Taiwan to Deploy ‘Bee Eye’ Radars Near Chinese Mainland(thedefensepost.com)
thedefensepost.com
Taiwan to Deploy ‘Bee Eye’ Radars Near Chinese Mainland
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/06/10/taiwan-bee-eye-radars-china/
150 comments
Wikipedia has a great map [0] and 1960s context [1] on Quemoy and Matsu.
Broadly speaking, the ROC controlled them, the CCP attempted to seize them [2] in the 1950s, and the US threatened involvement (including nuclear). Then everyone settled down to just lobbing artillery at each other.
In modern times, they're more of a symbol than an asset, in that if the CCP made moves to seize them, the US would assume an invasion of Taiwan was imminent, and bad things would ensure for everyone.
Consequently, the CCP has no real reason to care about them until they're also willing to invade the main island of Taiwan.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Na...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsu_Islands#Republic_of_Ch...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis
Broadly speaking, the ROC controlled them, the CCP attempted to seize them [2] in the 1950s, and the US threatened involvement (including nuclear). Then everyone settled down to just lobbing artillery at each other.
In modern times, they're more of a symbol than an asset, in that if the CCP made moves to seize them, the US would assume an invasion of Taiwan was imminent, and bad things would ensure for everyone.
Consequently, the CCP has no real reason to care about them until they're also willing to invade the main island of Taiwan.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Na...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsu_Islands#Republic_of_Ch...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis
I heard that conscripts used to draw straws to see who would get deployed to those islands because of the chance of artillery landing.
Wow, thanks for this! I had absolutely no idea either.
Oh wow, I only thought they had one island.
This video by polymatter is one of best at explaining the china Taiwan relation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2LiMTtGrAY
Deployed within 2 minutes of host of PRC ordnance. This is the kind of expensive platforms US doesn't want TW to pursue because it's a money sink relative to insurgent porcupine capabilties - to the point of vetoing TW military purchase decisions that doesn't contribute to US vision/strategy for TW - one where TW fight like insurgents and get droned to dust. At the end of the day, it's about domestic politics, expensive high tech platforms provides politicians photo ops of a modern military that might have a chance to ignorant voters vs adopting strategy to convincing constituents to get slaughtered like Taliban. Ergo TW continusouly developing mid/high tier indigenous platforms while seeking to import other flashy weapons that won't survive the first hours of a cross-strait air campaign.
Personally, Taiwan's most important mission now is to continue maintain TSMC's superiority over either China and US in advanced Chip manufacturing.
Once TSMC lost that advantage, either side of China and US are going to put Taiwan in a much lower significance in the consideration of their own duel of power.
The one being treated the worst is always the one who is inconsequential. The bad guys are never target of so-called justice...
Once TSMC lost that advantage, either side of China and US are going to put Taiwan in a much lower significance in the consideration of their own duel of power.
The one being treated the worst is always the one who is inconsequential. The bad guys are never target of so-called justice...
Short, interesting article (from a tech standpoint). A bit more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS/MPQ-90_Bee_Eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Sword_II
I've gotta admit though, the political comments here, esp. regarding Ukraine/Russia, were even more interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS/MPQ-90_Bee_Eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Sword_II
I've gotta admit though, the political comments here, esp. regarding Ukraine/Russia, were even more interesting.
Unfortunately, China will likely attack Taiwan unless Russia is humiliated.
That is a fundamental misreading of China's relationship with Taiwan and China's intentions. China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible. China's policy on Taiwan has not changed for decades.
The height of military tensions were in the late 50s, when China and Taiwan were shelling each other. In later decades, they still sometimes deliberately shelled each other as a statement to others that the China-Taiwan issue is a domestic Chinese issue. Nowadays neither side has unleashed a shot for well over 30 years.
The US has maintained the One China Policy for decades as well. Officially they haven't changed the policy, but unofficially they are trying to change it into a "Taiwan Independence Policy" without admitting that they are. This is where a lot of recent US-China tensions come from, especially on the military side.
Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
The height of military tensions were in the late 50s, when China and Taiwan were shelling each other. In later decades, they still sometimes deliberately shelled each other as a statement to others that the China-Taiwan issue is a domestic Chinese issue. Nowadays neither side has unleashed a shot for well over 30 years.
The US has maintained the One China Policy for decades as well. Officially they haven't changed the policy, but unofficially they are trying to change it into a "Taiwan Independence Policy" without admitting that they are. This is where a lot of recent US-China tensions come from, especially on the military side.
Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
What about what they did in Hong Kong? They changed the rules once, what stops them from doing it again? History clearly means nothing.
Deviations in agreements is not a thing exclusive to China. Agreements in international politics are made for a purpose. Perhaps to keep peace, or to protect some interest, etc. If the situation changes such that that purpose can no longer be served — especially if that purpose is an extremely important core interest — then any country will seek to deviate from agreed upon behavior.
For example, the US clearly agreed on the One China Policy but they are now changing it. Because the US no longer values the original purpose that the One China Policy served.
So the question "will China renegade on its agreement or not?" is best answered with another question: "What is China's core interest? What purpose does an agreement serve to China?"
It is unfortunately here where big misreadings happen. Popular western understand of China says that China does things because they are "authoritarian", "expansionist", "power hungry", etc. But a true analysis of China's interest would show that one of China's core interests is territorial integrity, defined largely by the territory it had inherited from the Qing empire in 1911, and the Republic of China in 1949. China's policy on territorial integrity has not changed since 1949.
We may not always agree with China's interests. Maybe they conflict with ours. But properly understanding those interests will at the end of the day surely yield better outcomes than misreading China with stereotypes.
For example, the US clearly agreed on the One China Policy but they are now changing it. Because the US no longer values the original purpose that the One China Policy served.
So the question "will China renegade on its agreement or not?" is best answered with another question: "What is China's core interest? What purpose does an agreement serve to China?"
It is unfortunately here where big misreadings happen. Popular western understand of China says that China does things because they are "authoritarian", "expansionist", "power hungry", etc. But a true analysis of China's interest would show that one of China's core interests is territorial integrity, defined largely by the territory it had inherited from the Qing empire in 1911, and the Republic of China in 1949. China's policy on territorial integrity has not changed since 1949.
