 years, the level of equipment of the Chinese army has grown dramatically, moving from second place in the world, with the ambition of becoming first.
However, if we only consider the scale, there is still a certain gap in military strength between China and the United States.
The biggest gap is in the navy.
The current total tonnage of Chinese naval vessels is about 2.5 million tons. If you count only the combat ships of the US Navy, the tonnage exceeds 3.5 million tons. If you count all the ships, the tonnage is close to 5 million tons.
Although there are no major differences between the Chinese and US Navy in terms of battleships (the US has more than 70 Aegis destroyers, while China has more than 50 and a large number of 054A destroyers as auxiliaries, which is considered a parity factor), the gap in aircraft carriers is very large.
The United States currently has a total of 11 aircraft carriers in service, while China, including the Fujian ship which is not in service, only has 3.
The Air Force situation is similar to that of the Navy.
The US fifth generation fleet consists of approximately 550 aircraft, China's J-20 fleet has just reached 200 aircraft, and the J-35 has just entered service.
The United States also has a huge fleet of F-15 fighters, F-16 fighters, and bombers, which collectively surpass that of the Chinese Air Force.
The army is in better condition.
The overall equipment of the Chinese army is not much different from that of the US army. The scale of the Chinese military far exceeds that of the US military and has an overwhelming advantage over the US in terms of long-range rocket launchers and large-caliber artillery.
Overall, the result of the current military strength comparison between China and the United States is that there is no generation gap in the level, but there is a gap in the size of the navy and air force.
However, if it is simply a matter of scale, then it is easy to manage.
I can't say anything else about China, but the Its production capacity is first-rate.
If China were given 10 years, it is a given that its military power would surpass that of the United States.
Let's look at the marina first.
FLet's do some calculations.
In the past, China has faced two obstacles in developing aircraft carriers: catapult and propulsion.
China is very cautious when it comes to this kind of important national weapon.
We first built an aircraft carrier with a conventionally powered electromagnetic catapult and, at the same time, a nuclear-powered merchant ship with a molten salt reactor.
The aim was to carry out a technical verification.
Judging by current progress, the technical verification is proceeding smoothly.
The electromagnetic catapult is very powerful, and the molten salt reactor is also a more advanced generation than the US pressurized water reactor. It has the advantages of high thermoelectric conversion rate, small space occupation, high safety and easy maintenance.
The next step will be mass production.
China currently has two dry docks capable of building aircraft carriers, located in the Dalian and Jiangnan shipyards.
Although the construction period of an aircraft carrier is 3-4 years, the advantage is that the aircraft carrier does not always have to remain in dry dock!
After launching, the set-up work can be completed by docking in port!
According to this calculation, the actual operating time of the pier is only two years!
If the two dry docks operated simultaneously, we could conservatively build 6 nuclear-powered catapultable aircraft carriers in 10 years!
Adding the 3 existing ships, there will be 9 ships in total. Surely they wouldn't surpass the US? (US could launch three new aircraft carriers in ten years, but seven carriers are set for retirement)
Let's not forget that China also has 076!
This thing is a panacea that directly subverts traditional warships.
It can be used as a quasi-carrier as an alternative landing airport for fixed-wing aircraft embarked on aircraft carriers; it can also be used as a drone carrier to carry out direct unmanned bombing.
It can also serve as an amphibious assault ship, carrying a helicopter brigade and a combined battalion of marines.
More importantly, the construction of the 076 is much simpler than that of an aircraft carrier. It took just 14 months from the start of construction to the launch of the first 076 vessel.
If mass production were to happen, it would just be faster. There are as many as 10 shipyards in the country that are capable of building the 076!
If we worked at full capacity, how many 076s could be produced in ten years?
I don't dare think about it.
The situation is similar for other ships too.
Based on current conditions, two batches of 055 ships, i.e. 16 ships, for a total of 30 ships could be launched in the next ten years.
As for the 052D, there are now 38 ships. Over the next ten years, the total number of 052D and subsequent DL/DG models could reach more than 50.
This will put the Chinese ship on par with the US Aegis-class destroyer.
With the addition of more than 100 054A/Bs, China will be able to carry out missions in any corner of the Earth.
Considering all these factors, plus the submarine force that has always been discreet and mysterious, the Chinese Navy will definitely surpass 350 ships, becoming the world's number one naval power.
Let's look at the Air Force.
In the next ten years the Air Force will not see a notable increase in its numerical strength, but only an improvement in quality.
There is no need to worry that the United States has scale advantages, because in the face of generation gaps, no matter how large the scale advantage is, it will be useless.
