Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Xi has repeatedly stated that "reunification" must be fulfilled, by force if necessary. People are talking about it because Xi is unhappy with the Status Quo, and we rightfully worry that he will invade to get his will.
China supported Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which share a lot of similarities to a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan. This shows that China doesn't think an invasion of Taiwan is morally unjust.
And if you think it will only happen if Taiwan declare independence, which Taiwan won't do, then why are you spending your time arguing that the USA won't dare to defend Taiwan and that a US naval blockade will be destroyed with long-range misses. Sure, it can be interesting to theorize about scenarios you think will never happen, but if you find it that interesting then why are you refusing to provide more details. My feeling is that deep down, you know China could invade even if Taiwan doesn't declare independence, just like Russia invaded Ukraine even though it didn't join NATO.
Yep, I think at this point, pretty much everyone understands that China's support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine was quite deliberate, and for a few express pursposes:
- a dry run to see how the war would play out. They, like most people, assumed the Russians would steamroll Ukraine in a few days, maybe a few weeks at most. They would look at what tactics worked, how the Russians brought the civilian population in line, etc, and react accordingly.
- gauged the reaction of the rest of the world. Although they viewed the West as limp-wristed and unlikely or unable to push back in any meaningful way, this let Russia take the brunt of any global outrage, and lets them try to better prepare themselves for any future invasion of Taiwan.
- set a precedence for the international community accepting a conflict and national expansion. If the 2022 invasion was a cakewalk, and by 2023 Russia was still trading with the rest of the world and everyone had moved on, it would mean they could expect a similarly lackadaisical response.
Of course, none of this went at all the way wither Russia or China expected, and that's largely because of their political and military systems, which prohibit truthful info from getting to the leaders who will ultimately decide whether to go to war or not. Both believed wholeheartedly in Russia's unstoppable military might, and it turned out that rampant graft and nepotism had left the Russian military laughably ill-prepared for a war. Of course, this has caused Xi to look at things differently, but I have a feeling it's not so much in the "maybe it's not a good idea to go to war" way, so much as an "I need to further consolidate my power in the military and make it even stronger" way.
Ultimately, whether a war starts or not will come down to Xi's wishes - not because Taiwan declares independence, not because of American involvement. Neither Taiwan nor the US is angling for a fight. There's certainly a chance that all the military posturing and restructuring is for any combination of his ego, China's projection of power and prestige abroad, and trying to stimulate a state-run military industrial complex for economic purposes, when the rest of the economy is flagging. But, I do worry that the more he views himself as supreme commander of an ever-growing military, the more he views "forceful reunification" as the correct option.
I think that most of the international pro-China crowd, you've got two main camps:
1. The ones who support China for Sinocentric ideological reasons, i.e., a belief in the superiority of the Chinese system, culture, ethnicity, etc., and believe that China's rightful place is at the center of the world. The folks are (in my experience) more likely to be national or ethnic Chinese or Asians who view the West with distaste and feel an affinity towards China. These people are more likely to react to the Taiwan situation with the attitude that the Taiwanese deserve reunification by force for their insolence. The use of reunification as a punishment, and deriving some joy from the idea that it would make the people there suffer, is the same as what we saw with HK.
The irony, to me, is that this kind of implicitly proves that the way the CCP rules and the quality of life under them is inferior to what is enjoyed elsewhere in the Sinosphere - it's less, "we are trying to improve your quality of life and offer you a better life," and more "you think you're better than other Chinese people? Well then, let's see how you enjoy living like the rest of us!"
2. The ones who mainly support China out of a dislike of *shuffles cards* the US, the West, the EU, NATO, white people, capitalism, neoliberalism... less an actual love for China itself, so much as a dislike for any combination of the above, and desire to see the current international order and status quo crumble. They see China as the force most likely to dismantle the status quo. These folks are more likely to be non-Asian, living in either the West, or in a less economically prosperous country, or one that has suffered due to the legacy of colonialism or more recent wars. There's also an intersection between the far right and far left here, with both ultimately wanting to see a collapse of the current order for wildly divergent reasons.
These folks are generally less overtly punitive in mindset, and sincerely believe that the fall of the [insert cards] will usher in a better world for everyone. They place 100% of the responsibility for any war, death, or suffering that happens squarely on the shoulders of [insert cards] and view any hypothetical conflict as the result of generations of oppression being undone.
