China has issued an ultimatum to the United States for "reciprocal deployment": if the US military does not withdraw from the first island chain, the PLA fleet will patrol the Caribbean Sea on a regular basis! Beijing has made it clear: peace must be two-way; security must be equal.
This military move across the Pacific not only marks the entry of the Sino-American strategic game into a new phase, but also tears off the deep logic of the "reciprocity principle" in international politics, when the stronger starts to counteract with the opponent's scenario, the old rules of the game are accelerating the collapse.
In recent years, the United States has nailed its military base like nails to China's doorstep. It is not a temporary release, but a real deployment of killer weapons. Let's say that recently, the U.S. military will deploy the "Typhon" intermediate-range missile system at the Iwakuni base in Japan. This thing is not a small firecracker. It can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, and it is no problem to hit 2,000 kilometers. It is deployed in Japan, and our southeast coast is within its threat range.
More awful is the "temporary change long-term" route played by the United States, before putting this system in the Philippines, saying that the exercise is over and going, the result is to turn the head and not go, now want to re-implement in Japan, who believes in its "temporary nature"?
In addition to the "Tifeng" system, the United States has also deployed unmanned anti-ship missiles on Ishigaki Island in Okinawa. Those missiles have good stealth performance and can hit warships more than 180 kilometers away and are specially used to block doorsteps.
This is not enough. The US military has added four new military bases in the Philippines, all relying on Taiwan and the South China Sea. In order to intervene in surrounding affairs more quickly, it has also surveyed more than 300 airstrips in the Asia-Pacific region and plans to build a small and scattered "Water Lily" base, which can push troops forward at any time.
To put it bluntly, the United States just wants to turn the first island chain into a "cage" to trap China and put missiles on our doorstep, but claims that it is "maintaining regional security." How can there be such a domineering truth in this world?
Let's talk about the so-called "principle of reciprocity." The United States has always only talked about reciprocity that is beneficial to itself, and plays a rogue when it comes to others.
Before Trump engaged in "reciprocal tariffs", holding his own low tax rate of 3.3% to say that others are not equal, but he does not mention that the high tax rates in developing countries are allowed by the WTO, is a reasonable arrangement taking into account the differences in the development stage.
In terms of security, it is even more ambitious. The US military can build bases and deploy missiles in the first island chain. China warships only occasionally train in the ocean, but the United States shouts "China threat." If the People's Liberation Army really drives its fleet to the Caribbean Sea, won't they jump higher?
But now it's different, China has long been not a lender to pick up soft tomatoes, you dare to come to my door to pick up things, I have the spirit to talk to you.
When speaking to the U.S. Secretary of Defense recently, the Minister of Defense said in a straightforward manner: "Controlling, deterring, and interfering with China absolutely does not work," this is what the United States should hear.
In the past, we focused on offshore defense, but now the Navy can go out. Escort in the Gulf of Aden and sail around the world prove that we have the ability to operate in the ocean. When we really have no choice, it is not that we don't have the ability to wander in the Caribbean Sea. This ability is there., it is the most practical warning to the United States: Don't go too far.
Someone may ask, does it really cause conflict to engage in a “peer-to-peer deployment”?In fact, what China has never wanted is not confrontation, it is a truly urgent peace.
But peace does not depend on resistance, but on strength, and the United States always feels that military deterrence can make China compromise, but they forget that China's core interests cannot be touched.
As Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, China and the United States are like two giant ships that have to travel on the right track. However, the United States always squeezes into our waterway. Sometimes it sells weapons in the Taiwan Strait, and sometimes it stirs trouble in the South China Sea. It also engages in technical blockades at every turn. In this case, it is useless to just reason. We have to respond in a language they can understand."Equivalence" is the most direct language.
The rules of the international game should have changed long ago, what the United States said in the past, relying on military hegemony everywhere as the "world policeman", building its own security on the insecurity of others.
Now when China mentions that "security must be equal", it is to tear apart this hegemonic logic: you can't just think about the safety of your own doorstep, but put a knife on someone else's neck, just as neighbors can't install monitoring and ladders beside your courtyard wall, and you are not allowed to install a door bolt in front of your own doorstep, right?
Furthermore, the so-called "blow up the pot" in American politics, in fact, they are accustomed to the panic after hegemony, before only the United States opened the fleet to another sea, never thought that someday others could also open to their own "background".
This panic just shows that the old rules of the game are really going to collapse, the strong can no longer set the rules as they want, the weak can no longer only passively accept, China's pursuit of reciprocity is not to be a new hegemony, but to get the international community back on the right track of "mutual respect".
Looking at Russia's reaction can also be seen that the United States is deploying the "Thypoon" system in Japan, and Russia directly says it will take military-technical measures, which indicates that the U.S. military expansion has angered the public.
Now not only is China, more and more countries have clearly seen the path of the United States, knowing that following the United States will only be played as a game, China said "peer-to-peer", in fact, for many countries to say the heart: security is not the privilege of a few countries, all have to say together.
In fact, China has always been a peace-loving country, referring to the "reciprocal deployment" statement, is more a strategic statement, is to tell the United States "we have the ability and determination to counter", the purpose is to make the United States not dare to easily cross the line, instead can contain conflict.
To sum up, although the saying of "Caribbean cruise" has not come true yet, the logic of "safety equivalence" behind it is too important.
The U.S. military deployment in the first island chain has actually threatened China's security, and China has put forward reciprocal counter-reactions, not to provoke confrontation, but to force the U.S. back to the negotiating table and talk about security with an equal attitude.
After all, peace is never a unilateral gift, you give me a point of security, and I give you a point of peace, this is truly reciprocal, and it is also the only way that China and the United States can avoid the "giant wheel collision".