We may not always agree with China's interests. Maybe they conflict with ours. But properly understanding those interests will at the end of the day surely yield better outcomes than misreading China with stereotypes.
The key difference is that we're talking about a gang of insurgents here, who have been extraordinarily lucky in getting to grab most of the pie, and holding on to it for as long as they have. Most insurgents are lucky if they get a small slice, and still have to accept being treated as second-class citizens in international relations. The PRC having more than most others can only dream of, and still not being satisfied is absolutely being power-hungry and expansionist.
And talking about inheriting territory, let's not forget that the Republic of China still very much exists.
And talking about inheriting territory, let's not forget that the Republic of China still very much exists.
The thing is that China defines the border territories around it as it wishes, and those definitions change over time to suit its current desires. So that turns out not to be an adequate description of why it behaves to protect its 'core interests'.
Today the Chinese govt, aka Xi and the CCP seem to be working to become the most powerful country through trying to weaken democratic governments, along with this comes increasing threatening military actions. The world is in a dangerous 10 year period as China's power increases to a maximum, dictator Xi is in charge, and pressure will increase on them as their population starts to shrink along with an increasing retired population compared to the number of workers.
This is all separate from my belief that China should be able to be free to make their own choices about their own country, they just can invade and destroy everyone else to get their own way. I feel great sadness for the Chinese people being subject to a horrible central government (yeah, they've also moved millions of people out of poverty and improved their lives, but they still ended up with a country that like the USSR now won't let people leave freely, holds foreign citizens hostile, and also records college lectures so they can see if profs talk about impure thoughts).
Today the Chinese govt, aka Xi and the CCP seem to be working to become the most powerful country through trying to weaken democratic governments, along with this comes increasing threatening military actions. The world is in a dangerous 10 year period as China's power increases to a maximum, dictator Xi is in charge, and pressure will increase on them as their population starts to shrink along with an increasing retired population compared to the number of workers.
This is all separate from my belief that China should be able to be free to make their own choices about their own country, they just can invade and destroy everyone else to get their own way. I feel great sadness for the Chinese people being subject to a horrible central government (yeah, they've also moved millions of people out of poverty and improved their lives, but they still ended up with a country that like the USSR now won't let people leave freely, holds foreign citizens hostile, and also records college lectures so they can see if profs talk about impure thoughts).
> The thing is that China defines the border territories around it as it wishes, and those definitions change over time to suit its current desires.
This is false. All of today's claims existed back in 1949 when the PRC inherited claims from the ROC. In fact the PRC today claims fewer territories than 1949 because they've given up some territory as part of diplomatic deals.
This is false. All of today's claims existed back in 1949 when the PRC inherited claims from the ROC. In fact the PRC today claims fewer territories than 1949 because they've given up some territory as part of diplomatic deals.
The US policy was more nuanced than you suggest. The US never agreed to One China, the US just said it wouldn't challenge it. This is the exact text of it in the 1972 Shanghai Communique.
the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position.
the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position.
I will agree that the One China Policy issue is more nuanced than that. But we should also recognize that the Sino-British Joint Declaration issue is more nuanced than "China broke an agreement"
Not trying to nitpick, but as far as I know, Taiwan was occupied by Japan starting from 1895, so China didn't inherit it in 1911.
I guess this shows how unfundamented is the current chinese territorial claim. Xinjiang was for most centuries an independent region or part of a different (usualy turkish) empire. Something similar happened with Tibet. It might make sense to include what's currently Mongolia into the chinese claim.
I guess this shows how unfundamented is the current chinese territorial claim. Xinjiang was for most centuries an independent region or part of a different (usualy turkish) empire. Something similar happened with Tibet. It might make sense to include what's currently Mongolia into the chinese claim.
Well Taiwan was officially given back to China by the US after WW2 ended. So maybe not inherited from Qing, but definitely from ROC.
Regarding Xinjiang, the Xinjiang claim is older than the US's claim on its own land so it cannot be more unfundamented than the US as a nation is.
Regarding Xinjiang, the Xinjiang claim is older than the US's claim on its own land so it cannot be more unfundamented than the US as a nation is.
The history of the USA and of Xinjiang do not seem to be easily comparable. A date for "claim" means little both in the historic context and in the context of what constitutes a Nation - a commonality of intents in a society of dwellers.
"For example, the US clearly agreed on the One China Policy but they are now changing it. Because the US no longer values the original purpose that the One China Policy served."
If by that you mean the US agreed that Taiwan should be a part of the PRC, that's never been true. It was just a condition of establishing relations with China that the US officially pretend that Taiwan isn't an independent nation. But everyone understood that the actual belief and policy of the US was that Taiwan has a right to independence. There hasn't been any change there.
If by that you mean the US agreed that Taiwan should be a part of the PRC, that's never been true. It was just a condition of establishing relations with China that the US officially pretend that Taiwan isn't an independent nation. But everyone understood that the actual belief and policy of the US was that Taiwan has a right to independence. There hasn't been any change there.
No. One China means the acknowledgement that the mainland and Taiwan are part of the same country, but there may be disagreement to who the government is. Before the US recognized the PRC government, it recognized the ROC government aka the one in Taiwan, as being the sole legit government of all of China including Taiwan.
So the US didn't officially support "Taiwan independence". After the US flipped to PRC, they opposed the PRC taking over Taiwan, but the "Taiwan independence" notion didn't exist in Taiwan at the time. The govt in Taiwan wanted to retake the mainland. The independence notion only came into existance relatively recently.
So the US didn't officially support "Taiwan independence". After the US flipped to PRC, they opposed the PRC taking over Taiwan, but the "Taiwan independence" notion didn't exist in Taiwan at the time. The govt in Taiwan wanted to retake the mainland. The independence notion only came into existance relatively recently.
> The independence notion only came into existance relatively recently.
ie. The original generation that considered themselves Chinese has mostly died off, and now the younger generation who consider themselves Taiwanese are slowly taking over.
ie. The original generation that considered themselves Chinese has mostly died off, and now the younger generation who consider themselves Taiwanese are slowly taking over.
Yes. Especially now that Taiwan is really a democratic country without it being tacitly controlled by the people and political parties left over from the early days (the KMT). And the destruction of the people of Hong Kong finishes the end of the reunification desire in Taiwan. Young people are naturally horrified about HK and reunification. It's only fools who think that the people in Taiwan want to be part of the "greater Chinese people's country" more than they want freedom.