With the advent of the two sixth generation Chinese aircraft, the generation gap between China and the United States in fighters is expected to last 2 to 4 years.
By the time the US NGAD is completed with test flights, finalization and equipment, China's sixth-generation aircraft will likely have already been mass-produced.
In other words, over the next 10 years, China will continue to have a generational advantage on the United States in the fighter aircraft industry.
When China will have 50 sixth generation aircraft, this will be enough to counterbalance the combat effectiveness of more than 500 US fifth generation aircraft.
Currently, the Chinese Air Force has 53 aviation brigades.
These aviation brigades include fighter, bomber, transport and other types of brigades.
Several new sixth-generation aviation brigades could be established by 2035, the total number of which should not exceed 60 aviation brigades.
Based on 48 fighter jets making up a brigade, there will be 2,880 fighter jets in total. If you were to add some support aircraft such as early warning aircraft and anti-submarine aircraft, there are certainly more than 3,000 aircraft.
Besides, these fleets are new and can compete with most countries, but they will also have a total advantage over the US Air Force.
There isn't much to say about the army.
Apart from the routine replacement and upgrade of tanks, armored vehicles and armed helicopters, other organizations and equipment will not change significantly, but the number of unmanned equipment will increase significantly.
After all, machines can produce much faster than humans.
When the use of machines will replace that of humans in combat, the enemy will experience the shock of discovering that China is a great industrial power.
For example, each infantry squad will be equipped with unmanned combat systems.
The soldiers will be coordinated in combat by a combat robot wolf + two combat drones + several suicide drones; furthermore, exoskeletal armor will be part of the infantry's standard equipment.
Finally there is the Rocket Force.
The range of intercontinental missiles is already sufficient and the time has come to expand the nuclear arsenal in the next decade.
By 2035, the number of deployable nuclear warheads in China could approach 1,000.
The new independent military aerospace force could also be equipped with space intercept weapons to create China's NMD.
Of course, looking only at upgrading the number of equipment is superficial.
LChina is using Industry 4.0 to rebuild the rules of War 3.0, pushing modern warfare into a new era of "systematic crushing."
For example, large-scale drone warfare.
Drones appeared on battlefields just over four years ago, and military experts have exclaimed that drone warfare is upon us.
But anyone who really knows about this topic knows that the drone war between Nagorno-Karabakh and Russia and Ukraine is nothing!
At the Zhuhai Air Show, the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation unveiled the "Swarm-II" system.
A single launcher can carry 288 suicide drones, which is much better than quadcopter drones launched one at a time on the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield!
In fact, this is just a small microcosm of China's powerful drone combat capabilities.
In wartime, the consumption of drones will be enormous, even growing exponentially. Whoever has the drone production capacity will win.
There are currently more than 2,300 drone manufacturing companies in China, with an average annual production of 1,378 aircraft per company, more than 20,000 production lines of various types and more than 1,000 mass-produced drone models.
What's the concept behind all this?
As long as China needs them, it can easily deliver millions or even tens of millions of drones!
We all know that when quantitative changes accumulate to a certain point, they become qualitative changes.
Similarly, if the Houthis launched 100 drones, the US military could intercept them, but what if they launched 10,000 at once? Could the US military still intercept them?
But more importantly, the spread of unmanned vehicles will completely rewrite the model of modern warfare.
LThe US military has always emphasized its air superiority, but when the Chinese sixth-generation aircraft + 4 self-driving aircraft commanded from the plane stealth aircraft will take to the skies, each aircraft will have the autonomous capability to engage in dogfights.
There is no need for the sixth generation aircraft to intervene - the faithful wingman can simply fly ahead and do its job!
Currently, if operating at full capacity, the Chengfei Industrial Alliance could reach an annual production of 300 FH-97A airliners, while the cost of a single aircraft has been reduced to 1/40 that of the F-35.
The situation in naval warfare is similar. According to the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation's Hongyun Project plan, a network of 300 satellites will be completed by 2028, covering the entire world.
In this way, China will be able to deploy a large number of unmanned ships equipped with artificial intelligence to ambush the US fleet in a semi-submerged state.
Deploy in large numbers they could trap the US fleet and make it unable to move.
This is the real fear that Chinese production arouses in the US military.
A country that produces 1.1 billion tons of steel a year and owns 67% of the world's industrial robots is essentially putting Clausewitz's ultimate ideal into practice: “Shifting the strategic depth from the geographical space to the industrial dimension".
This is the ultimatum that the manufacturing civilization will impose on the civilization of financial hegemony.
As China completely rewrites the rules of war with industrialization, the weapons that once dominated the world in the United States will ultimately be just the last elegy of the old empire.
