🔒 Closed China Backs Away as Philippines and U.S. Send Impressive Fleet to West Philippine Sea

Status
Not open for further replies.
BB1fKots.jpg

© Provided by Esquire Philippines


In a surprising move, the Philippines sent its strongest response yet against China’s expansion into the West Philippine Sea. Not since 2012 has the Philippines moved its naval forces to the West Philippine Sea to challenge China’s militarization of the area. The move is a highly coordinated response with the United States.

In March, the Philippines reported the presence of 220 Chinese vessels at Julian Felipe Reef. That number has been reduced to fewer than 10 as of April 13.

"The Chinese have blinked," retired U.S. Navy officer Jerry Hendrix told You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

Below are photos taken by the Philippine Coast Guard on April 13 and 14 showing Philippine and Chinese vessels at Julian Felipe Reef.

BB1fKy6j.jpg

© Provided by Esquire Philippines
Photo by Philippine Coast Guard.
BB1fKotB.jpg

© Provided by Esquire Philippines
Photo by Philippine Coast Guard.
BB1fKotG.jpg

© Provided by Esquire Philippines
Photo by Philippine Coast Guard.
BB1fKs9n.jpg

© Provided by Esquire Philippines

Photo by Philippine Coast Guard.
The Philippines sent four of its most advanced warships to the West Philippine Sea to challenge China’s increasing activities at Julian Felipe Reef. Among the units it deployed are its two brand-new missile-guided frigates, the BRP Jose Rizal and the BRP Antonio Luna. It also deployed warplanes to monitor the area.

Meanwhile, the U.S. also sent its aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt to the area. But an American aircraft carrier never travels alone. With every sighting of a U.S. carrier, you can expect it brings along a large ****** of submarines, destroyers, and cruisers protecting it from other vessels. This is on top of the dozens of aircraft it carries (it can carry up to 90 aircraft and can accommodate 4,500 personnel).

The U.S. also deployed the USS Makin Island, a formidable assault ship that can carry up to 20 attack aircraft or s†éálth strike-fighters. It also has its own escorts of submarines, destroyers, and cruisers.

USS Theodore Roosevelt

BB1fKvN6.jpg

© Provided by Esquire Philippines
Photo by United States Navy | Public Domain.

USS Makin Island

BB1fKiSU.jpg

© Provided by Esquire Philippines
Photo by United States Navy | Public Domain.
In March 2021, the Philippine Coast Guard raised the alarm over the presence of 220 Chinese ships forming a phalanx at Julian Felipe Reef, which is within the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). It was what prompted the coordinated military response from the Philippines and the United States.

By April, the Chinese vessels have dissipated to a couple of dozen, a clear sign of China backing down in response to the forceful reaction from the Philippines and the U.S.

China used the same strategy in the past whenever it wanted to militarize a Philippine reef: It would send a large flotilla of paramilitary "fishing boats" to the area to scare away other vessels, then its dredgers would follow, destroying precious corals to create artificial islands over the reef. Julian Felipe Reef would have ended up with the same fate.

An Unexpected Philippine Response​

Ever since the 2012 standoff at Scarborough Shoal between China and the Philippines, the latter has opted not to send warships from the navy but relied on vessels from the Philippine Coast Guard instead to assert its presence in the West Philippine Sea. It was because of the ongoing international arbitration with China that the Philippines eventually won in 2016—the Philippines did not want to jeopardize its case and be construed as an aggressor.

But ever since then, the country had downplayed Chinese incursions into the West Philippine Sea.

The latest development proves significant, not only because the Philippines actually challenged China, but also because it is the first time it has sent a weapon of war to assert itself. To the Chinese generals, that is something to be very serious about. Historically, China respects force, no matter how seemingly small it is.

BRP Jose Rizal

BB1fKs9D.jpg©
Provided by Esquire Philippines
Photo by Philippine Navy | Public Domain.

China Respects Force​

According to professor and geopolitical analyst Richard Heydarian, China respects power.

"Chinese statecraft has contempt for the weak and the naive," Heydarian told Esquire Philippines in 2020. "But China grudgingly respects those with strategic dignity and courage."

