13. Sino-US military relations are easy to damage but difficult to establish

Report on China's military strength

Every year since 2000, the Pentagon has submitted an annual report to Congress on what it calls China's military strength. Most of the reports are published in March each year, but in 2010 they were delayed by five months. For this reason, five Republican senators wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Gates, asking why the report had not been released for a long time, and some US media reported on this matter with the headline "Gates, Congress has urged you to hand over China's homework."

In fact, the 2008 and 2009 reports were postponed, but in 2010 they were postponed for a longer time. I think the reasons for the postponement of the report in the past three years are almost the same, basically the United States is considering the evaluation of China, will it cause relatively large turmoil, will it cause some unnecessary trouble?

The "Report on China's Military Strength" has been changed from its name to "Report on China's Security Development." The main reason for this change is that the Obama administration is trying to embody some of his so-called New Deals, new understandings, new estimates, and new evaluations of China. But the obvious contradiction is that when the Pentagon concocted this report, the Cold War mentality could not be liberated. Therefore, although the name of the report has been changed, from "China's Military Strength Report" to "China's Security Development Report", in fact, the content has basically changed the soup but not the medicine.

As a result, the US administration has formed a very difficult problem and is trying to handle relations with China with a new way of thinking, but it has always found that the release of these important documents representing its own policy declarations is still the same as the Cold War mentality.

Therefore, this is an important reason for the postponement of the release, that is, how to adjust the content of the report, and adjust some of the tone to be more in line with the Obama administration's consideration of Sino-US relations, especially Sino-US military relations.

There is, of course, another reason. Because there have always been two versions of this report: an internal version and a public version. We can imagine that the main thing in the US adjustment is not its internal foundation, and there will be no major change in its internal evaluation of China. The main thing it wants to adjust is the open version, and how to adapt the open version to the trend of the new policy, this is its main consideration.

Therefore, from this point of view, the internal adjustment is basically unchanged, and the public adjustment is just a change in vocabulary, concepts, and expressions, and does not involve many substantive issues. But these changes in rhetoric and concepts are enough to keep Americans busy from March to August.

China is now being given the "treatment" of the "Report on China's Military Strength" every year, which was enjoyed only by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States initially thought that the world was unrivaled, and after a major adjustment from 1991 to 2000, it finally considered China to be an adversary.

In 2000, the US Department of Defense issued such a report on military strength in accordance with the requirements of Congress, which was a very obvious turning point. For one country to have the Ministry of Defense make a military assessment of another country, it is actually a search for this imaginary enemy.

If you look at it the other way, China has never published a "U.S. Military Power Report." We put everything on the table and don't stuff anything under the table. We don't assess what the opponent is developing, where the opponent's strengths are, where the opponent's weaknesses are. There are a lot of things that the United States is doing this. Of course, it has a premise, that is, the opponent. If it were not for the premise of the adversary, it would not have made such a report.

There are also quite a few sober people in the United States. Since the release of the "Report on China's Military Strength," many sober-minded people in the United States have expressed their views claiming that the United States must prevent the self-fulfillment of its prophecy.

The so-called self-fulfillment of prophecy is that you make such a country your opponent, then publish a report against it, make military deployments against it, and then win allies against it in an attempt to encircle it. And then, as Hillary Clinton said at the ASEAN meeting in Vietnam, the South China Sea is about the national interests of the United States. Including military exercises, which were conducted when the "Cheonan" incident had not yet been fully clarified, and part of the military exercises were aimed at China.

When you do that, when you take such measures, that person, for example, China, will definitely have to do something to defend their own security. So what's the final outcome? It's that you have to make an opponent, and in the end that opponent really becomes your opponent. This is the self-fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a very big problem facing the United States.

One of the most important aspects of our dealings with the United States is to demand that the United States stop publishing reports like this, which regard China as a strategic imaginary enemy. In any case, the US side has made some adjustments on the surface, adjusting the "Report on China's Military Strength" to the "Report on China's Security Development", and we believe that this is a gesture of goodwill.

The "Report on China's Military Strength" can be said to be a document full of political significance, which has always been affected by the overall situation of Sino-US relations. The Sino-US relationship presents a very complex situation, and we should look at the Sino-US relationship rationally, first of all, from the perspective of national interests.

If you look at it from the perspective of national interests, you will find that many of the actions of the United States are inevitable, and it is not an accident that it will inevitably do so. So we try to eliminate the sense of surprise, or rather, we hope it doesn't be like this, it is like this, and our frustration must also be eliminated.