I'm not talking about whether any "Taiwan independence" notion existed in Taiwan. The US hasn't entertained fantasies of Taiwan's government taking over the mainland, for more than 50 years.
In reality, the US doesn't believe that they're the same country: the status quo is that they aren't. The fact that the US can't say as much out loud, to avoid insulting the government of the PRC, doesn't make that any less true.
I guess what I'm saying is, nobody should pretend that the the official pronouncements of the US are its actual beliefs or policy around Taiwan. Everybody knows the US supports Taiwan staying independent, and just has to dance around that in public statements. Anything it says to the contrary is a polite fiction without real world effect.
In reality, the US doesn't believe that they're the same country: the status quo is that they aren't. The fact that the US can't say as much out loud, to avoid insulting the government of the PRC, doesn't make that any less true.
I guess what I'm saying is, nobody should pretend that the the official pronouncements of the US are its actual beliefs or policy around Taiwan. Everybody knows the US supports Taiwan staying independent, and just has to dance around that in public statements. Anything it says to the contrary is a polite fiction without real world effect.
> Deviations in agreements is not a thing exclusive to China.
Yes, but merely looking at the agreement that China broke recently with the invasion of Hong Kong, a reasonable person would assume that there's a much higher risk of them breaking more agreements than another arbitrary country that hasn't been invading other countries recently. Said another way, most people currently will trust France to honor a pact more than they trust Russia.
...not that that somehow makes violating the agreement with and invading Hong Kong somehow morally excusable.
China seems pretty similar to Russia right now - with an authoritarian dictator planning to use military force to invade nearby countries.
You can even draw parallels between their mindsets - Putin wants to recreate the glory of the Soviet Union and views the old USSR countries as "his", just as Xi Jinping wants to recreate the glory of old China and views Hong Kong and Taiwan as his.
> So the question "will China renegade on its agreement or not?" is best answered with another question: "What is China's core interest? What purpose does an agreement serve to China?"
I don't see what purpose this statement has. It's clearly in China's core interest to be aggressive and expansionist and invade nearby countries and steal IP from other countries, but none of that is right, and none of that changes the fact that they're an aggressive enemy who pose a threat to the whole Asia region at least, if not the whole world.
Yes, but merely looking at the agreement that China broke recently with the invasion of Hong Kong, a reasonable person would assume that there's a much higher risk of them breaking more agreements than another arbitrary country that hasn't been invading other countries recently. Said another way, most people currently will trust France to honor a pact more than they trust Russia.
...not that that somehow makes violating the agreement with and invading Hong Kong somehow morally excusable.
China seems pretty similar to Russia right now - with an authoritarian dictator planning to use military force to invade nearby countries.
You can even draw parallels between their mindsets - Putin wants to recreate the glory of the Soviet Union and views the old USSR countries as "his", just as Xi Jinping wants to recreate the glory of old China and views Hong Kong and Taiwan as his.
> So the question "will China renegade on its agreement or not?" is best answered with another question: "What is China's core interest? What purpose does an agreement serve to China?"
I don't see what purpose this statement has. It's clearly in China's core interest to be aggressive and expansionist and invade nearby countries and steal IP from other countries, but none of that is right, and none of that changes the fact that they're an aggressive enemy who pose a threat to the whole Asia region at least, if not the whole world.
Invading Hong Kong? Are you equating Hong Kong to Ukraine? How does that equation exactly work, given that Hong Kong was Chinese territory in the 19th century and was taken away by the British by force for refusing to buy opium?
Ukraine and HK are very different of course. But the outcome is the same, people who were previously free were invaded, put off into prison for things like saying they publicly disagreed and wearing the wrong color shirt in Hong Kong.
The travesty in Hong Kong is that the people of Hong Kong had zero say in any of it.
Because TSMC still contributes to the manufacturing 90%+ of the semi conductors FOR the whole world. AFAIK, Samsung which is one of their competitor too uses TSMC. So touching Taiwan is an automatic trigger for the entire world. You saw what the pandemic did to the semi conductor industry. Now imagine if a war was happening there. The world could just stop. Literally. Like firesale in Die hard 4. But in universal scale. That was not the case with Hong Kong. And the world is not going to shut up and be silent if this happens.
While the EU, US, India, Australia are all trying to change this semi conductor status quo by building their own manufacturing facilities, it is not easy as I understand it. Am guessing it would take at least 5-10 years to have full fledged production facility in the scale the world demands if this needs to be changed. That is if really wanna be Taiwan free with semi conductors. Which I doubt the world will do. But hey with M1 and RISC-V, there is a whole new future waiting for the semi conductor industry. So who knows what will happen?!
While the EU, US, India, Australia are all trying to change this semi conductor status quo by building their own manufacturing facilities, it is not easy as I understand it. Am guessing it would take at least 5-10 years to have full fledged production facility in the scale the world demands if this needs to be changed. That is if really wanna be Taiwan free with semi conductors. Which I doubt the world will do. But hey with M1 and RISC-V, there is a whole new future waiting for the semi conductor industry. So who knows what will happen?!
The M1 chips are made entirely by TSMC, they reinforce the status quo, they don’t change it. RISC-V is still years from matching ARM performance or cost, and by the time it does, a lot of it will likely be getting manufactured by TSMC. TSMC is really good at making chips, and really good at learning how to make new kinds of chips, so any change will have to come from other fabs getting equally good.
> The M1 chips are made entirely by TSMC, they reinforce the status quo, they don’t change it
Yeah. But with the current geopolitical environment every country is thinking about this. But like I said, ONLY IF they have the motive. Which I also mentioned that the world won't have so as to completely take Taiwan out of the equation.
> RISC-V is still years from matching ARM performance or cost, and by the time it does, a lot of it will likely be getting manufactured by TSMC.
You are probably right. Also RISC-V is used as a support module with Nvidia cards already if I am not wrong. They just are not used as standalone processors. And with M1, I meant ARM in general. But RISC-V is very promising. Like I said, who knows about the future?!
> TSMC is really good at making chips, and really good at learning how to make new kinds of chips, so any change will have to come from other fabs getting equally good.