Both are ultimately similar in that they place the blame for any conflict on the world outside of China, whether it's because the US/et al or China attacks first. Although for different reasons, both view the current situation as an example of ongoing Western aggression, and any Chinese action now as a justified reaction to this.
Interesting, your point number 2 probably describes a good chunk of the non-Western world. You got to admit, it's hard to not blame the U.S. for most of the world issues, when they seem to be a major party in almost every conflict. Just look at the recent events in Niger. I guess I would fall into camp 2, though not fully. It's difficult to pin anyone down into one camp entirely. I'm not naïve to believe that if the U.S. goes away the world would become a better place. I understand history. For certain countries it would be a good. For other countries it would be bad. For most, it wouldn't make a difference and life would carry on as usual. At the end of day I believe in balance. A powerful U.S. and powerful China, or powerful any other country can coexist, so long as there is mutual respect for each.
Last edited by Ice_Major; 08-17-2023 at 06:10 PM..
Yep, I think at this point, pretty much everyone understands that China's support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine was quite deliberate, and for a few express pursposes:
- a dry run to see how the war would play out. They, like most people, assumed the Russians would steamroll Ukraine in a few days, maybe a few weeks at most. They would look at what tactics worked, how the Russians brought the civilian population in line, etc, and react accordingly.
- gauged the reaction of the rest of the world. Although they viewed the West as limp-wristed and unlikely or unable to push back in any meaningful way, this let Russia take the brunt of any global outrage, and lets them try to better prepare themselves for any future invasion of Taiwan.
- set a precedence for the international community accepting a conflict and national expansion. If the 2022 invasion was a cakewalk, and by 2023 Russia was still trading with the rest of the world and everyone had moved on, it would mean they could expect a similarly lackadaisical response.
Of course, none of this went at all the way wither Russia or China expected, and that's largely because of their political and military systems, which prohibit truthful info from getting to the leaders who will ultimately decide whether to go to war or not. Both believed wholeheartedly in Russia's unstoppable military might, and it turned out that rampant graft and nepotism had left the Russian military laughably ill-prepared for a war. Of course, this has caused Xi to look at things differently, but I have a feeling it's not so much in the "maybe it's not a good idea to go to war" way, so much as an "I need to further consolidate my power in the military and make it even stronger" way.
Ultimately, whether a war starts or not will come down to Xi's wishes - not because Taiwan declares independence, not because of American involvement. Neither Taiwan nor the US is angling for a fight. There's certainly a chance that all the military posturing and restructuring is for any combination of his ego, China's projection of power and prestige abroad, and trying to stimulate a state-run military industrial complex for economic purposes, when the rest of the economy is flagging. But, I do worry that the more he views himself as supreme commander of an ever-growing military, the more he views "forceful reunification" as the correct option.
And how do you know this? You guys that swear you understand what China wanted in a situation are hysterical.
If China does invade Taiwan, I am sure the "pro China" crowd will say "Taiwan deserves it" and make up reasons.
Among possible reasons are:
How dare Taiwan provoke China! This can as simple as diplomatic visits with the U.S.
Taiwanese want there freedom (just like the people in Hong Kong). This can not be tolerated by China CCP.
Taiwan continues refuse to be controlled by China
Xi needs a "diversion" from the anger of people in China due to high unemployment, flood, real estate collapse economically
I said this about Ukraine. The world is run off might not international law. Any nation state or quasi state must make decisions in consideration of its powerful neighbors. The issue with Taiwan has existed for decades now. All parties know the stake, so if any moves to change the status quo (this includes Taiwan) results in negative outcome, they can't sit back and say the are the helpless victim.
And how do you know this? You guys that swear you understand what China wanted in a situation are hysterical.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out. I guess if your fundamental understanding of the situation is terribly off base, it may come across as "hysterical."
It doesn't take a genius to figure out. I guess if your fundamental understanding of the situation is terribly off base, it may come across as "hysterical."
I welcome your insightful rebuttal.
You didn't figure anything out, you made assumptions. I wouldn't have had any problem with your statement if you would have used the phrases “it appears, or its likely, or based upon my understanding, or simply I think, etc.” When you say "Xi thought Russia would win easily or the CCP wanted Russia to win, or the CCP supports Russia," t you're implying you some firsthand knowledge. You are not part of the CCP. You are not part of Xi's inner circle. Your assumptions are merely your opinion, stop trying to pass them off as facts.
