Beware of Threat Deflation With Chinese Characteristics

Udumbara Udumbara
Jan 29, 2025 - 11:05 Updated: Jan 28, 2025 - 20:45
0
Beware of Threat Deflation With Chinese Characteristics

.

Threat deflation is intended to facilitate China engagement.

Commentary

Threat deflation, as it relates to communist China, is the evil stepson of engagement. Engagement with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) developed after President Richard Nixon “opened China” in 1972.

In the five decades since then, massive foreign commercial and financial investments in China have led to its spectacular economic growth, which has fueled a commensurate modernization and expansion of the capabilities and force structure of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). China is now the second-largest economy in the world, while its navy is one of the largest maritime forces in the globe.

To shield these and other aggressive actions by the PLA from public scrutiny and criticism, the CCP has long employed a psychological information warfare tactic called “threat deflation” to convince foreign decision-makers to ignore the astonishing growth of the PLA and its increasing employment in “intimidation operations” around the world in favor of continued China engagement, such as in the form of foreign direct investments and free trade.

Threat deflation with Chinese characteristics involves a conscious effort to downplay and minimize the capabilities of the PLA while maximizing perceived shortfalls and limitations. Examples abound:

“In overestimating China’s comprehensive power, the U.S. risks misallocating resources and attention,” writes Dan Murphy, executive director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, in an op-ed published by The Conversation.
.
“Does China really have the capability to support major, extended high-intensity combat operations over considerable periods of time—especially in the face of what could be major aligned resistance and counterforces?” writes Miguel Alejandro Laborde, an expert on defense aviation programs, in an op-ed published by Real Clear Defense.
“Part of the case for a less-militant China is that it is not traditionally a warrior society,” according to The Washington Times.
.
“Concluding that China’s ongoing nuclear force transformation is far more rational, purposeful, and goal-directed… does not imply that the United States must respond to it with a frenetic nuclear expansion of its own,” Foreign Affairs reported.
.
“The threat from Chinese overseas military bases is overblown,” according to The Diplomat.
Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, “downplayed the notion” that China’s largest-ever air operation in Taiwan’s air defense identification zone “is a precursor to an imminent invasion, saying that she did not think China has changed its military intentions toward what Beijing regards as a renegade province,” Breaking Defense reported.
.

Concluding Thoughts

The CCP has run a threat deflation psyop against the United States for decades. Its purpose is to lull U.S. policymakers to sleep while the PLA rapidly modernizes and ultimately eclipses the capabilities of the U.S. military in all ways. For years, a cottage industry of “China engagement schoolers” has undermined U.S. vigilance with respect to the Chinese strategic threat in favor of promoting business and commercial interests.

Threat deflation has been dutifully amplified and reinforced by the legacy media. This is the other key element of the CCP’s psyop: the complicity of the establishment press in amplifying the threat deflation message.

China shows no sign of relinquishing its stated goal of world domination at the expense of the United States. On the contrary, the PLA continues to deploy new and improved capabilities that could eventually deliver military superiority to the communists and the attendant ability to intimidate other countries in ways the likes of which the world has never before seen.

Beware the CCP threat deflation psyop!

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

.

Read More