2 Speed competition
In the next ten years, if China develops its military power, the United States will also develop its military power. How can we conclude that China's military power will definitely surpass that of the United States?
In fact, when it comes to the speed of military development, the United States is really not as good as China. We can make a comparison from three points of view.
First, China's tech boom compares to the US talent gap.
Scientific research cannot be conducted without people. This is especially true for military scientific research.
Why is the US military industry so powerful?
One of the main reasons is that most of the world's leading scientists moved to the United States during World War II.
Then the United States used a large number of scientists from Germany, which promoted the rapid development of US military technology during the Cold War.
But what happened after the end of the Cold War?
The United States felt invincible and research and production gradually slowed down, even directly closing some departments and factories.
As a result, there is a gap in both scientific research talent and technical personnel.
The reason is simple. After 2000, with the rise of emerging technology industries, sectors such as the Internet and artificial intelligence offered higher-paying job opportunities.
As a result, many excellent science and engineering graduates prefer to pursue these fields, and current scientific researchers also change jobs.
Between 2009 and 2021, more than 80,000 researchers from U.S. military, industrial, and scientific research institutions disappeared.
Typically, newly hired researchers have difficulty understanding old design drawings, let alone searching for new things.
What's even more terrifying is the shortage of technicians.
Producing national treasures like aircraft carriers and submarines is technology and labor intensive.
One mistake by a welder can impact ships worth billions of dollars, and there is no margin for error.
For this reason, the artisans of large countries are truly the treasures of each country.
However, in recent decades, up to 100,000 experienced workers from military-industrial companies have retired.
In full deindustrialization, young people are reluctant to work in factories because they believe it is hard, tiring and futureless work.
Therefore, after the retirement of the older generation of workers, the technological legacy stopped.
Why has the US failed to restart the F22 production line despite the growth of China's J-20 fleet?
It's very simple. The production lines that at the time they assembled the plane have been dismantled and the old masters who knew that technology are long dead or have been drawing pensions for more than a decade.
So restarting the production line is simply impossible.
And China? The situation is completely different.
In China, there are actually institutions dedicated to training military and engineering talent: the Seven Sons of National Defense!
The seven military-industrial academies can provide China with 30,000 scientific research talents every year.
In 2024, the total number of employees in China's top ten military industrial enterprises was 1.74 million, 1.8 times that of the United States (980,000).
And Don't forget that since China has always attached importance to science and engineering, it can still train more than 6 million scientific and engineering talents every year.
These talents have given China an almost inexhaustible reserve military and industrial force.
While the US military industry relies on old gray-haired engineers, Chinese engineers born in the 1990s have already participated in the research and development of the sixth-generation aircraft.
As for the old technicians, there is no need to mention them.
The documentary "Master Craftsmen" from a few years ago amply demonstrated the importance that Beijing attributes to military technicians; also, China has a great system: it hires apprentices.
Almost every craftsman in a large town has three or four apprentices.
Working together day and night, these old masters will teach their apprentices, little by little, the accumulated experience, to ensure that their skills are not interrupted.
Compared with the US military industry, which is "understaffed on both sides", China's solid scientific research team and expert technicians are behind China's explosion in recent years.
Secondly, the military industry with a complete industrial supply chain VS incomplete military industry.
We all know that after the end of the Cold War the United States initiated large-scale deindustrialization measures.
In the 1970s and 1980s, factories were present everywhere in the United States.
Sectors such as steel, automobiles and mechanical engineering occupy a position of absolute dominance at a global level and the US manufacturing industry accounted for up to 30% of GDP.
But today the share of the manufacturing sector in the US GDP has shrunk to 11%, and the glorious factories have long since become ruins.
But the problem is that you don't think about it. If you move all industries, what will happen to supporting businesses in your industrial chain?
GToday's fighter planes and warships are no longer like the iron blocks of World War II; today they cannot be made entirely by a single factory.
Today's large-scale equipment often has tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of parts. It is impossible for a military-industrial enterprise to produce them all, and it must rely on thousands of suppliers!
The problem is that many small suppliers depend entirely on military orders for their profits.
If the US military contractor decided to relocate its supply chain, domestic suppliers would simply lose orders.
When business owners can no longer make money, they simply lay off workers and close down.
What is the result?
If quality problems were to arise with foreign suppliers, or if purchases could no longer be made due to political issues, this would have direct repercussions on US military production.
For example, the United States once had six manufacturers of large diesel engines for warships. And now?
Only one Fairbanks Morse Defense Company remains; the other five all failed.
If anything were to happen to the Fairbanks Morse Defense again, the US Navy could be done for.
