China’s ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’ has ‘demonstrably failed’

ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre's Professor John Blaxland says China’s “wolf warrior diplomacy” has “demonstrably failed”.

“Looking at the intense side of the equation, the rhetoric has been incredibly adversarial, we’ve been talked about being squashed under shoes,” he told Sky News host Catherine McGregor.

“All sorts of really threatening language has been used about lobbing missiles at us ... and the 14 demands going back a while but it’s blown back on China.

“The bottom line is it hasn’t been effective and there seems to have been a little bit of a ratcheting back on the wolf warrior diplomacy lately because it’s demonstrably failed.

“It is the reason why the Quad works. The Quad works because India, Japan, Australia and the United States are all thinking if we don’t band together, this is going to come to haunt us.”

[VaucluseVanguard]

This bloke was really good. Very well informed and clear in outlining the problem. The bloke with the beard was good too.

[johngodden]

The greatest vulnerability for Australia is fuel. We only have a few weeks reserves. Almost all our refined fuel comes via Singapore which would stop overnight if hostilities began with China.

[翠始皇]

It's not wolf warrior, it's mad dog. 🤣🤣🤣

[blackknight]

I love the fact Australia is taking defence seriously not 4 me but for my kids

[iainscott]

I dont feel pessimistic when i see your posts Catherine - what a really great program - excellent

[markjackson]

It's all about deterrence, if cant present a ferocious deterrence then we are ripe for the picking

[lindakeays]

THAT IS A MAN! SO OBNOXIOUS FOR HIM TO PRETEND TO BE A WOMAN AND FOR SKY NEWS TO HAVE HIM ON. DISTRACTING.

[linmal]

Excellent interview, Catherine with a level headed analyst giving a measured response ! Thankyou both !

[australianwoman]

I'm glad to see Australia hardening policy that prevents the Trade of Goods made by prisoners of conscience & other minorities being held in work camps. These people are used as a source of income & for the forced organ harvest trade.

[johnpatrick]

The glass half full guys have to be careful not to depend on fantasy.

I'm a glass-half-empty guy. I work on refilling it before getting empty. I am also a hope for the best but plan for the worst kind of guy. I am also a Murphy's law kind of guy - anything that can go wrong at the worse possible time will go wrong. Very rarely caught off guard.

[M.F.V]

Here's a good strategy;

Teach 15 million Australians how to be a marksman, and what asymmetric warfare is.

[TheKkpop]

Oz core value is on the decline. I wish all the man can stand up for Christianity.

[pgstdb]

Sun Tzu on the Art of War states: when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive. China seems to be doing the exact opposite now.

[sophrapsune]

What we’re seeing here is the interview of an ex-army officer by an ex-air force officer!
McGregor always has great interviews, much appreciated.

[mbk]

The voice of Catherine will scare China

[rumpelstiltskin]

i agree with Catherine build long range missiles

[kcharles]

Mostly agree with Catherine, but if the Air/Sea gap is breached, which is a possibility, we are going to need a lot more than 59 Abrams!

[sa-svredemption]

Bravo Prof. Blaxland. The issue with Mr Sheridan was that he has the Maginot Line mindset, exactly! A capable and diverse Defence Force is what is needed. Just because we didn't use something against an insurgency (Taliban, Al Qaeda, Viet Cong, etc) doesn't mean we won't use such materials. Indeed, one of the other main reasons France fell in 1940 was the fact that their Armoured units were very much structured and designed around the lines of WWI style tank warfare, not the Panzer style of Blitzkreig. China has a similar strategic outlay - it is not building only the systems we have been using recently. It is investing heavily in a variety of weapons and resources for military purposes. Indeed, it might be worth thinking of future Indo-Pacific warfare as being a modernised version of the 1941-1945 Pacific War - Australia had no tanks then, either. Most were in North Africa, and when the Japanese attacked, they used light tanks (that the tanks in North Africa would have been able to take on easily), but a complete lack of tank and little artillery support in Malaya and other theatres meant that Australia and the Allies were heavily on the defensive, with very little they could do about it. China would no doubt have taken note of that lesson, even if we seem to have forgotten.

As to remote systems, while they are good, we seem to have forgotten that Cyber Warfare and (while not yet fully employed) Electronic Warfare would quickly render remote systems useless. Even if they don't hack a system, all they need to do is deny the network (satellite, radio, etc) and there is no remote system to use. That has always been the limitation of remote systems, especially in the last few decades, as a network denied environment becomes more realistic for the modern battlefield. A review of recent engagements in Ukraine shows that that is the reality on the ground - indeed, the Ukrainian battlefields presently show very interesting and telling stories about what contemporary and future battlefields might look like. So while investment in remote systems is essential (they have undeniable value when they have network support), relying on them is incredibly stupid and short sighted. A DDoS to their host, or jamming of their communication circuits would quickly render such systems as more of a liability than an asset, and as such, other assets (such as armoured units) could well be the key to future tactical and strategic success.

[simplelifelost]

Great point about the BRI being needed because of the Andaman Nicobar choke point.

[charttrakarn]

Counting India, that must be a joke!
Aussies have so much imagination, even an imaginary with China.