Many Chinese think that we helped the United States a lot during the financial crisis, and in order to help it out of the crisis, we bought a large number of US Treasury bonds. We played a very active role in the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue; In dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, we also did what we could and did what we could. Why is it that the United States has not completely extricated itself from the financial crisis, but immediately sells arms to Taiwan, immediately meets the Dalai Lama, immediately forces the renminbi to appreciate, and immediately declares that the South China Sea is related to US national interests? It has also provoked Vietnam – not behind its backs, but openly antagonizing Vietnam, ASEAN and China.

Many of us were surprised, and many of us were frustrated. I don't think we should have such a sense of surprise and frustration in the future. Your surprises and frustrations come from having too high hopes for America.

In the future, we must take a sober and sober look at our own national interests, and you must believe that the United States will inevitably do such a thing in order to safeguard its interests. It is strange not to do it, but it is inevitable to do it.

How to effectively protect our interests is the top priority, not to complain that I have done so much to you, how can you not be interesting to me. This is not said in international politics. In international politics, we are talking about interests and strength. Only when the Chinese safeguard their own interests in a down-to-earth manner and build up the strength to safeguard their own interests in a down-to-earth manner will this be the only way out for us in the future.

Gates visits China

U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates' visit to China in 2011 was considered an ice-breaking trip to warm relations between the Chinese and U.S. militaries, as well as a "bottoming out" of U.S.-China relations.

In fact, Gates' visit is undoubtedly a small turning point in the history of Sino-US military relations. There is no doubt that this is a good thing for Sino-US military relations. Because two countries, two armies, must interact, must understand each other, reduce miscalculations, and do what international cooperation is possible at the larger international level.

For example, in the escort of the Gulf of Aden, although the two fleets of China and the United States did not cooperate substantively, they were still very effective in exchanging intelligence. The Chinese Navy successfully rescued and repelled some pirates, including some pirates who hijacked ships, and the information provided to us by the US Navy still played a certain role.

If we talk about confrontation between these two militaries, then the situation in the western Pacific, including the situation in East Asia, and of course the international security situation, will certainly bring great variables to the world, and if the two militaries can first carry out cooperation in some aspects, first in the field of non-war military operations and non-traditional security, and then gradually deepen cooperation, it will certainly be good news for the whole world.

We cannot expect that the relationship between the Chinese and US militaries will be smooth, including after Gates' visit, it will be very smooth, and we can see that the US arms sales to Taiwan are still going on. These factors that affect the relations between the two militaries still exist, and how to maintain contacts between the Chinese and US militaries in such an environment is undoubtedly a topic for us.

There are only a handful of foreign leaders who have visited the Second Artillery Command, especially leaders like the Secretary of Defense, which is a very high treatment given by the Chinese side to Gates. The US side, including Gates himself, is also satisfied with this arrangement, but it is also not satisfied.

He was satisfied that the Chinese side had given him a very high standard for his reception, including the military visit. Not satisfied, because this is not the first time - Rumsfeld was the first US Secretary of Defense to visit the Second Artillery Command, and he expected China to show him something that no national leader had ever seen.

In fact, we emphasize this point a lot, and we need to have reciprocal exchanges, that is, the US side should also show the Chinese what they are not willing to show the Chinese. It's a reciprocal relationship. From this point of view, at least the Chinese side has shown great sincerity and has done its best to meet the standards set by the US side.

During Gates' visit to China, the US side proposed that it hopes to establish a new mechanism called the Strategic Security Dialogue under the framework of the Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and hopes that the corresponding diplomatic and defense leaders of China and the United States will participate in this mechanism.

In fact, this proposal of the US side is not a very new thing, they have been mentioned before. This proposal by the US side is likely to be a response to some of China's proposals.

For example, the Chinese side has repeatedly pointed out that in view of the very arbitrary nature of the relations between the Chinese and US militaries, it is often arms sales to Taiwan that have seriously damaged Sino-US military relations. The Japanese commented that the Taiwan issue has kidnapped the relations between the Chinese and US militaries, and of course the word "kidnapping" is not very appropriate, because it was not kidnapped, and every time it sells arms to Taiwan, the United States takes the initiative, and of course the Taiwan side also makes demands.

Under such circumstances, the Chinese side has actually already put forward how to make the Chinese and US militaries tend to a normal relationship, rather than a relationship that will be unilaterally destroyed at will.