For example, Indonesia, which has taken a very strong stance against China on its sea disputes and even sunk a number of confiscated Chinese vessels, has already received 1.2 million initial doses of the vaccine delivered from China in November. Another 1.8 million doses were delivered in January, and more are expected to come.

It also helps that the U.S. has specifically stated any attack on Philippine vessels would trigger its Mutual Defense Treaty obligations.

"An armed attack against the Philippines armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea, will trigger our obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty," the U.S. State Department You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

In the past, the U.S. had been vague about the Mutual Defense Treaty and its scope, saying obligations would only be triggered if they happen within the Philippines’ territorial waters, not its EEZ. It looks like they are changing that position now.

In any case, it looks like China will not be militarizing Julian Felipe Reef anytime soon.

Esquire Philippines is now on You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. Download the app You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. to read more articles from your favorite websites.

FROM: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

🇵🇭+🇺🇸=💪
 
[XX='Frustrated Burger, c: 1094138, m: 940265'][/XX] So ano pa nga ang pinupunto mo? nakakapagod kana kausap haha masyado mong iniistrech tong usapan na to, nagka gera nga sila kasi pasaway din naman yung Vietnam. Diyan na mismo nakalagay sa comment mo "the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, in addition to the mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority"

Pero ang sinasabi ko sayo at sasabihin ko ulit for the second time iba naman yung case natin, kasi tayo naipanalo natin yung maritime arbitration case pero sina kiniclaim lang nila. Tapos di ko naman sinasabi na makikipag barilan ang mga Pilipino sa WPS presence lang ang sinasabi ko hindi barilan! at lalong hindi giyera!
 
[XX='Ooooooooo, c: 1094163, m: 1757659'][/XX] kaya ang reply ko you wanted to talk about pala history so go ahead. I was only trying to help you with definitions and updates kasi mali kayo both. Pasensya napaka chismoso 😂
 
[XX='bananamilk, c: 1094204, m: 1464212'][/XX] Reevaluate mo nalang yung convo di ko na alam sayo :LOL: Di ka naman ata nag babasa ng reply.
 
[XX='Frustrated Burger, c: 1094180, m: 940265'][/XX] Pano mo naman nasabi? Pinag aagawan sa unang binanggit mo yung Paracel, yung sa sunod na pinaglabanan nila di naman na tungkol na dun, so ano connect? Saka nangyari yung sa Paracel 1974, yung Cambodian Vietnamese War 1978 at yung Sino-Vietnamese War 1979. Ang related yung Cambodian Vietnamese War at Sino Vietnamese War pero yung battle sa paracel wala yun kinalaman na doon kasi nga yung pinag aagawan nila dun yung Paracel Island.
 
Ang punto ko, hindi puwede makipag matigasan ang mga barko ng pilipinas dyan sa wps kasi pipitsugin lang tayo noon, eh ngaun na mayroon na tayong mga bagong barko tapos ang president ng u.s ay mahilig pa sa giera hala sige pede na tayo makipag matigasan dyan sa wps
 
[XX='Frustrated Burger, c: 1094236, m: 940265'][/XX] Di naman tayo makikipag tigasan doon kasi teritoryo natin yun, hindi gagalaw yung China kasi nga meron din tayo nung "U.S. has specifically stated any attack on Philippine vessels would trigger its Mutual Defense Treaty obligations." kaya di yan mag tatangka na gumalaw.
 
[XX='bananamilk, c: 1094245, m: 1464212'][/XX] Okay, next time alamin muna ang context ng usapan para di nag kakalituhan. Makakaalis kana 😅
 
[XX='Ooooooooo, c: 1094235, m: 1757659'][/XX] agawan parin sa mga isla ang isa sa naging dahilan ng gierang sino-vietnamese war totoy basahin mo ito

The reason cited for the attack was to support China's ally, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, in addition to the mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands which were claimed by China.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
 
[XX='Frustrated Burger, c: 1094253, m: 940265'][/XX] Nasagot ko na yan sa second page:

So ano pa nga ang pinupunto mo? nakakapagod kana kausap haha masyado mong iniistrech tong usapan na to, nagka gera nga sila kasi pasaway din naman yung Vietnam. Diyan na mismo nakalagay sa comment mo "the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, in addition to the mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority"

Pero ang sinasabi ko sayo at sasabihin ko ulit for the second time iba naman yung case natin, kasi tayo naipanalo natin yung maritime arbitration case pero sina kiniclaim lang nila. Tapos di ko naman sinasabi na makikipag barilan ang mga Pilipino sa WPS presence lang ang sinasabi ko hindi barilan! at lalong hindi giyera!
 
