LOYAL AG said:

---

Oklahomaagg said:

---

China can go around Indonesia and through other straits in the Archiipelago. It will add time but not significantly.
Moreover, having defense ties with us doesn't preclude Indonesia from letting China go through Malacca correct? And I'm sure there are a large number of international treaties as well. So this is well and good but not exactly having Xi's balls in a jar.

---

This alone doesn't put his balls in a jar but this isn't the only thing we've done that directly impacts Chinas global standing in general and their access to oil specifically. Everything we've seen since January 1 has had a significant negative impact on them. Removing Maduro cut off a significant source of oil and eventual regime change in Iran will do the same for an even bigger source. Changing their access to the busiest strait in their own backyard is just the latest move in this effort to rein them in.

These moves are reminding China who runs the world and reminding them that it's in their best interest to stay in their lane and do things the way we want them done. This year is a "don't **** with a good thing" and a "leave Taiwan alone" statement. A bunch of us have said for years there will be no kinetic war with China because we'll blockade their oil and food shipments which will end their ability to fight. This specific move increases our ability to do just that.

---

You have to also look at this through the lens of China. In China "face" is everything and they cannot stand to be humbled. That's why they have been talking like Taiwan is just a small rebellious province that is actually China for the last 3/4 of a Century. China isn't going to overtly admit how important Malacca is to them and that they can't stand the US having this level of control over it but they absolutely see the power move, and more importantly they respect it. They respect power and especially if it can be wielded with a velvet glove that allows them to save "face".

That's why Trump has Xi's "balls in a jar" as they are going into a meeting in a few weeks. Xi can't afford to look weak or that he capitulated to Trump but he knows he doesn't have leverage. We have shown our hard power is far stronger than theirs and we have essentially dismantled decades of work for China in Venezuela, Iran, and Indonesia among others and now Japan is led by the most anti Chinese leader in a very long time. So they will make deals on terms favorable to us to avoid us humiliating them and overtly showing Xi to be weak. It's just a matter of what terms we choose to ask for. to make Xi avoid that humiliation. My guess is it will have to do with trade and monetary policy primarily.

Malacca isn't the entire ballgame for China but it's a big chip in the game. This isn't quite the same as if China was running military operations in the Panama Canal and able to overtly establish control would be for us but it's not far from it. The difference here is China can't do anything to stop us while we kicked them to the curb.

I'll refer us back again to the recent coup against Xi that he was able to sniff out. Reportedly, his lieutenants launched it because he hasn't been aggressive enough in their eyes and due to political losses like this. Xi ended up killing all of them aside from one the last time I checked.

They are a mess.

Urban Ag said:

---

I have a little personal insight on this. This is an amazing move by the Trump administration and many years in the making.

Anyone else starting to see the planning here? The dominos are falling globally all to the benefit of the US and those that stand with us. None of this is not by design.

We are positioning ourselves globally for economic and security dominance. We are nurturing relationships with nations that will be more valuable in the future than so many of our aging alliances that offer us little and less. Which may, hopefully, force them to offer more. America's future is much more tied to Asia and Latin American than the old world. They offer of us little and expect everything.

---

Wait a minute. Haven't you heard Drump is a Liberal?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Simpletons rage while Trump continues to squeeze our international foes by putting them in a box.

He's the most serious foreign policy president we've had in decades, whether you agree with his moves or not.

---

But he is an isolationist!

chiphijason said:

---

China just wants to extract minerals and sell their cheap goods in Africa. You can easily do that by dealing with whatever guy controls the guns. Buy him off. China is not trying to fix anyone. They are just using the 19th century colonial playbook that was used on them.

---

Right but that's a very different thing than owning or controlling Africa. China can bribe or steal from whomever is in charge of this country or that but they can get kicked out just as fast. There is no loyalty or concrete agreement that has enforcement ability there so the only way to have control is to colonize like Europe did for so long. China isn't capable of that so it's a house of sand that can fall down very quickly and China will have little recourse. It's not like they can invade Africa and seize control anywhere realistically.

That's a nuisance and a minor problem but not a significant one from a US perspective. Oh, and guess which narrow body of water China has to ship that material from Africa through is.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

These moves are reminding China who runs the world and reminding them that it's in their best interest to stay in their lane and do things the way we want them done.

---

I don't know. Hu Jintao raised this issue back in 2003, and China supposedly has been building pretty big workarounds ever since. A lot of the Belt and Road initiative projects were building high volume alternatives to the strait.

Singapore, Malaysia, India, and all the other folks needed to truly pin down Chinese oil transit have little appetite to fully jump in bed with the U.S. on this issue at the expense of a pissed off, militarized, and nuclear capable neighbor.