The Chinese side raised the issue of respecting mutual trust, reciprocity and reciprocity. Gates also mentioned it, and he also thought that there should be some principles in interactions, and he also mentioned respect and reciprocity, but he did not mention the most critical reciprocity.

From our point of view, we hope to establish a relatively normal mechanism in terms of relations between the Chinese and US militaries. Of course, judging from the demands put forward by the US side, it hopes that this mechanism will be expanded not only to military exchanges, but also to include some exchanges in the field of security.

Judging from purely military exchanges, the United States has set up more and more obstacles. The United States has a very important principle, that is, it cannot enhance the capabilities of the Chinese People's Liberation Army through military exchanges, so they are not allowed to see many tours, and many exchanges cannot be carried out.

From the point of view of the larger level of security, the scope of security will be larger, including the economic, cultural, information, and network, including the security of personnel exchanges. This is a reason why the US side wants to cover the ups and downs of the Sino-US military relationship in a larger scope.

During the Cold War, the two major military blocs headed by the United States and the Soviet Union were in an all-out confrontation and were incompatible. With NATO against the Warsaw Pact, the missiles and nuclear weapons of both sides are comprehensively aimed at each other, and I can destroy you as many times as you can destroy me.

China and the United States are completely different, and the trade volume between China and the United States is close to $400 billion, which is an astronomical figure, indicating an unprecedented deepening of economic ties between the two countries. We have not organized a military bloc to confront the United States, nor have we attempted to replace those things that the United States has led, and we have repeatedly stated that we are not prepared to drive the United States out of the Western Pacific, which is obviously what the Chinese side did and is different from the Soviet Union during the Cold War confrontation.

But we also have our own upholds in the process. The "Global Times" has an article saying that when Americans question China's military development, they should ask more questions about the Chinese, and China should ask rhetorically that the Americans are desperately strengthening their deployment in the western Pacific to achieve absolute superiority in the western Pacific. It means that Americans think that China's economic development is an eggshell that can be broken at any time, which is not okay.

At a time when the United States is desperately trying to build up its military power in the Western Pacific, we must maintain military exchanges between China and the United States under such circumstances, and we must also strike a balance to defend our security. We can't turn our security into an eggshell that Americans can break at any time.

In the military exchanges between China and the United States, Americans may also become more and more aware that China is strengthening its national defense capability not to compete with the United States, but to effectively defend its national security.

U.S.-China Security Dialogue

In May 2011, the third round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue was held in Washington, D.C., and the invitation to senior Chinese military representatives for the first time was a highlight compared to the previous two rounds. The Chinese side was represented by General Ma Xiaotian, Deputy Chief of General Staff of the People's Liberation Army, and the US side was represented by General Willard, Commander of the Pacific Command.

It is evident from the participating members of both sides that the interests of China and the United States are gradually expanding, or are obviously expanding, and of course, they may also be expanding the points of problems and contradictions. Although the two countries have completely different political systems, ideologies, and strategic pursuits, the two countries have formed close economic ties, and the trade volume between the two countries is nearly $400 billion. Internationally, the volume of trade between two sovereign states, unprecedented in the history of the world, is a very new situation.

The development of Sino-US relations, which used to be called the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, did not have a single word for "and". In fact, the word "and" is very particular and meaningful. In the past, the dialogue between China and the United States was only a dialogue on economic issues, that is, a dialogue on strategic issues in the economic field. After the financial crisis, China and the United States reached a consensus that it became a strategic and economic dialogue, not only on economic strategic issues, but also on strategic and economic issues. The difference between one word and one word is very large.

In the previous dialogue, the state councilors participated in the dialogue, but there were no military representatives, but the participation of Deputy Chief of General Staff Ma Xiaotian this time is a very big progress. He was the president of the National Defense University and participated in the Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue as a member of the delegation, which shows the comprehensive nature of Sino-US relations, not only economic, but also diplomatic, political, and military.

Sino-US military relations may be the most sensitive and vulnerable, and once something goes wrong, both sides can't help but take some measures to stop exchanges, and there is mutual distrust in the military, and it takes a long time for relations to be restored.

The military issue of the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue is mainly how to respect China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity. China does not want to coordinate its interests with the United States in Africa, the Pacific, the Americas, or Central Asia. As a superpower, the United States must maintain global freedom of action and control over all important resources and important passages in the world. China's pursuit of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and national dignity is a very big point of disagreement between the two sides.