I don't think me or any country for that matter disapproves that. But with China as it's neighbor, it's just stupid for the world to think everything will be sunshines and butterflies. It's always a good idea to deter from putting everything in one basket.
Yeah. But with the current geopolitical environment every country is thinking about this. But like I said, ONLY IF they have the motive. Which I also mentioned that the world won't have so as to completely take Taiwan out of the equation.
> RISC-V is still years from matching ARM performance or cost, and by the time it does, a lot of it will likely be getting manufactured by TSMC.
You are probably right. Also RISC-V is used as a support module with Nvidia cards already if I am not wrong. They just are not used as standalone processors. And with M1, I meant ARM in general. But RISC-V is very promising. Like I said, who knows about the future?!
> TSMC is really good at making chips, and really good at learning how to make new kinds of chips, so any change will have to come from other fabs getting equally good.
I don't think me or any country for that matter disapproves that. But with China as it's neighbor, it's just stupid for the world to think everything will be sunshines and butterflies. It's always a good idea to deter from putting everything in one basket.
What CCP did in Hong Kong is exactly they think necessary to stop the independence movement in Hong Kong. Same goes to Taiwan, it will lead to a war eventually.
You should think more about what China didn’t do in Macau, to understand China’s actions and motives better.
Many people in Hong Kong grasp onto useless documents like the Sino-British Declaration because their actual constitution (the basic law) gave them no assurance to match promises. That constitution always gave the PRC ability to control any and everything there to suppress anything. The appointments always came from Beijing, and it inherits a system similar to City of London where 100% of the people’s vote and representatives can only be 50% of the legislative outcome. Its hopeless - for those deathly afraid of PRC life - and always has been, and China can wait out that “50 year thing” ever so nominally, in a way that doesnt match anything remotely close to what is often repeated in the west about what “should” happen. To me, having read the basic law and prc constitution, China didnt break its agreement, and anyone grasping at the Sino British Declaration is being disingenuous, ignorant, or really that desperate. Only thing to point at is Britain for giving up on negotiations, because they failed the people of Hong Kong back in the 90s and let the basic law be good enough.
But again, look at Macau and why that area isn’t an issue in the minds of the west, its not the smaller population.
Despite rule of law being kind of a burgeoning concept in the PRC (unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles to the stuff they were already going to do), China is pretty predictable and operates within some easy to understand confines.
Many people in Hong Kong grasp onto useless documents like the Sino-British Declaration because their actual constitution (the basic law) gave them no assurance to match promises. That constitution always gave the PRC ability to control any and everything there to suppress anything. The appointments always came from Beijing, and it inherits a system similar to City of London where 100% of the people’s vote and representatives can only be 50% of the legislative outcome. Its hopeless - for those deathly afraid of PRC life - and always has been, and China can wait out that “50 year thing” ever so nominally, in a way that doesnt match anything remotely close to what is often repeated in the west about what “should” happen. To me, having read the basic law and prc constitution, China didnt break its agreement, and anyone grasping at the Sino British Declaration is being disingenuous, ignorant, or really that desperate. Only thing to point at is Britain for giving up on negotiations, because they failed the people of Hong Kong back in the 90s and let the basic law be good enough.
But again, look at Macau and why that area isn’t an issue in the minds of the west, its not the smaller population.
Despite rule of law being kind of a burgeoning concept in the PRC (unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles to the stuff they were already going to do), China is pretty predictable and operates within some easy to understand confines.
More important than any sophistry or arguments about the nuances of the agreements around HK is that China has been crushing freedom in HK. That's the problem. Stop doing that. China won't stop because that's the way they remain in power. China can't use its usual excuse that "we brought millions out of poverty through our rule" in Hong Kong, because they were already pretty well off there. The HK economy is going backwards.
It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, China is crushing freedoms in Hong Kong because people in Hong Kong were afraid of China crushing freedoms in Hong Kong.
The unrest over the potential use of an extradition bill prompted China to clamp down on nearly everything Hong Kong residents held near and dear and show how powerless the people there are in this reality.
It is also convenient to accelerate the "harmonization" of Hong Kong into the PRC system because many (depending on how you count) places in China are well to do now. They don't need Hong Kong's different system to be a bastion of economic progress, because its like 3% of the GDP now, compared to like 20% during handover.
The unrest over the potential use of an extradition bill prompted China to clamp down on nearly everything Hong Kong residents held near and dear and show how powerless the people there are in this reality.
It is also convenient to accelerate the "harmonization" of Hong Kong into the PRC system because many (depending on how you count) places in China are well to do now. They don't need Hong Kong's different system to be a bastion of economic progress, because its like 3% of the GDP now, compared to like 20% during handover.
> Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
Your comment was excellent, and helpful to me. Thanks.
I do disagree that China isn't watching US reaction through a million lenses to see how they can best increase their odds rolling over Taiwan with minimal damage. My strongest evidence? Political changes in Hong Kong.
Your comment was excellent, and helpful to me. Thanks.
I do disagree that China isn't watching US reaction through a million lenses to see how they can best increase their odds rolling over Taiwan with minimal damage. My strongest evidence? Political changes in Hong Kong.
China is definitely watching the US, but I don't think it's for the reason you imagine.
China prefers peaceful reunification. They don't want to fight a war if they don't have to. At the same time, peaceful reunification is a core interest of China. Which means that they will go to war, but only if they believe peaceful reunification is no longer possible.
So yes they do watch the US to make calculations. But even if the US is weak, they still don't want a war as long as they believe peaceful reunification is possible.
Furthermore, Taiwanese reunification is not only a core interest, it's also possibly the most emotional one for the Chinese. Large portions of the population support reunification, and they will overthrow whichever leader lets Taiwan go.
This is why "raising the stakes" by announcing military support for Taiwan does not deter China. Quite the opposite: they encourage China to go to war, costs be damned, because such foreign support signal that peaceful reunification will become impossible.
As for Hong Kong, see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31705632
China prefers peaceful reunification. They don't want to fight a war if they don't have to. At the same time, peaceful reunification is a core interest of China. Which means that they will go to war, but only if they believe peaceful reunification is no longer possible.
So yes they do watch the US to make calculations. But even if the US is weak, they still don't want a war as long as they believe peaceful reunification is possible.