For example, the F-35 has a component consisting of a cobalt-samarium alloy magnet used in a turbine pump.
This magneto came from China, passed through five suppliers, and finally arrived at Honeywell, eventually becoming the turbine pump component of the F-35.
However, after the US Congress found out about this, they clamored to stop using Chinese components.
According to the U.S. National Defense Appropriations Act, the US Navy can only purchase US products when purchasing equipment, and the raw materials must also be made from US raw materials.
Under pressure from Congress, Lockheed Martin was forced to stop using turbine pumps.
But if supplies were to be interrupted on a large scale, where would they quickly find replacement suppliers?
Ultimately, the production contract for over 100 F35s was delayed.
In reality, deindustrialization not only affects American suppliers, but also production capacity, which has been significantly reduced.
For example, during the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the United States did its best to produce only 36,000 155 mm artillery shells per month, enough to defend Ukraine for a single week.
For the M777 howitzers, which suffered huge losses on the battlefield, the United States could only produce 10 cannon barrels per month, which was not enough for Ukraine.
The US Navy is even worse off.
According to statistics, there are only five shipyards in the United States capable of building warships: General Electric's Baysett Shipyard, Ingalls Shipyard, Newport News Shipyard, Bath Iron Shipyard and Avondale Industrial Shipyard.
The Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, the largest shipyard in the United States, which produced a total of 28 aircraft carriers, has now closed permanently.
Currently, only the Newport News Shipyard in the United States can build aircraft carriers.
In addition to aircraft carriers, it is responsible for building more than 50 percent of the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered submarines and 50 percent of its destroyers.
It seems like Newport News Shipbuilding is a shipbuilding giant, doesn't it?
But in reality the Newport News Shipyard now has only three dry docks and one floating dock.
To be honest, not to mention China's Jiangnan and Dalian shipyards, even the small shipyards in Jiangsu and Zhejiang are not as good.
US Congressman Krishnamurthy once said with deep sorrow: "In the same time it takes us to build one ocean-going ship, China can build 359!"
As of 2024, the U.S. Navy has launched only one Arleigh Burke II-class destroyer, one littoral combat ship, one supply ship, and two nuclear submarines, with a total tonnage of about 75,000 tons.
And China?
If we consider the 076 at the end of the year, it will be 200,000 tons! And this, despite the fact that the shipbuilding frenzy in China is now practically over!
While one grows, the other shrinks. How does the US military industry compare to China's?
Third, the military industry for the country VS the military industry for money.
We have already heard many jokes about the US military industry.
For example, a coffee mug costs $1,280, a toilet seat costs $10,000, and a bag of screws costs a whopping $90,000, and so on.
But after laughing, few people think about the root cause of this problem.
The root cause lies in the military-industrial system of the United States.
China's military industry is mainly composed of state-owned enterprises.
As for state-owned enterprises, although they have their own problems, they do not dare to compromise when it comes to implementing national strategies.
We develop the weapons we want, we develop them in the direction we want, and we launch them at the time we want.
If you have friends in the military, you can ask them: who hasn't gone crazy over the word "knot"?
And the United States?
American companies are mostly private businesses, and people work for money. How can they have the feeling of "forging swords for the country" like China's military industry?
Since everything is done for money, bizarre operations will come to light.
For example, shouldn't the country have the final say on what type of aircraft to develop?
But the situation in the United States is that military-industrial enterprises have the final say!
In 2019, the United States proposed a new multirole fighter program to replace F-15C/D fighters that have been in service for more than 30 years, alleviating deployment pressure on the U.S. military caused by the delayed delivery of the F-35A.
Logically speaking, you should take this opportunity to develop a new fighter plane, right?
I never expected Boeing to propose to modify the F15 into the F15EX asking for $160 million!
With 160 million US dollars you can buy two bare-metal F35s.
But the problem is that no matter how much you modify your F15, it will never be invisible!
When it comes to an air battle, I'm afraid that three or four F15EXs will not be able to replace one F35!
The US Air Force is not stupid. When they saw that Boeing had invented this thing, they didn't want it.
But what no one expected was that Boeing had a "good friendship" with many members of the US Congress, so the US military had to hold its nose and buy this batch of aircraft, taking 144 at a time.
The interests of the military-industrial complex have led US technological evolution into a vicious circle between "maintenance of profits and competition for market share".
For example, why do China and Russia have so many hypersonic weapons, while those of the United States have failed repeatedly?
This is not scientific!
In fact, the fundamental reason is that American military companies are reluctant to spend a lot of money to build high-enthalpy, ultra-high-velocity shock wave wind tunnels powered by detonations, but instead adopt a "complicated" method:
Software simulation.