The Americans are the most reluctant to talk about the Taiwan issue and the most reluctant to engage with it, but they are willing to talk about other issues. If China and the United States cannot understand and respect each other on the Taiwan issue, it will be very troublesome. Because Taiwan involves China's core interests, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory. In the face of such a sensitive and crucial issue, China's rulers will not hesitate. For the United States, Taiwan is thousands of miles away from the United States, as a pawn on the US strategic chessboard, and it is unwilling to give up and hopes that it will work. So, if we talk about the differences between China and the United States, that's the biggest problem.

If we fail to understand, recognize, and respect each other on this point, then Sino-US relations will be in great trouble. Because it will not only affect the military relations between China and the United States, but will also directly reflect the political relations and even the economic relations.

Jeffrey Bader, former director of Asian affairs at the White House National Security Council, believes that the Sino-US security dialogue is lower than the level of the United States and the Soviet Union in those years. In fact, his estimate itself is a bit too high.

Judging from the balance of forces between the two sides, the Chinese side has not reached the level of the Soviet Union in those years. At that time, the United States and the Soviet Union were basically evenly matched in terms of strategy and weapons, and the Soviet Union had more warheads than the United States, and the United States had more delivery vehicles than the Soviet Union. And at the level of strategic weapons, China is very far from the United States.

Compared with the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, China's strength lies in the economic exchanges between China and the United States. At that time, the United States and the Soviet Union were divided into independent political, military, and economic systems, and the two sides hardly interacted with each other, and the volume of economic and trade was very small. Today, trade between China and the United States is significant, with nearly $400 billion in transactions between the two countries. This is far beyond the reach of the Soviet Union.

Therefore, Sino-US relations have completely different characteristics from those of the past Soviet-American relations. If we analyze the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States in the past, we cannot effectively understand the relationship between China and the United States, and we cannot control this completely different relationship.

President Chen visited the United States

There are many contradictions in Sino-US military relations, which have led to the damage of Sino-US military relations first, and then to the damage of state-to-state relations. In fact, from the perspective of crisis management, both sides are discussing how to establish a new type of Sino-US military relationship -- that is, whether the two sides have a standard for cooperation, a standard for establishing a relationship, and a standard for identification.

As for China's question of mutual respect, cooperation and reciprocity, cooperation and reciprocity can be said, but as for mutual respect, the US side has always flashed back and is reluctant to admit it.

Mutual respect is a major obstacle to the new type of military relations between China and the United States. As far as China is concerned, mutual respect is inevitable in any state-to-state relationship. However, the US side believes that mutual respect is a country's respect for national strength.

For example, the commander of the US Pacific Headquarters visited China and asked the chief of the Chinese general staff to meet. For the Chinese side, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command is equivalent to the commander of one of China's theaters. The U.S. side considers the Pacific Headquarters to be on an equal footing with China's top military chief.

The United States regularly holds meetings of defense ministers and chiefs of general staff in the Pacific region at its Pacific headquarters, which are attended by many countries. In fact, this meeting was ridiculous, because a theater commander of the US military summoned the defense ministers or chiefs of general staff of the Pacific Rim countries in Hawaii to attend the meeting. Is this the mutual respect that China and the United States are talking about?

The respect of Americans is the respect for strength, and if there is not enough strength, it is difficult to respect each other. In May 2011, Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, visited the United States and proposed to establish a new type of Sino-US military relationship featuring mutual respect, cooperation and mutual benefit. By acquiescing to this suggestion, the US at least shows its reluctant acknowledgment of China's rising national power.

Among the seven PLA generals who accompanied General Chen Bingde on his visit to the United States, there were senior generals in charge of operations, intelligence, and foreign affairs at the General Headquarters and senior generals from the three major military regions and the four major branches of the armed forces. There are too many interpretations on the Internet about the eight senior generals on the Chinese side, including some media comments, saying that the selection of accompanying personnel is very important for the Chinese commander-in-chief to visit the country.

In fact, this is just a routine event, which is of great significance to the Chinese side, but it has limitations, and it does not mean that China-US relations will be turned upside down through this visit. President Chen's visit to the team is a routine choice. No matter who goes, there is a choice to complete, and there is no need to read too much into whether it represents an important meaning.

This is because Sino-US military relations will become politicized and normalized. Too much interpretation proves that it is an abnormal psychology. However, after all, Sino-US relations have been good and bad, and there have been many troubles. Therefore, to look at the visit of the Chinese general minister rationally after 7 years, the foreign media can't help but interpret too much.