You asked for my analysis, why not I have some time. If you look at the CCP controlled China historical record regarding their neighbors, it is clear. If a foreign power attempts to subjugate (invade) one of its neighbor, then China becomes involved. This is what occurred in N. Korea and Vietnam. Russia attacked Ukraine and not the other way around, so it seems logical to conclude, China doesn’t have a stance, and will instead choose (no different than most other countries) to exploit the situation to their benefit. Now if NATO forces move into Russia and attempt to overthrow the government (which isn’t going to happen), then China would likely enter the conflict. The recent secret document leak, shows the U.S. believes this to be the case as well.
You didn't figure anything out, you made assumptions. I wouldn't have had any problem with your statement if you would have used the phrases “it appears, or its likely, or based upon my understanding, or simply I think, etc.” When you say "Xi thought Russia would win easily or the CCP wanted Russia to win, or the CCP supports Russia," t you're implying you some firsthand knowledge. You are not part of the CCP. You are not part of Xi's inner circle. Your assumptions are merely your opinion, stop trying to pass them off as facts.
You are also making assumptions. The main difference between him and you, is that your assumptions have been proven wrong.
For instance, you wrote "Parking ships off the coast of hostile country particularly one with modern rockets and ships is a receipt for disaster."
But no one said they are going to park ships off the coast of hostile country, it was just a bad assumption you made. After it was pointed out, then you just moved on to something else.
You didn't figure anything out, you made assumptions. I wouldn't have had any problem with your statement if you would have used the phrases “it appears, or its likely, or based upon my understanding, or simply I think, etc.”
dude
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Yep, I think at this point, pretty much everyone understands that China's support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine was quite deliberate, and for a few express pursposes:
I did exactly that, you just don't like what I'm saying. My formatting is fine, I'm not going to alter it to prevent you from not wanting to have to consider what I'm writing. You've done this before, expecting people to meet specific criteria, most of which are quite arbitrary, before you'll consider what they say. You're free to expect whatever you want, but don't expect anyone to care about it, especially if they have a salient point to make.
Quote:
When you say "Xi thought Russia would win easily or the CCP wanted Russia to win, or the CCP supports Russia," t you're implying you some firsthand knowledge. You are not part of the CCP. You are not part of Xi's inner circle. Your assumptions are merely your opinion, stop trying to pass them off as facts.
When dealing with a totally opaque system, everything - including supportive beliefs - are going to be some degree of conjecture or extrapolation. Unless we have access to the tapes in the room and pore over them in their entirety, any analysis is going involve some of this. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous and an attenpt to deflect and set arbitrary goalposts to meet.
Quote:
You asked for my analysis, why not I have some time. If you look at the CCP controlled China historical record regarding their neighbors, it is clear. If a foreign power attempts to subjugate (invade) one of its neighbor, then China becomes involved. This is what occurred in N. Korea and Vietnam. Russia attacked Ukraine and not the other way around, so it seems logical to conclude, China doesn’t have a stance, and will instead choose (no different than most other countries) to exploit the situation to their benefit.
The italicized is nonsensical.
Because China hasn't done something before, they can't have a position on it? I find that extremely difficult to believe. Furthermore, China did attack a foreign neighbor, Vietnam, which it previously had alignment and geopolitical and cultural links to, for not acquiescing to its demands and actually using its newfound independence to be independent.. And, China got spanked.l, quickly, and pulled back. It follows logic that China would indeed believe that there is a valid precedent for invading a neighbor for your own ends; also, Xi and Putin have staked a huge amount of their cult of personality on the mythos of great historical empires which were lost, and their inalienable rights to reclaim the territory that comprised those past empires. That is one of the core elements of the way the Taiwan issue is presented to the domestic audience.
If China knew that the Ukraine invasion was going to be a quagmire which would push Europe further away, cause a hard rift between the BRICS bloc and the broader US-led order, further complicating the paths to its goals, then I imagine their opposition to it would have been greater: China's main concern is itself, as it would be with any nation, and allying with an aggressor in a failed military misadventure doesn't usually lead to positive outcomes (ask any of the US' allies, post Iraq).
So, the belief that China wouldn't have a stance on the matter falls somewhere between senselessly naive, or wilfully obtuse.
I agree that China is choosing to exploit the situation, and that any other nation would do the same.