However, the aerodynamics at high altitudes and speeds will change, and the properties of the fluids on the surface of the weapon will also change under high temperature conditions. How can you simulate this using software alone?
The result is that North Korea has also developed hypersonic weapons, while the United States has not yet developed them.
Furthermore, the United States began developing NGADs before China's sixth-generation aircraft. So why has China's sixth-generation aircraft been tested, but there is still no sign of the United States' sixth-generation aircraft?
On the one hand, the needs of the US Air Force are constantly changing, on the other hand, this is also linked to the greed of Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed Martin benefited from the F22 and F35 contracts for about 30 years, making a lot of money from them.
This time they want to do it in one go and develop a fighter plane that can last 30 years.
So, being a sixth generation aircraft, it must be high-end!
XA100 variable cycle engine, install it!
Radar terahertz, installalo!
Aerial laser cannon, install it!
Dual driving mode with/without driver installed!
In any case, all mature and immature technologies were installed, but when it came to designing, it turned out that these technologies had no finished products.
Even if designed, it cannot be realized.
In the end, despite all efforts, the NGAD could not succeed. Finally, Secretary of the United States Air Force Frank Kendall couldn't take it anymore and directly stopped the NGAD plan.
And he asked that the Air Force now "consider very seriously whether we have the right design concept."
However, Lockheed Martin does not appear to have given up and is desperately pressuring "Commissioners Smith" to resume the NGAD plan in 2025.
The starting point of a company's business determines the direction of its business.
When a military-industrial enterprise puts its own interests before national ones, it is not surprising that a $10,000 toilet lid appears in a country's military industry.
Thus, the United States has military spending of over $800 billion per year, but could effectively reduce it to $400 billion.
3 The ultimate goal of military power
Therefore, according to the above analysis, it is not an exaggeration to say that China's military power will surpass that of the United States in 2035.
After all, the goal of substantially achieving socialist modernization by 2035 is written into the plans of the Chinese Communist Party.
Given China's solid planning and execution capabilities, by 2035, although I can't say more, the modernization of national defense will definitely be achieved.
The question then is: what changes will occur in the world when China's military power surpasses that of the United States?
The Chinese people have endured suffering for so many years just for this day.
If military power cannot be converted into tangible benefits, then for what purpose is so much money spent on building so many weapons?
Therefore, when China's military power surpasses that of the United States, it will certainly bring about a qualitative change in the world, a qualitative change in the international order.
The dominance over the Western Pacific will change hands and the US "First Island Chain" will exist in name only.
Currently, the United States has deployed more than 60 percent of its military forces in the Western Pacific. China actually has no advantage in a head-on confrontation.
But in ten years the number of Chinese aircraft carriers may increase from 3 to 9, and China will be able to fully control the sea power in the Western Pacific!
Will the US military continue to maintain control of the First Archipelago knowing it cannot defeat China in the Western Pacific?
Obviously not.
Therefore, the US army will be forced to retreat to Guam or even Hawaii, and the military presence in the first archipelago will no longer make any sense.
The Gulf of Aden model will be upgraded and the global waterway is becoming Chinese.
The Chinese Navy has been conducting escort missions in the Gulf of Aden for 15 years. After the country no longer needs so many warships in the next decade, the Indian Ocean-Mediterranean-Red Sea Fleet could be deployed regularly.
Referring to the escort operations of US warships when the Houthi armed forces blocked the Red Sea, China may set up a network of overseas supply bases in the name of "sea lane security" and even replace the US-led "maritime coalition" mechanism to maintain global sea lane security.
As for the difficulties in the Strait of Malacca, if they do not they will subsist more in the face of absolute power.
It can be predicted that in ten years, ASEAN countries could collectively sign the "Code of Conduct in the South China Sea" and recognize China's dominant position in exchange for economic development dividends, and the South China Sea will completely become a Chinese inland lake.
Big changes in the world order.
If China's military power replaces that of the United States within ten years and ensures the security of the oil-producing countries of the Middle East, it would not be surprising if Saudi Arabia announced that it will switch to RMB trading for oil transactions.
But more importantly, once the global military balance is broken, the world order will be rebuilt.
The US alliance system will completely collapse, Japan and South Korea will choose to rely on China, and the EU will accelerate the construction of its own "European army".
US-led NATO may exist in name only, but its actual influence will be limited to the Atlantic coast and will not extend deeper into continental US territory.
You might be a little confused, why didn't I mention Taiwan?
Is it necessary to mention Taiwan?
Do we have to wait ten years to take back Taiwan?
Perhaps this is the true beginning of a community with a shared future for humanity.
Comments