China and the United States held their first Strategic Security Dialogue under the framework of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and achieved some results, such as the agreement between China and the United States to launch consultations on Asia-Pacific affairs. Some commentators say that the Sino-US dialogue has developed from being probing and quarreling to being constructive.

From temptation and quarrel to constructiveness, it is also necessary to deal with it calmly. Constructive is the same as quarreling, and there will also be quarrels between good friends, not to mention that the United States is so suspicious of China that quarrels are inevitable, and it is not that from quarrels to constructive, there will be no quarrels.

In the course of development, if the two sides have differences, they will be hostile and hostile to each other, and then antagonize each other, which will not be beneficial to China and the United States or even to the whole world. If you have a disagreement, you can sit down and talk about how to resolve it. However, sitting down does not mean that all problems can be solved, and those that cannot be solved are retained, but it is constructive to ensure continuous communication in the process and avoid misunderstandings.

By constructive, we mean not quarrelling. Constructiveness means that both sides recognize the problems and interests of both sides, and cannot look at the interests without breaking the problems or taking out the interests to look at the problems.

The United States has always called China's lack of military transparency an obstacle to the military development of China and the United States, and has demanded that China increase its military transparency. Not only the Americans have mentioned it, but many other countries have also mentioned it, and even some scholars in China have recognized it.

In fact, there are problems with military transparency in various countries, including the United States.

Is the United States completely transparent? During the 2006 Sino-US joint military exercise, when visiting the US ship, you could only look at the middle deck, the top deck and the designated floor, and it was forbidden to take pictures. Is this transparent?

So there is the problem of public opinion dominance, a bit like the Chinese talk about three people becoming tigers, one person said that the tiger is coming, two people say that the tiger is coming, no one believes it, three people say it believes. International public opinion is mainly in the hands of the West, and when one country says that China is not transparent, everyone is skeptical, and all three countries say it, so that others believe it, thinking that China is really opaque.

New style of Cold War: Air-Space Battle

In November 2011, the Pentagon unveiled a new combat concept that requires the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to prepare to defeat China's "anti-access/area-denial weapons," including Chinese anti-satellite weapons, cyber weapons, submarines, stealth aircraft, and long-range missiles capable of striking aircraft carriers.

Russia's "Viewpoint" newspaper believes that this US military plan to confront China is an imitation of the US method of confronting the Soviet Union during the Cold War, indicating that after the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military began to prepare to shift its military focus to China.

According to what the US side itself said, the air and sea operations proposed by the US military are aimed at China, and the Pentagon has made this very clear. The Washington Post quoted an Obama administration official as saying that "the idea of air-sea warfare is an important milestone in dealing with China in a new Cold War way."

This is not speculation from the Chinese people, or judgment from the Chinese government, this is a statement from the US official. We cannot take this lightly and must be highly vigilant.

While we are pursuing a win-win situation for both sides, the Americans are doing a win-win thing, and the Americans want to build a military force that hopes to destroy China. The air-sea operations mentioned by the United States are mainly aimed at limiting the threat posed by China's ballistic missiles to the US Navy when the US Navy is relatively close to China.

Where is the threat of Chinese ballistic missiles to the US Navy? Are we going to threaten Pearl Harbor in Hawaii? Apparently not! Are we going to threaten the U.S. military cruising in the Indian Ocean, cruising in the Pacific, or cruising in the Atlantic? Neither is it! We're just going to keep our own doorstep safe.

I don't think there is a more hegemonic statement in the world than the United States has brought its own armed forces to other people's doorsteps and said that other people's defensive actions threaten its own security.

Just like a person, if you want to break into someone's yard, of course the neighbor has to take countermeasures. In this case, you say that the countermeasures of your neighbors pose a threat to you, where is the threat? On someone's doorstep.

The United States said that China has anti-access and so-called area interdiction capabilities, and that the Chinese People's Liberation Army should pursue such a strategy, which was imposed on China by the United States. It's a very ridiculous thing, and the Americans are a lot like Don Quixote, wrestling with an invisible devil who imagines it if in fact there is no such devil.

This argument has been put forward by the United States for 10 years, 20 days after the "9/11" incident, saying that the Chinese People's Liberation Army will adopt a so-called anti-zone blocking strategy. Ten years later, the United States launched an air-sea war against China, which was a gesture that the Americans were clearly calling for a cold war.

The United States claims that its doctrine of naval and air warfare stems from concerns about China's new precision strikes, saying that China's capabilities threaten freedom of navigation in strategic shipping lanes and other international waters.