Furthermore, Taiwanese reunification is not only a core interest, it's also possibly the most emotional one for the Chinese. Large portions of the population support reunification, and they will overthrow whichever leader lets Taiwan go.
This is why "raising the stakes" by announcing military support for Taiwan does not deter China. Quite the opposite: they encourage China to go to war, costs be damned, because such foreign support signal that peaceful reunification will become impossible.
As for Hong Kong, see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31705632
> They don't want to fight a war if they don't have to.
China doesn't have to fight. They could just accept that the ROC/Taiwan is an independent country (which of course it is whether China accepts it or not). China has no obligation to start a war of conquest.
China doesn't have to fight. They could just accept that the ROC/Taiwan is an independent country (which of course it is whether China accepts it or not). China has no obligation to start a war of conquest.
it would be true if countries are really "independent". What China sees is the first island chain made by the US. China sees "China Containment".
Once again, China doesn’t have to fight.
Taiwan is critical to China on all levels.
1) politicians see unifying China as their life goal for historical reasons, from Republic of China to People's Republic of China, it is something colonizers do not understand. I don't understand why people paying a high price to buy some old artifacts stolen from China back, but apparently for something, it is about pride. I believe the government would fall if they declare no interests on Taiwan.
2) strategically, Taiwan's location is important, having a foreign power influenced island (especially the US), is a lock on Chinese Navy, that's why it is called the first islands chain. China has to go beyond to protect its trade and energy routes.
Given the fact that US is all about containing China now, there will have to be a lot power play in Asia now, which is to US's advantage, since US is far, and China will suffer more from the war (trade routes and so on). I don't know how this will play out.
1) politicians see unifying China as their life goal for historical reasons, from Republic of China to People's Republic of China, it is something colonizers do not understand. I don't understand why people paying a high price to buy some old artifacts stolen from China back, but apparently for something, it is about pride. I believe the government would fall if they declare no interests on Taiwan.
2) strategically, Taiwan's location is important, having a foreign power influenced island (especially the US), is a lock on Chinese Navy, that's why it is called the first islands chain. China has to go beyond to protect its trade and energy routes.
Given the fact that US is all about containing China now, there will have to be a lot power play in Asia now, which is to US's advantage, since US is far, and China will suffer more from the war (trade routes and so on). I don't know how this will play out.
I understand the historical/military circumstance. None of that changes that China does _not_ have to fight.
And the US doesn't have to isolate China or send warships to the SCS. The US didn't have to give Tsingdao to the Japanese, which directly triggered protests that led to the birth of the CPC. The KMT didn't have to be so corrupt that the majority population sided with CPC which led to KMT fleeing to Taiwan.
And yet, those ships have sailed. We aren't in this mess just because China is supposedly a bad guy, there are real relevant historical reasons why things are the way they are, and they can't be swept under a rug.
And yet, those ships have sailed. We aren't in this mess just because China is supposedly a bad guy, there are real relevant historical reasons why things are the way they are, and they can't be swept under a rug.
> We aren't in this mess just because China is supposedly a bad guy, there are real relevant historical reasons why things are the way they are, and they can't be swept under a rug.
If China attacks Taiwan, it is absolutely because of China. It would, after all, but their own choice to engage in such a war of aggression.
If China attacks Taiwan, it is absolutely because of China. It would, after all, but their own choice to engage in such a war of aggression.
Okay. But wait a minute, why are you staying silent on the fact that the US is trying to contain China? Let's say China puts missles in Cuba similar to what happened during the Cuban missle crisis, and the US attacks either China or Cuba as a result. Would you then also wholly blame the US for "its own choice to engage in such a war of aggression"?
> Okay. But wait a minute, why are you staying silent on the fact that the US is trying to contain China?
Because that doesn't change the fact that a war against Taiwan would be a war of choice?
> Let's say China puts missles in Cuba similar to what happened during the Cuban missle crisis, and the US attacks either China or Cuba as a result. Would you then also wholly blame the US for "its own choice to engage in such a war of aggression"?
This is an odd comparison given that the US stopped Taiwan from developing nuclear weapons thus preventing a similar situation as the Cuban missle crisis in Taiwan. If that's your point, then China should _thank_ the US for its actions preventing Taiwanese nuclear "aggression" (I put it in quotes, since really they were developing it to prevent invasion so calling it "aggression" is kind of ridiculous, but I digress...). Besides, the US _removed_ its troops from Taiwan decades ago so the US threat in Taiwan has really decreased if anything.
So yeah none of those points really change the fact that China does not need to invade Taiwan and that it would wholly be war of choice. China could just continue to live with an independent Taiwan as it has for more than 70 years. That is if it chooses not to start a war of its on volition.
Because that doesn't change the fact that a war against Taiwan would be a war of choice?
> Let's say China puts missles in Cuba similar to what happened during the Cuban missle crisis, and the US attacks either China or Cuba as a result. Would you then also wholly blame the US for "its own choice to engage in such a war of aggression"?
This is an odd comparison given that the US stopped Taiwan from developing nuclear weapons thus preventing a similar situation as the Cuban missle crisis in Taiwan. If that's your point, then China should _thank_ the US for its actions preventing Taiwanese nuclear "aggression" (I put it in quotes, since really they were developing it to prevent invasion so calling it "aggression" is kind of ridiculous, but I digress...). Besides, the US _removed_ its troops from Taiwan decades ago so the US threat in Taiwan has really decreased if anything.
So yeah none of those points really change the fact that China does not need to invade Taiwan and that it would wholly be war of choice. China could just continue to live with an independent Taiwan as it has for more than 70 years. That is if it chooses not to start a war of its on volition.
> it's also possibly the most emotional one for the Chinese. Large portions of the population support reunification
Some of us have difficulties in understanding the mindset: if some population wants one system, and is unavailable to be part of a different system (they would have moved, would not they), how do those "reunification supporters" on the other side believe, psychologically, that a system change is imaginable? They believe that coercion can be an effective solution? That "the others will adapt"? If so, that the new configuration will be stable (like a model of energy states)? It does not sound sound, in these ways - it may sound like "early stopping" in thoughts.