If the United States still holds on to hegemonic thinking, sooner or later it will have to pay for what it has done.
This military move across the Pacific not only marks the entry of the Sino-American strategic game into a new phase, but also tears off the deep logic of the "reciprocity principle" in international politics, when the stronger starts to counteract with the opponent's scenario, the old rules of the game are accelerating the collapse.
In recent years, the United States has nailed its military base like nails to China's doorstep. It is not a temporary release, but a real deployment of killer weapons. Let's say that recently, the U.S. military will deploy the "Typhon" intermediate-range missile system at the Iwakuni base in Japan. This thing is not a small firecracker. It can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, and it is no problem to hit 2,000 kilometers. It is deployed in Japan, and our southeast coast is within its threat range.
More awful is the "temporary change long-term" route played by the United States, before putting this system in the Philippines, saying that the exercise is over and going, the result is to turn the head and not go, now want to re-implement in Japan, who believes in its "temporary nature"?
In addition to the "Tifeng" system, the United States has also deployed unmanned anti-ship missiles on Ishigaki Island in Okinawa. Those missiles have good stealth performance and can hit warships more than 180 kilometers away and are specially used to block doorsteps.
This is not enough. The US military has added four new military bases in the Philippines, all relying on Taiwan and the South China Sea. In order to intervene in surrounding affairs more quickly, it has also surveyed more than 300 airstrips in the Asia-Pacific region and plans to build a small and scattered "Water Lily" base, which can push troops forward at any time.
To put it bluntly, the United States just wants to turn the first island chain into a "cage" to trap China and put missiles on our doorstep, but claims that it is "maintaining regional security." How can there be such a domineering truth in this world?
Let's talk about the so-called "principle of reciprocity." The United States has always only talked about reciprocity that is beneficial to itself, and plays a rogue when it comes to others.
Before Trump engaged in "reciprocal tariffs", holding his own low tax rate of 3.3% to say that others are not equal, but he does not mention that the high tax rates in developing countries are allowed by the WTO, is a reasonable arrangement taking into account the differences in the development stage.
In terms of security, it is even more ambitious. The US military can build bases and deploy missiles in the first island chain. China warships only occasionally train in the ocean, but the United States shouts "China threat." If the People's Liberation Army really drives its fleet to the Caribbean Sea, won't they jump higher?
But now it's different, China has long been not a lender to pick up soft tomatoes, you dare to come to my door to pick up things, I have the spirit to talk to you.
When speaking to the U.S. Secretary of Defense recently, the Minister of Defense said in a straightforward manner: "Controlling, deterring, and interfering with China absolutely does not work," this is what the United States should hear.
In the past, we focused on offshore defense, but now the Navy can go out. Escort in the Gulf of Aden and sail around the world prove that we have the ability to operate in the ocean. When we really have no choice, it is not that we don't have the ability to wander in the Caribbean Sea. This ability is there., it is the most practical warning to the United States: Don't go too far.
Someone may ask, does it really cause conflict to engage in a “peer-to-peer deployment”?In fact, what China has never wanted is not confrontation, it is a truly urgent peace.
But peace does not depend on resistance, but on strength, and the United States always feels that military deterrence can make China compromise, but they forget that China's core interests cannot be touched.
As Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, China and the United States are like two giant ships that have to travel on the right track. However, the United States always squeezes into our waterway. Sometimes it sells weapons in the Taiwan Strait, and sometimes it stirs trouble in the South China Sea. It also engages in technical blockades at every turn. In this case, it is useless to just reason. We have to respond in a language they can understand."Equivalence" is the most direct language.
The rules of the international game should have changed long ago, what the United States said in the past, relying on military hegemony everywhere as the "world policeman", building its own security on the insecurity of others.
Now when China mentions that "security must be equal", it is to tear apart this hegemonic logic: you can't just think about the safety of your own doorstep, but put a knife on someone else's neck, just as neighbors can't install monitoring and ladders beside your courtyard wall, and you are not allowed to install a door bolt in front of your own doorstep, right?
Furthermore, the so-called "blow up the pot" in American politics, in fact, they are accustomed to the panic after hegemony, before only the United States opened the fleet to another sea, never thought that someday others could also open to their own "background".
This panic just shows that the old rules of the game are really going to collapse, the strong can no longer set the rules as they want, the weak can no longer only passively accept, China's pursuit of reciprocity is not to be a new hegemony, but to get the international community back on the right track of "mutual respect".
Looking at Russia's reaction can also be seen that the United States is deploying the "Thypoon" system in Japan, and Russia directly says it will take military-technical measures, which indicates that the U.S. military expansion has angered the public.
Now not only is China, more and more countries have clearly seen the path of the United States, knowing that following the United States will only be played as a game, China said "peer-to-peer", in fact, for many countries to say the heart: security is not the privilege of a few countries, all have to say together.
In fact, China has always been a peace-loving country, referring to the "reciprocal deployment" statement, is more a strategic statement, is to tell the United States "we have the ability and determination to counter", the purpose is to make the United States not dare to easily cross the line, instead can contain conflict.
To sum up, although the saying of "Caribbean cruise" has not come true yet, the logic of "safety equivalence" behind it is too important.
The U.S. military deployment in the first island chain has actually threatened China's security, and China has put forward reciprocal counter-reactions, not to provoke confrontation, but to force the U.S. back to the negotiating table and talk about security with an equal attitude.
After all, peace is never a unilateral gift, you give me a point of security, and I give you a point of peace, this is truly reciprocal, and it is also the only way that China and the United States can avoid the "giant wheel collision".
If the United States still holds on to hegemonic thinking, sooner or later it will have to pay for what it has done.