No it's just as ambiguous as ever. They are just posturing to sound tough. I don't disagree with your premise that it doesn't matter who is at the helm, the response will be the same, but it's not because of TSMC chips. The world can move on from TSMC. I mean Russia was apparently chocked off from advanced chips, yet are are still able to make advanced weapons. Neoconservatives have infiltrated both parties and they have their tools to persuade leaders of each party to act in a manner that is in line with their ideology. There ideology is one of constant war to preserve existing hegemony. While politicians may be eager to be the toughest on China, neither party would want to be the ones in charge if military action goes bad. The Republican party was decimated by the failures of the Iraq war.
LOL @ the idea that any politician in the US thinks more than 1 move ahead. Everyone with half a brain knew the fallout from Iraq would be disasterous for the party that took the US into that war.
And that fear sure stopped ol' Gee-Dubya.
If you don't think any overt moves against Taiwan aren't going to have both sides of the US congress, presidency, future presidential hopefuls, bitter losers, everyone and their grandmother clambering over each other screaming for war, you are in for a bit of a shock.
62% of the public supported the second misadventure in Iraq with pretty much no provocation or justification, and the polling numbers went higher once the mobilization was underway.
79% supported the first (US) gulf war after the invasion of Kuwait--and the public had been propagandized to LIKE Saddam for the previous decade.
Given the current anti-China sentiment in the US, the public support for the defense of Taiwan will run so high that even politicians with the brains to worry about the consequences will have no choice but to vote for war.
Since the odds are clearly in favor of Taiwan successfully defending itself with US and allied help, any politician that stands by while the island falls to Communist aggression will be lucky to stay in office until the next voting cycle. It's really a foregone conclusion.
LOL @ the idea that any politician in the US thinks more than 1 move ahead. Everyone with half a brain knew the fallout from Iraq would be disasterous for the party that took the US into that war.
And that fear sure stopped ol' Gee-Dubya.
If you don't think any overt moves against Taiwan aren't going to have both sides of the US congress, presidency, future presidential hopefuls, bitter losers, everyone and their grandmother clambering over each other screaming for war, you are in for a bit of a shock.
62% of the public supported the second misadventure in Iraq with pretty much no provocation or justification, and the polling numbers went higher once the mobilization was underway.
79% supported the first (US) gulf war after the invasion of Kuwait--and the public had been propagandized to LIKE Saddam for the previous decade.
Given the current anti-China sentiment in the US, the public support for the defense of Taiwan will run so high that even politicians with the brains to worry about the consequences will have no choice but to vote for war.
Since the odds are clearly in favor of Taiwan successfully defending itself with US and allied help, any politician that stands by while the island falls to Communist aggression will be lucky to stay in office until the next voting cycle. It's really a foregone conclusion.
I don't see how the odds are in Taiwan's favor. Let's look at the examples of nations who received military aid and training and how they faired against the adversary the U.S. was equipping or training them against.
South Vietnam (no longer exist)
Afghanistan puppet government (fled the country)
S. Korea (couldn't hold back the North and needed direct Western support
Saudi Arabia against the Houthi rebels (achieved nothing and the Houthi basically won)
The Ukraine War (been able to hold the line thus far, but can't make any further in roads)
And so on and so, Notice the trend here. Why you can be so certain of the odds overwhelming being in Taiwan’s favor baffles me. I guess just simple delusion.
You are right about one thing; Americans are a gullible bunch and support at the beginning of wars is usually quite high. Our media is not as independent as they portray and will encourage the war mongering in the beginning as usual becoming a tool of the state. That support soon wanes once the true cost is understood and/or the body bags start to come home. The powers that be resort to their usual tactics to prolong the conflict, but eventual defeat follows. Come to think of it, while the public may be against China, the only way Taiwan will last is for the U.S. to send personnel. That is something I can't see happening. Military enlistment will drop like a rock, and a form of panic will set in. Americans while gullible aren't dumb and understand the ramifications of directly fighting a nuclear power, which has never happened in our history. Taiwan isn't worth it. That may hurt some people feelings but it’s the truth. Unless China directly attacks the U.S. or one of the Anglo or Western European countries, no country is worth it. It is what it is. Lastly politicians care about power the most at the end of the day. If things start to go bad, enough of them will turn. Look at how all those Democrats supported the Iraq invasion; however, as soon as it became political profitable they switch positions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
