The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has a goal to become a "world-class military" by the middle of this century, and it is using the United States military as a standard to measure its progress. This aim was explained in an official commentary in the People's Daily, which is a newspaper for the Communist Party.

The commentary stated that being "world-class" means meeting the highest global standards in many areas. This includes not only weapons and how the military is organized and fights, but also in military ideas, how soldiers are trained, and the quality of that training. China wants to be a leader in military competition and stay ahead in new developments.

To achieve this, the PLA needs to look at other countries' militaries, especially the strongest one, which is understood to be the U.S. military. By doing this, China aims to be on the same level as other major global powers and to be successful in international competition. This goal is part of China's ambition to match its status as a global power, protect its national security effectively, and have a strong presence internationally.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information in this article. It describes a goal of the People's Liberation Army but provides no steps or advice for a reader to take.

Educational Depth: The article offers some educational depth by explaining what "world-class military" entails for the PLA, including aspects beyond just weaponry, such as ideas, training, and organization. It also explains the rationale behind China's military development goals in the context of global power and national security. However, it does not delve into the specifics of *how* China is achieving these goals or the historical context of this ambition.

Personal Relevance: This article has very little direct personal relevance for a typical reader. While geopolitical shifts and military developments can indirectly affect individuals through economic or security implications, the information provided does not offer immediate practical impact on a person's daily life, finances, or safety.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function. It reports on a geopolitical development without offering warnings, safety advice, or tools for the public. It functions as a news report rather than a public service announcement.

Practicality of Advice: There is no advice or steps provided in the article, so its practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article touches on long-term geopolitical trends and military ambitions, which could have long-term impacts on global stability and international relations. However, it does not provide the reader with any actions or ideas to prepare for or influence these long-term impacts.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is purely informational and does not appear designed to evoke strong emotional responses. It does not aim to make readers feel stronger, calmer, or more hopeful, nor does it seem intended to cause fear or helplessness.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The language used in the article is factual and descriptive, not employing dramatic, scary, or shocking words to grab attention. It does not make unsubstantiated claims or repeat them excessively.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article could have provided greater value by offering resources for readers interested in learning more about military modernization, international relations, or defense policies. For instance, it could have suggested looking at reports from reputable defense think tanks, academic journals on international security, or official government defense publications from various countries. It missed an opportunity to guide readers on how to critically assess information about military developments.

The pursuit of military prowess, as outlined in the given text, presents a significant challenge to the fundamental bonds of kinship and the responsibilities that underpin the survival of families and communities.

The idea of emulating the military might of a distant power, in this case, the United States, creates a dynamic that shifts the focus and resources of a society away from its immediate needs and responsibilities. It encourages a reliance on external standards and a potential neglect of the unique duties that families and communities have to each other and to the land they inhabit.

When a society prioritizes military competition and global power status over local kinship bonds, it risks undermining the very foundations of its own survival. The protection of children and elders, which is a sacred duty within most human societies, may be compromised as resources are directed towards military endeavors. This shift can lead to a breakdown in the trust and responsibility that are essential for the care and well-being of the most vulnerable members of a community.

Furthermore, the pursuit of military strength often involves a level of secrecy and a culture of compartmentalization that can further erode community bonds. The natural duties of parents and extended family members to raise children and care for the elderly may be diminished as individuals are drawn into military structures that prioritize loyalty to the state over family ties.

The text also hints at a potential erosion of local authority and community power to maintain essential boundaries, such as those based on biological sex. This can increase confusion and risk within communities, especially when it comes to the protection of the vulnerable and the maintenance of modesty and privacy.

The consequences of unchecked acceptance of these ideas are dire. Without a strong foundation of kinship bonds and local responsibility, families may struggle to survive, and the continuity of the people and their stewardship of the land may be threatened. Birth rates could fall below replacement levels, and the care and protection of future generations would be compromised. Community trust would erode, and the land, which is the source of sustenance and identity for many peoples, would be at risk of neglect and misuse.

In conclusion, while the pursuit of military strength may seem impressive on a global scale, it can have devastating effects on the local level. It is essential to recognize that the survival and prosperity of a people are built upon the daily care and deeds of families and communities, not on abstract notions of global power or military might.

The text uses the phrase "world-class military" to describe the PLA's goal. This phrase suggests a high standard and implies that China is striving for excellence. It presents this goal in a neutral way, focusing on the ambition to meet global standards.

The text states that the PLA is using the "United States military as a standard to measure its progress." This shows a focus on comparison with a specific nation. It implies that the U.S. military is the benchmark for being "world-class."

The commentary mentions that China wants to be a "leader in military competition and stay ahead in new developments." This highlights a competitive aspect of China's military aims. It suggests a desire to be at the forefront of military advancements.

The text explains that the PLA needs to "look at other countries' militaries, especially the strongest one, which is understood to be the U.S. military." This reinforces the idea of the U.S. military as the primary point of reference. It frames the PLA's actions as a response to or in comparison with the U.S.

The text states that China's goal is "to match its status as a global power, protect its national security effectively, and have a strong presence internationally." This connects the military ambition to broader national objectives. It suggests that military strength is seen as essential for China's global standing and security.

The text expresses a sense of ambition and determination, particularly evident in the PLA's goal to become a "world-class military." This ambition is not overtly emotional in a personal sense, but rather a driving force behind the strategic actions described. The phrase "world-class" itself carries a weight of aspiration, suggesting a desire for excellence and leadership. This ambition serves to inspire action and convey a sense of purpose for the PLA, aiming to position China as a leading global power. The comparison to the U.S. military, described as the "strongest one," highlights a competitive spirit and a drive to measure up to the highest standards. This comparison is a persuasive tool, framing the PLA's development as a response to a perceived global hierarchy and a desire to ascend within it.

The writer uses words like "goal," "standard," "leader," and "ahead" to emphasize progress and achievement. These words are chosen to sound purposeful and forward-looking, rather than neutral. The repetition of the idea of becoming "world-class" reinforces the central theme and strengthens the message of China's military aspirations. By presenting this goal as a clear objective with defined areas of improvement, the text aims to build confidence in the PLA's strategic planning and its capacity for growth. The overall effect is to convey a message of strength and forward momentum, encouraging the reader to view China's military development as a significant and determined undertaking. The text doesn't aim to evoke sympathy or worry, but rather to inform about a strategic objective and the underlying drive for national advancement and security.