Some of us have difficulties in understanding the mindset: if some population wants one system, and is unavailable to be part of a different system (they would have moved, would not they), how do those "reunification supporters" on the other side believe, psychologically, that a system change is imaginable? They believe that coercion can be an effective solution? That "the others will adapt"? If so, that the new configuration will be stable (like a model of energy states)? It does not sound sound, in these ways - it may sound like "early stopping" in thoughts.
Reunification means that both side recognize that they're Chinese. Things like systems or ideology are not that important and can be worked out. They could have different governments. In fact a federation solution was proposed (and rejected) in the 80s.
Furthermore, the Chinese sense of history is much longer. There are many examples in Chinese history in which some territory splitted off and then reunified later. So things like "the configuration won't be stable" wouldn't be Chinese thinking. To the Chinese, splitting off is the unstable configuration.
Given how the current Taiwan situation came to be, many Chinese view the Taiwan government as relatives with whom they've had a fight, and whom — after losing — bunkered down in the basement. The basement is still part of the house. They're still part of the family, so let's not be too cruel to them and seek peace. But if they no longer claim to be part of the family, then kick them out.
Furthermore, the Chinese sense of history is much longer. There are many examples in Chinese history in which some territory splitted off and then reunified later. So things like "the configuration won't be stable" wouldn't be Chinese thinking. To the Chinese, splitting off is the unstable configuration.
Given how the current Taiwan situation came to be, many Chinese view the Taiwan government as relatives with whom they've had a fight, and whom — after losing — bunkered down in the basement. The basement is still part of the house. They're still part of the family, so let's not be too cruel to them and seek peace. But if they no longer claim to be part of the family, then kick them out.
> that both side recognize that they're Chinese [...] But if they no longer claim to be part of the family
Don't they all consider themselves Han people? How do they configure their identity? Their ethnic and historical ties do not appear to be severable.
Don't they all consider themselves Han people? How do they configure their identity? Their ethnic and historical ties do not appear to be severable.
Younger taiwanese people think of themselves less and less "chinese" or "han" or whatever label we would like to use
> China prefers peaceful reunification.
The people of Taiwan, just like those of Ukraine do not want to be re-absorbed.
> Quite the opposite: they encourage China to go to war, costs be damned, because such foreign support signal that peaceful reunification will become impossible.
It already is impossible. I think the world, save Beijing is moving on.
The people of Taiwan, just like those of Ukraine do not want to be re-absorbed.
> Quite the opposite: they encourage China to go to war, costs be damned, because such foreign support signal that peaceful reunification will become impossible.
It already is impossible. I think the world, save Beijing is moving on.
There is little support for reunification in Taiwan and it gets smaller by the day based on China's actions in HK and in the area near Taiwan. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/02/07/w...
Peaceful reunification is not possible after China showed that one country two systems will not be tolerated anymore.
For many chinese people this is such an emotional issue because the chinese government has been very keen in promoting these emotions. They let go Mongolia and no one is still crying about that. The communist party could at least let off some steam on the issue if they wanted to...but they don't
[deleted]
Agreed up until:
> Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
This is a major change in the global status quo (given that China is closely aligned with Russia now). I disagree with your parent comment on "unless Russia is humiliated".
It is yet unclear either way would increase China's appetite for Taiwan. If Russia is defeated, China may find it is necessary to reunite with Taiwan to maintain its geographical security given Russia would no longer be able to support / project support for China's military move in the future. If Russia wins, China may find it is a strategical weak point for U.S. allied forces and it is a good time to reunite with Taiwan given higher nationalism.
Again, it is yet unclear. One thing certain though: the uncertainty increased substantially following Russia's war on Ukraine.
> Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
This is a major change in the global status quo (given that China is closely aligned with Russia now). I disagree with your parent comment on "unless Russia is humiliated".
It is yet unclear either way would increase China's appetite for Taiwan. If Russia is defeated, China may find it is necessary to reunite with Taiwan to maintain its geographical security given Russia would no longer be able to support / project support for China's military move in the future. If Russia wins, China may find it is a strategical weak point for U.S. allied forces and it is a good time to reunite with Taiwan given higher nationalism.
Again, it is yet unclear. One thing certain though: the uncertainty increased substantially following Russia's war on Ukraine.
That's not true from my perspective as an American. China didn't historically make the same kind of continuing and increasing bellicose actions and claims as they do today. They have grown slowly over time, perhaps as China's military power has increased. Yes 50 years ago there was attacks, but China seems to be more threatened by the emergence of true democracy in Taiwan, and the development of later generations in a more independent societal direction (the people who left mainland China were being replaced/aged out of leadership by people who had never lived in China).
My Taiwanese friends have also told me that China has significantly increased their concern for the future.
My Taiwanese friends have also told me that China has significantly increased their concern for the future.
That's certainly a very American perspective.
Ongoing PRC claims has been consistent since they were inherited from ROC days. They even fought war in SCS with NVietnam when their military was poverty tier. The reality is PRC rise in region has been EXTREMELY peaceful relative to level military expansion which itself is modest relative to GDP. All while settling 12/14 again, ROC inherited land border disputes with more concessions. PRC has done nothing particularly bellicose except defending claims she inherited, again not of her own making. The only possible except of Senkaku which again also ROC/TW claims. Japan BTW, has border (maritime) disputes with 100% of her neighbours despite being WW2 loser who should have territory constrained by treaty. Meanwhile SCS is a multiparty shit show, even then PRC managed to drop a dash line with North Vietnam when other parties made zero progress. The "peaceful" region rise of PRC is historically unprecedented.
There's a reason why western analysts has to bemoan about "grayzone" warfare... because PRC military has been extremely constraint. Even relative to ROC days when TW regularly blockaded military shipping and spent spy missions over PRC territory. TW just coping with reality that military balance has completely shifted in PRC favor. Tranch of US weapon sales to TW in 90s made TW one of the most advanced military powers in the region, but that's been chipped away to the point that TW itself is essentially hopeless regardless of level of US weapon sales.
As for being threatened by democracy, like TW broken politics and industrial stagnation outside of semiconductors is regularly memed on mainland. People don't generally look to TW as a model... or SK or JP or even US (anymore). PRC is threatened by renewed TW seccessionism weaponized by US because at the end of the day, the civil war never ended and they consider TW Chinese clay.