The freedom of navigation that the United States refers to is the freedom of action that the United States has in the whole world, as stipulated by its core national interests, and this freedom of action means that no one can pose any threat to us.

On the other hand, the United States wants to ensure control over the world's major waterways and waterways. For example, the US Navy has announced that it will ensure control over 16 important waterways in the world, including the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean, including the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, and the Panama Canal.

This freedom is the freedom of the American family. Freedom comes from limitations, a person is like a country, if a person wants to do whatever he wants in society, this is the greatest realization of his personal freedom, then he affects the freedom of many other people.

The freedom of a single country that the United States pursues means sacrificing others, and others will have to make corresponding sacrifices.

The 11 U.S. aircraft carrier squadrons are cruising around the world, and no country or force has ever prevented the passage of U.S. Navy and merchant ships anywhere, and at best, Somali pirates are causing trouble there. And in fact, Somali pirates are still very selective in causing trouble, and generally do not mess with American ships very much. The United States' freedom of global navigation has not been affected in any way.

In this case, the United States suddenly broke out that freedom of navigation in the South China Sea was affected, saying that it would be affected, according to the Chinese, this is purely a bone in the egg, to prepare for the next deployment of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region, and at the same time use this reason to make a "reasonable" explanation for the so-called naval and air operations of the United States - you see that my freedom of navigation has been affected, so I must increase investment, build more bases, and patrol intensively in the western Pacific or in a certain region to ensure my freedom. This is entirely a trend in the United States in international politics to transform the politics of class struggle into a military one.

Meeting between Chinese and US defense ministers

To establish a new type of military-to-military relationship between China and the United States is to break the mindset of "great power confrontation" and abandon the unilateralist tendency of the Cold War era to establish military alliances and enhance one's own security without regard for the security of the other side. China and the United States want to establish a new type of military relationship, and without this, it will be difficult for others to do it.

In May 2012, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and China and the United States reached a consensus on military exchanges. First, the "consensus" mentions the need for "mutual respect, mutual benefit and win-win results" and the development of healthy, stable, and reliable relations between the two militaries. Second, the two sides visit each other to reduce differences; Third, exchanges and cooperation in humanitarian assistance, disaster reduction, and military archives; Fourth, China and the United States will participate in exercises, mainly on humanitarian relief and disaster reduction, anti-piracy, and other such projects.

It should be said that it is better to have consensus than not to have "consensus".

On the point of "mutual respect, mutual benefit and win-win results," the United States' insistence on "arms sales to Taiwan" is obviously a sign of disrespect to China. A series of actions, including the dispatch of military planes and warships by the United States to conduct close reconnaissance along China's coastal areas, are not conducive to achieving a situation of "mutual respect, mutual benefit, and win-win results."

Judging from the consensus reached between China and the United States and the content of exchanges, in fact, the Chinese side still wants to carry out a comprehensive military exchange with the United States, but the United States has retreated on some exchange projects, narrowed the scope of exchanges, and limited the content of exchanges. The United States mainly focuses on exchanges and cooperation in the fields of humanitarian relief, disaster reduction, military archives, environmental protection, teaching, culture and sports, rather than in-depth military exchanges in other military fields, such as military exercises in which the militaries of both sides participate.

Although the joint exercise between China and the United States has attracted a lot of attention, the content of this joint exercise is humanitarian relief, disaster reduction, anti-piracy, and so on, and the cooperation between the two militaries is still limited to some superficial exchanges rather than in-depth ones.

As can be seen from these contents, cooperation and exchange are still "rudimentary".

Moreover, it is this "primary" exchange, and whether the US side can abide by it or not is not an easy matter in itself. Therefore, reaching such a preliminary consensus is binding on both sides and is a goal to strive for, not a reality.

If we think that a consensus has been reached, the two sides will have complete mutual respect and mutual benefit, which is just an ideal.

Of course, communication is better than no communication, and communication is better than no communication. However, it is also very difficult to resolve many military problems between China and the United States at once through such exchanges as the Chinese defense minister's first visit to the United States in nine years and the visit of the US defense secretary to China. For example, the most crucial issue is the issue of arms sales to Taiwan.

It is very important for China and the United States to meet and shake hands, but even if they do not meet and do not shake hands, through some actions, they can make a relatively calm judgment on the direction of their relations. Of course, it was a very important event that we had met and visited the territory. However, it is not appropriate to make it very big, as if there is going to be some major change in the relationship between the two sides, and there is no such possibility.