[XX='Ooooooooo, c: 1094252, m: 1757659'][/XX] side note mali ang application mo ng conflict vis-a-vis international armed conflict. Yun lang para mejo educated ng konti ang debate nyo byebye 🙋‍♂️.
 
[XX='bananamilk, c: 1094269, m: 1464212'][/XX]

Inuulit ko po walang mali doon kasi ito yung meaning ng conflict na minention ko sa taas

"A conflict is a clash of interest. The basis of conflict may vary but it is always a part of society. Basis of conflict may be personal, racial, class, caste, political and international. Conflict in groups often follows a specific course." plus to fight or contend; do battle., a striking together; collision. I'm talking about conflict in general.

To use it in a sentence, There was a conflict between China and Vietnam.

So ano yung mali doon?
 
Yon nga ang iniiwasan dyan noon sa wps, ang mag umpisa may magpaputok kapag inutos ni Duterte noon na pumuwesto kayo dyan sa wps bahala na kahit anong mangyari makipag matigasan kayo kahit pipitsugin lang navy natin kasi utos ng mga dilawan xD pumuwesto daw tayo dyan sa wps para mabastos lang ng mga surveillance ships ng china hahaha kagaya nangyari noon 2012 standoff ng brp gregorio del pilar na dinikitan lang ng dalawang chinese surveillance ships hindi na nakapalag hahahaha
 
[XX='Ooooooooo, c: 1094280, m: 1757659'][/XX] natutuwa ako mag reply sayo hahahahhahahahahaha.

"It's just a conflict NOT WAR!"

Anyways in the context of gyera, An armed conflict is a contested incompatibility that concerns government. and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in one calendar year. Eto connected sa gyera topic.

Then you used conflict not in war sense when you cited the dictionary meaning in the guise of general term sya. So yun lang mali ka in calling it conflict in the context of war and mali si burger in calling it war. 🤣
 
[XX='bananamilk, c: 1094292, m: 1464212'][/XX] Hays di ka ata talaga nag babasa ng reply sayo, sabi ko sa last reply ko "I'm talking about conflict in general." an armed conflict is a form of conflict, it still falls under conflict. Armed Conflict is more of a specific term. Maybe my statement was not precise enough for you, but its not wrong.
 
[XX='Ooooooooo, c: 1094303, m: 1757659'][/XX] "Pero hindi yan giyera, usapan giyera kasi sabi mo sa verge of war na tayo" It's just a conflict NOT WAR"

Eto kasi ang topic ng first post. Kaya ko din kayo naisipan icorrect na skirmish lang ang kailangan nyong dalawa. Not conflict not gyera. Sorry na wag ka magalit. 😂
 
[XX='Frustrated Burger, c: 1094290, m: 940265'][/XX] paps mali ka rin sa citation mo about vietnam. That's old history not applicable to us now.

Vietnam was a communist country without allies. No defense treaty with other countries pero since seasoned in war ang mga Vietnamese they're willing to die if bullied. Binully lumaban hence the blood bath. Tsaka d tayo pde maging aggressive kasi defensive nga ang mandato ng constitution natin so d tayo pwede lumaban talaga kahit binubully. Hindi yan dahil takot ang mga navy natin. We are a govt of laws 🤷‍♂️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About this Thread

  • 182
    Replies
  • 5K
    Views
  • 33
    Participants
Last reply from:
bananamilk

Trending Topics

Online now

Members online
376
Guests online
2,061
Total visitors
2,437

Forum statistics

Threads
2,271,652
Posts
28,937,074
Members
1,238,759
Latest member
shockck
Back
Top