Ongoing PRC claims has been consistent since they were inherited from ROC days. They even fought war in SCS with NVietnam when their military was poverty tier. The reality is PRC rise in region has been EXTREMELY peaceful relative to level military expansion which itself is modest relative to GDP. All while settling 12/14 again, ROC inherited land border disputes with more concessions. PRC has done nothing particularly bellicose except defending claims she inherited, again not of her own making. The only possible except of Senkaku which again also ROC/TW claims. Japan BTW, has border (maritime) disputes with 100% of her neighbours despite being WW2 loser who should have territory constrained by treaty. Meanwhile SCS is a multiparty shit show, even then PRC managed to drop a dash line with North Vietnam when other parties made zero progress. The "peaceful" region rise of PRC is historically unprecedented.
There's a reason why western analysts has to bemoan about "grayzone" warfare... because PRC military has been extremely constraint. Even relative to ROC days when TW regularly blockaded military shipping and spent spy missions over PRC territory. TW just coping with reality that military balance has completely shifted in PRC favor. Tranch of US weapon sales to TW in 90s made TW one of the most advanced military powers in the region, but that's been chipped away to the point that TW itself is essentially hopeless regardless of level of US weapon sales.
As for being threatened by democracy, like TW broken politics and industrial stagnation outside of semiconductors is regularly memed on mainland. People don't generally look to TW as a model... or SK or JP or even US (anymore). PRC is threatened by renewed TW seccessionism weaponized by US because at the end of the day, the civil war never ended and they consider TW Chinese clay.
SCS shitshow is almost 100% on China (sea based) expansionism. One look at their egregious “nine dash line” tells you what you need to know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
Except it tells nothing. Nine dash predates UNCLOS that does not determine sovereignty, and the PCA "rule-based" ad-hoc kangaroo court decision is not recognized by UN, nevermind PRC is not bound by optional UNCLOS arbituational clause, hence PRC has full right to defend her claims. Which again is inherited from ROC and made when other claimaints were decolonialising and not completely sovereign to begin with. It's like big bro inherited dad's house with huge yard from small bro, then later kids of neighbours born after both bros decides chunk of yard should be there's because they made an arbituatry HOA that determined so. Bros laugh.
Meaning it's almost 0% on PRC expansionism. PRC cannot expand what they gained formally when UN recognition switched from ROC to PRC. They made no new claims in SCS. And in fact PRC reduced to 9dash from ROCs 11dash means Chinese sea claims shrunk under PRC. Big bro gave their neighbour a few feet of yard when they had good relations from being same book club (PRC to NVietnam). Just like 11/12 land border settlements where PRC ceded more land. By every objective metric China lost more territory under CCP dispute settlement. The opposite of expanisionism, and basically magnanimous by historic standards, huge country like PRC ceding so much territory to neighbours, voluntarily is proposterous. So much so that it's borderline treasonous, average Chinese would riot if they found out during negotiations, luckily this was pre internet.
In terms of land reclaimation and militarization, PRC was 5th out of 6 parties to conduct operations on their SCS features. They're just vastly better at it due to infra prowess and sheer PRC scale / resources. Only faultless actor in region is Brunai. And in terms of egregiousness, Vietnam is almost as bad, while claiming substantially more contested features. That's what I know.
Meaning it's almost 0% on PRC expansionism. PRC cannot expand what they gained formally when UN recognition switched from ROC to PRC. They made no new claims in SCS. And in fact PRC reduced to 9dash from ROCs 11dash means Chinese sea claims shrunk under PRC. Big bro gave their neighbour a few feet of yard when they had good relations from being same book club (PRC to NVietnam). Just like 11/12 land border settlements where PRC ceded more land. By every objective metric China lost more territory under CCP dispute settlement. The opposite of expanisionism, and basically magnanimous by historic standards, huge country like PRC ceding so much territory to neighbours, voluntarily is proposterous. So much so that it's borderline treasonous, average Chinese would riot if they found out during negotiations, luckily this was pre internet.
In terms of land reclaimation and militarization, PRC was 5th out of 6 parties to conduct operations on their SCS features. They're just vastly better at it due to infra prowess and sheer PRC scale / resources. Only faultless actor in region is Brunai. And in terms of egregiousness, Vietnam is almost as bad, while claiming substantially more contested features. That's what I know.
[deleted]
TSMC also guarantees China won't attack Taiwan in the near term. They're about 30% of the semiconductor industry and their most advanced foundries are only in Taiwan and no one else has been able to replicate them elsewhere. An invasion would cripple tech in China and the West, so the US would get involved and it would lead to a full scale war which no one wants.
> China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible.
Put another way: if the people of Taiwan decide that they don't want reunification, then China is going to invade and take them by force.
Put another way: if the people of Taiwan decide that they don't want reunification, then China is going to invade and take them by force.
Yes? That's literally what CCP's threat about and what they considered to be the red-line (i.e. any vote for independence would meet with military action).
That’s not what was said whatsoever.
Make your own comments, don’t try and fail to interpret others’ comments and restate them.
Make your own comments, don’t try and fail to interpret others’ comments and restate them.
That looks like "drawing conclusions", not like "attributing thoughts".
"B wants stasis¹" // "Hence if A breaks it by removing doubts, B will act" - this is what was actually diplomatically declared, reminded, renewed in the past hours.
¹"stasis" - not the most proper expression of what is sought, but just to remain close to the original post in question.
"B wants stasis¹" // "Hence if A breaks it by removing doubts, B will act" - this is what was actually diplomatically declared, reminded, renewed in the past hours.
¹"stasis" - not the most proper expression of what is sought, but just to remain close to the original post in question.
It doesn’t look like “drawing conclusions at all”
They said “Put another way:” That is literally restating what the OG commenter said but with spin.
They said “Put another way:” That is literally restating what the OG commenter said but with spin.
Seems fully legit. «Put another way» completes what the original poster wrote, in a different telling perspective.
The OP said, "A will refrain from B under condition C: the general intention of A is to refrain from B".
The replying poster noted, "Admitting that A intends to refrain from B under condition C, the intention is also not to refrain from B, failing condition C".
The replying poster is correctly noting that the relation is not just "C→¬B", but "C→¬B ∧ ¬C→B".
