On April 6, the Chinese website of Deutsche Welle published a news about multinational navies conducting joint military exercises in the Indo-Pacific region, and clearly mentioned in the news that the exercise was to “check and balance China’s ambitions in the region.” “. However, when reposting this report, the Chinese Twitter of Deutsche Welle used such an introduction full of historical metaphors.
In the forwarding lead, the editor of the Chinese website of Deutsche Welle wrote: “There are no eight countries in the United States, Japan, India, Australia and France.” Considering that the military exercises related to this news article have a clear meaning “against China”, the so-called “Eight Powers” here may very well be related to the history of the “Eight-Power Allied Forces invading China.”
The general content of this report is that with the continuous improvement of China’s comprehensive strength and naval combat capabilities, many Western analysts believe that China will “rare a threat” to the Indo-Pacific region and have a strong desire to “use force against Taiwan.” Five countries headed by the United States will conduct joint exercises in the eastern Indian Ocean on April 5-7 in response to China’s “aggressive posture” on the ground.
You go together, I’m in a hurry. To be honest, I haven’t seen the content of the exercise, and the specific scenario is not clear. Therefore, I don’t know whether the exercise is an attitude declaration or actual military effect, but I personally think that the attitude is more pronounced. Because just these five scums, the scale of the exercise, and the intensity, it doesn’t seem like they can really fight China. US, India, Japan, Australia and France? Remove the highest score of the United States, because one fight is a nuclear war, and remove the lowest score of France, because it is difficult for the People’s Liberation Army to start a war with France before France surrenders. The average score is 5 points, and the full score is 10 points. The combat systems of these countries are not the same thing at all. The so-called joint exercise is also a lonely exercise. Fortunately, the United States, Japan and Australia, what is the situation in India and France? What the hell can this act? A French military system and NATO are still in touch with each other. What’s the matter with India? Integrating India into the NATO military system, I am afraid that combat effectiveness will decline instead? So the title of German, how to put it, is hard to say. There are two types of international joint military exercises, one is to declare an attitude to express military cooperation, and the other is the integration of transnational military systems with a tactical background. The tactical background of the US-Japan-Australia-India-French joint military exercise is based on the basic setting of “China’s regional threat.” Usually we conduct an exercise with very clear specific combat objectives, so that we can train for the troops. For example, the control of a mountain pass, an assault or rejection of a fleet, or an air assault. The background of large-scale joint exercises will be much more complicated, but it will not be so general. Instead, there will be very detailed tactical scenarios and strategic backgrounds. For example, a comprehensive exercise in a tactical direction will separate the enemy’s actions. The air is the air, the sea is the sea, and the land is the land. According to the enemy’s military thinking, it is integrated again. The thoughts are decomposed and integrated, and finally a live-fire drill is carried out with actual soldiers to see where there are problems. We call this kind of military exercise, professional. Transnational terms, such as NATO’s internal combat exercises, will clarify the command system, information interface specifications, military language, and the correspondence between officers and troops, and many other military professional systems. For example, within NATO, between a Canadian major general and a British colonel, who listens to whom? What level is a Japanese (Self-Defense Force) brigade equivalent to a U.S. military? What actions need to be completed for “level 1 combat readiness”? These must be standardized. Even if the specifications are already very detailed, there will still be a lot of wrangling. Like the prototype of NATO, the Western Front of the Allied Forces in World War II, the main job of Commander Eisenhower is actually to wrestle, pull these interface specifications, and dance with long sleeves to solve the problem of interface incompatibility, so that allied forces can fight together. If you can’t do this job well, the chaotic armies of various countries are brought together, and there is no single country’s army that is as powerful as it is. No way, the modern army is so complicated. Then, in this large group of things, an India was mixed in. The Indian army hasn’t made it clear. The organization of this army is different from that of that army. Some colonels keep their promises while others are just a joke. I can only say that this is a disaster. Finally, this exercise is obviously just a statement. This is not the era of the Eight-Power Allied Forces. Modern wars are not colonial wars, and modern China is not Qing. It seems that German media editors will also talk nonsense in non-professional fields, not only in China.