This feels like optics more than anything.

---

First, Belt & Road hasn't accomplished much despite huge expenditures. Second, moving cargo over land by rail is roughly 10x the cost of moving the same cargo by water. All other forms of transportation are significantly more expensive than rail. Belt & Road makes trade a lot more expensive than the U.S. protected oceans. Third, China isn't capable of importing enough oil via Belt & Road infrastructure to go without the oil they currently import by sea.

This is far more than optics. This is positioning us to remove their ability to keep the light on, never mind wage a war. It's not the entire puzzle but it's a significant piece.

---

Belt and Road is more about appearances and a jobs program than it is a practical initiative to reshape trade. It sounds good until you realize just how many flaws exist in it and how fragile it is. It's the perfect encapsulation of how China operates honestly.

aggie93 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

These moves are reminding China who runs the world and reminding them that it's in their best interest to stay in their lane and do things the way we want them done.

---

I don't know. Hu Jintao raised this issue back in 2003, and China supposedly has been building pretty big workarounds ever since. A lot of the Belt and Road initiative projects were building high volume alternatives to the strait.

Singapore, Malaysia, India, and all the other folks needed to truly pin down Chinese oil transit have little appetite to fully jump in bed with the U.S. on this issue at the expense of a pissed off, militarized, and nuclear capable neighbor.

This feels like optics more than anything.

---

First, Belt & Road hasn't accomplished much despite huge expenditures. Second, moving cargo over land by rail is roughly 10x the cost of moving the same cargo by water. All other forms of transportation are significantly more expensive than rail. Belt & Road makes trade a lot more expensive than the U.S. protected oceans. Third, China isn't capable of importing enough oil via Belt & Road infrastructure to go without the oil they currently import by sea.

This is far more than optics. This is positioning us to remove their ability to keep the light on, never mind wage a war. It's not the entire puzzle but it's a significant piece.

---

Belt and Road is more about appearances and a jobs program than it is a practical initiative to reshape trade. It sounds good until you realize just how many flaws exist in it and how fragile it is. It's the perfect encapsulation of how China operates honestly.

---

That's probably a good framing of it. It's a job program more than a serious effort to improve delivery of goods with trading partners.

Reading up on Belt and Road in the past and lot of the infrastructure they've built in other countries is already falling apart.

Sadly, the next Dem president will 180 degrees reverse every good thing done by Trump, including without limitation going back to fellating Iran.

Democrat presidents can't do it because they're trying to destroy America.

YouBet said:

---

Reading up on Belt and Road in the past and lot of the infrastructure they've built in other countries is already falling apart.

---

What? You mean a supply chain that goes through Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey might have some issues? Aren't all those nice and stable partners who are anxious to cooperate with China long term and trust them? I'm shocked. I mean on a map they can just draw a cool looking line and go build some stuff and I'm sure it will be well maintained and secure. Oh, and all the shipping requires India to cooperate and sending it all through the Strait of Malacca while having Kenya as a major hub. Africans are so well known for maintaining equipment and infrastructure.

I mean how could there be any problems with that?

When you say "we" (US) along with Indonesia now "control" the strait, could you be more specific? What "control" did we gain from this?

edit to add: and at what cost to us?

Logos Stick said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

I do edit is islands. Why couldn't they just go around?

---

Drinking this early?

---

Ha! Auto correct on a cell phone.

Trump gets the credit, but there's simply no way this was his idea.

Sorry, I just don't get it yet. Need more details. The S'pore strait is a much tighter bottleneck. I've personally crossed this strait many times and the US is already best buds with both S'pore and Malaysia. So, what does Indonesia have to offer militarily that isn't already avialable (or could be) from Malaysia or Singapore?

Quote:

---

Sorry, I just don't get it yet. Need more details. The S'pore strait is a much tighter bottleneck. I've personally crossed this strait many times and the US is already best buds with both S'pore and Malaysia. So, what does Indonesia have to offer militarily that isn't already avialable (or could be) from Malaysia or Singapore?

---

None of this...we are putting balls in jars.

benchmark said:

---

Sorry, I just don't get it yet. Need more details. The S'pore strait is a much tighter bottleneck. I've personally crossed this strait many times and the US is already best buds with both S'pore and Malaysia. So, what does Indonesia have to offer militarily that isn't already avialable (or could be) from Malaysia or Singapore?

---

It gives us control of both sides of the Strait plus the bottleneck. If you can't see the value in Indonesia essentially shifting from a neutral country to a US ally when it comes to Asia I don't know what to tell you. This happened because of tariffs and various economic pressure. China has always had a fundamental issue of being trapped by the island chains surrounding it and the Malacca Strait is the most critical for them. If Indonesia decided to buddy up with Beijing instead of the US that would make it immensely more difficult for us to control the Strait and the region in general. It's a hell of a power move.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, I just don't get it yet. Need more details. The S'pore strait is a much tighter bottleneck. I've personally crossed this strait many times and the US is already best buds with both S'pore and Malaysia. So, what does Indonesia have to offer militarily that isn't already avialable (or could be) from Malaysia or Singapore?

---

None of this...we are putting balls in jars.

---

So you don't think having this level of control over the Malacca Strait gives us a significant strategic advantage we can use as leverage in the upcoming meetings with China? K. So if China had the same level of control over the Panama Canal that would be no big deal for us either I suppose. To a country like China where face is everything this is devastating and puts them in a very weak negotiating position.

benchmark said:

---

Sorry, I just don't get it yet. Need more details. The S'pore strait is a much tighter bottleneck. I've personally crossed this strait many times and the US is already best buds with both S'pore and Malaysia. So, what does Indonesia have to offer militarily that isn't already avialable (or could be) from Malaysia or Singapore?

---

Quote:

---

The MDCP features three foundational pillars implemented based on mutual respect and national sovereignty:

(1) Military modernization and capacity building;
(2) Training and professional military education; and
(3) Exercises and operational cooperation.

Under the MDCP framework, the United States and Indonesia will explore mutually agreed cutting-edge initiatives, including co-developing sophisticated asymmetric capabilities pioneering next-generation defense technologies in the maritime, subsurface, and autonomous systems domains, and cooperating on maintenance, repair, and overhaul support to improve operational readiness.

As a symbol of this elevated partnership, and reflective of the deep trust between their nations, both leaders have also committed to enhance joint special forces training. These engagements will advance mutual security interests and forge even stronger, more resilient bonds between American and Indonesian service members through expanded opportunities in premier professional military education and the establishment of defense alumni ties.

---

Looks to me like it's an educational and logistics agreement though it also accords a large amount of symbolic weight to US authority in the region.

aggie93 said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Sorry, I just don't get it yet. Need more details. The S'pore strait is a much tighter bottleneck. I've personally crossed this strait many times and the US is already best buds with both S'pore and Malaysia. So, what does Indonesia have to offer militarily that isn't already avialable (or could be) from Malaysia or Singapore?

---

It gives us control of both sides of the Strait plus the bottleneck. If you can't see the value in Indonesia essentially shifting from a neutral country to a US ally when it comes to Asia I don't know what to tell you. This happened because of tariffs and various economic pressure. China has always had a fundamental issue of being trapped by the island chains surrounding it and the Malacca Strait is the most critical for them. If Indonesia decided to buddy up with Beijing instead of the US that would make it immensely more difficult for us to control the Strait and the region in general. It's a hell of a power move.

---

Well, if you say so. But it's not like China said; "oh my gosh, I never saw that coming." Whatever "that" is which is still unexplained.

Maybe this is a way for Indonesia to capitalize at a higher cost it oil supply to China avoiding the Straits.

benchmark said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Sorry, I just don't get it yet. Need more details. The S'pore strait is a much tighter bottleneck. I've personally crossed this strait many times and the US is already best buds with both S'pore and Malaysia. So, what does Indonesia have to offer militarily that isn't already avialable (or could be) from Malaysia or Singapore?

---

It gives us control of both sides of the Strait plus the bottleneck. If you can't see the value in Indonesia essentially shifting from a neutral country to a US ally when it comes to Asia I don't know what to tell you. This happened because of tariffs and various economic pressure. China has always had a fundamental issue of being trapped by the island chains surrounding it and the Malacca Strait is the most critical for them. If Indonesia decided to buddy up with Beijing instead of the US that would make it immensely more difficult for us to control the Strait and the region in general. It's a hell of a power move.

---

Well, if you say so. But it's not like China said; "oh my gosh, I never saw that coming." Whatever "that" is which is still unexplained.

---

Let's see what happens with China supporting Iran and interfering in the Western Hemisphere and with trade and with Taiwan. Not rhetoric but actions. China will never come out and say anything that will openly admit defeat or weakness, that isn't how things work in their culture. As I said it is all about face. China cannot openly admit defeat or submission to the US but they will do it in practice.

Not sure how you don't think "that" hasn't been explained. It's as close to China signing an agreement with Panama to be the military protectors of the canal. In reality it might be even more important to them. Losing the Panama Canal would be a problem for the US but it wouldn't be devastating. Losing Malacca would destroy China.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Trump gets the credit, but there's simply no way this was his idea.

---

And? An effective leader sets a vision then looks to his team to bring him ideas and the team figures out which ones are worth pursuing and in what order. It's becoming very clear Trump 1.0 had a plan to reduce Iran's ability to support terrorism. See the Abraham Accords which were also probably not his idea.

It's become equally clear Trump 2.0 has a plan to reduce China's overall influence in the world. That the Strait of Malacca specifically wasn't his idea seems like the smallest, most irrelevant observation of this entire sequence of events that has dominated this year so far. It reads like copium. Just give credit where credit is due. If the left would do that every once in a while with him TDS wouldn't be such a frequent meme.

The actions taken the past 15 months have changed geopolitics for the next generation at least. It's extremely clear there's a plan here to position the U.S. as the dominant player on the world stage for the foreseeable future. We've been asleep at the wheel since the wall fell with every president being less engaged than his predecessor and the result was a feeling of "managed decline" of the U.S. based world order. BRICS became a real talking point as a rival economic block and a return to a bi-polar world seemed likely and perhaps even inevitable. Now? That seems extremely unlikely.

Just give credit where credit is due.

Quote:

---

Trump may not have been the origin of this particular move, but he damn sure is the source for the overall strategy to diminish China and upend the world order to benefit the U.S. and the western hemisphere. He deserves the credit.

---

The U.S. has had differing China containment strategies going back to the outbreak of the Cold War. Trump's current approach is just a different chapter in the same very long book.

His is of course distinct in that he prefers direct and very loud confrontation but the end goals are not really any different.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump may not have been the origin of this particular move, but he damn sure is the source for the overall strategy to diminish China and upend the world order to benefit the U.S. and the western hemisphere. He deserves the credit.

---

The U.S. has had differing China containment strategies going back to the outbreak of the Cold War. Trump's current approach is just a different chapter in the same very long book.

His is of course distinct in that he prefers direct and very loud confrontation but the end goals are not really any different.

---

Depends on when you are anchoring the start of the Cold War because Nixon opened up China which was the opposite of containment. And then Clinton gave them our technology.

On that note, I think any prior containment strategies are irrelevant since they didn't work, and Trump is the first POTUS to affect real containment change here.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump may not have been the origin of this particular move, but he damn sure is the source for the overall strategy to diminish China and upend the world order to benefit the U.S. and the western hemisphere. He deserves the credit.

---

The U.S. has had differing China containment strategies going back to the outbreak of the Cold War. Trump's current approach is just a different chapter in the same very long book.

His is of course distinct in that he prefers direct and very loud confrontation but the end goals are not really any different.

---

And how many of those strategies got executed on anything as bold as what Trump has been doing?

Honestly, the lengths people will go to criticize Trump. On one end you have TACO, and then on the other end you have "yeah he's doing all this stuff but doesn't deserve credit." It's pretty comical to watch really.

American Hardwood said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump may not have been the origin of this particular move, but he damn sure is the source for the overall strategy to diminish China and upend the world order to benefit the U.S. and the western hemisphere. He deserves the credit.

---

The U.S. has had differing China containment strategies going back to the outbreak of the Cold War. Trump's current approach is just a different chapter in the same very long book.

His is of course distinct in that he prefers direct and very loud confrontation but the end goals are not really any different.

---

And how many of those strategies got executed on anything as bold as what Trump has been doing?

Honestly, the lengths people will go to criticize Trump. On one end you have TACO, and then on the other end you have "yeah he's doing all this stuff but doesn't deserve credit." It's pretty comical to watch really.

---

Yeah, I just don't get why folks can't give him credit when it's due. I've knocked the guy numerous times lately. He's done some dumb ****, but we haven't had a POTUS do more on pro-America foreign policy since Reagan won the Cold War.

Urban Ag said:

---

I have a little personal insight on this. This is an amazing move by the Trump administration and many years in the making.

Anyone else starting to see the planning here? The dominos are falling globally all to the benefit of the US and those that stand with us. None of this is not by design.

We are positioning ourselves globally for economic and security dominance. We are nurturing relationships with nations that will be more valuable in the future than so many of our aging alliances that offer us little and less. Which may, hopefully, force them to offer more. America's future is much more tied to Asia and Latin American than the old world. They offer of us little and expect everything.

---

There's a reason Greenland is mentioned as much as it is. As water temperatures continue to rise, they are going to control some very important shipping lanes as well.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Trump gets the credit, but there's simply no way this was his idea.

---

He may not have worked out the details, but diminishing Chinese influence (and others not aligned with America) and returning the U.S. to global dominance has been at the core of his international policy.

He also hired the person or group that did come up with this idea. He catches plenty of flak for his bad hires, he should also get the credit for the good ones.