FooBarWidget notes one half of the story; throw10920 remarks that the other half is also present. Correctly one states - reassuringly - "do not see a false extreme: B is not an absolute set intention", but the other notes that at the same time it should not be forgotten that "B is a set conditional intention". Which is what A has stated for a long time: "the reunification will happen: peacefully if possible, coercively otherwise".
The 'put another way' formula is logically imperfect but rhetorically admissible, it is in a clear context. Of course throw10920 did not "repeat" what FooBarWidget wrote, «what was said»: he proceeded in the debate from the immediately preceding move posing a new "line".
It is a "put another way" not in terms of restricting to the original poster's idea (thus re-reading it), but starting from the poster's idea in the context of given information.
The OP said, "A will refrain from B under condition C: the general intention of A is to refrain from B".
The replying poster noted, "Admitting that A intends to refrain from B under condition C, the intention is also not to refrain from B, failing condition C".
The replying poster is correctly noting that the relation is not just "C→¬B", but "C→¬B ∧ ¬C→B".
FooBarWidget notes one half of the story; throw10920 remarks that the other half is also present. Correctly one states - reassuringly - "do not see a false extreme: B is not an absolute set intention", but the other notes that at the same time it should not be forgotten that "B is a set conditional intention". Which is what A has stated for a long time: "the reunification will happen: peacefully if possible, coercively otherwise".
The 'put another way' formula is logically imperfect but rhetorically admissible, it is in a clear context. Of course throw10920 did not "repeat" what FooBarWidget wrote, «what was said»: he proceeded in the debate from the immediately preceding move posing a new "line".
It is a "put another way" not in terms of restricting to the original poster's idea (thus re-reading it), but starting from the poster's idea in the context of given information.
This is only the second time I have heard someone reference actual shelling of Taiwan, the other was my Mother in Law who lived there for awhile - I tried to find info about it online and came up blank, is there a good source you know of?
[deleted]
That seems somewhat earlier than the 70-80s?
Edit - either I misread or they changed it to 50s, my bad. That would he the second straight crisis.
Edit - either I misread or they changed it to 50s, my bad. That would he the second straight crisis.
The U.S. never had a one China policy. It officially acknowledges that China has a one China policy. It might sound the same, but it is not. Which it why it also has the policy to sell Taiwan weapons to defend itself, and sometimes the policy to actually defend Taiwan.
Note that it’s policy on China is changing. Obama started to build a pacific alliance, Trump was a bull in a China shop but escalated the policy of disengagement from China. Biden has maintained Trump’s policy even though it would help with his biggest domestic problem (inflation) to reverse it, while also making clear he will defend Taiwan even if it means war with China.
Note that it’s policy on China is changing. Obama started to build a pacific alliance, Trump was a bull in a China shop but escalated the policy of disengagement from China. Biden has maintained Trump’s policy even though it would help with his biggest domestic problem (inflation) to reverse it, while also making clear he will defend Taiwan even if it means war with China.
> That is a fundamental misreading of China's relationship with Taiwan and China's intentions. China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible. China's policy on Taiwan has not changed for decades.
The problem is that the status quo may not be acceptable to the people of Taiwan and reunification is not acceptable not even slightly wanted by the people of Taiwan. The's not really any chance of a reunification of the current China and the current Taiwan.
> Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
Not really, if Putin had quickly succeeded I have not doubt that WWIII would have started with a failed attempt to take Taiwan followed by WWIII. There's no scenario where A) China can take Taiwan, and B) Taiwan will accept Chinese rule. That died 70 years ago.
The problem is that the status quo may not be acceptable to the people of Taiwan and reunification is not acceptable not even slightly wanted by the people of Taiwan. The's not really any chance of a reunification of the current China and the current Taiwan.
> Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
Not really, if Putin had quickly succeeded I have not doubt that WWIII would have started with a failed attempt to take Taiwan followed by WWIII. There's no scenario where A) China can take Taiwan, and B) Taiwan will accept Chinese rule. That died 70 years ago.
You know, the early 2000s looked pretty promising, with China and Taiwan having normalized relations for a while and with cross-strait business blooming. Back then a large portion of Taiwanese identified as Chinese. Today's tensions haven't always been there. As little as 10 years ago, Taiwanese supported reunification (though on their terms, e.g. the ROC government takes over the mainland)
Ironically, Taiwan is very pro-Japan nowadays even though Japan was a colonizer in the early 20th century. Given this, it's not at all set in stone that relations will stay bad if peace endures.
Ironically, Taiwan is very pro-Japan nowadays even though Japan was a colonizer in the early 20th century. Given this, it's not at all set in stone that relations will stay bad if peace endures.
Nah, anyone who think China's ambition is Taiwan, is simply ignorant of the civilization's history. China has always been the central of the world order, pride herself on its superiority in all aspects of human society. Taiwan needs to be a showcase of superiority over the US represented system. This superiority could be demonstrated in many manner, not necessarily taking over the island. After all, one who eyes the ocean does not care the pond remain private.
I love this take. WHy should Greeks care about barbarians?
I don't follow your statement about "Greeks care about barbarians".
Greeks, if I guess correctly, had a similar barbarian problems, like the ancient Chinese rules. Superficially, the 2 share the same high-level setting, i.e., an advanced kingdom is surrounded by nomad barbarians, where the advanced kingdom has a settled society built on top of rural + makers + traders economy, with a strong top governmental body; the barbarians are living a much more primitive life, and often trade with the advanced kingdom for things they cannot produce, and often resolve to invasion and looting when the climate cycle degrades their normal life condition beyond the normal capacity of their eudrance.
I don't know about Greeks. Ancient Chinese devote significant intellectual and military thinking and resources on barbarians. Dealing with Barbarians often determine the live and death of a Chinese dynasty. For example Tang, Song, Ming were all ended by barbarians (in the general sense). And the great dynasties of Chinese history is always characterized by a military success and political subdue of barbarians. Han in the Wu Di era, Tang in the Tai Zong era. Ming in the Cheng Zu era.
Greeks, if I guess correctly, had a similar barbarian problems, like the ancient Chinese rules. Superficially, the 2 share the same high-level setting, i.e., an advanced kingdom is surrounded by nomad barbarians, where the advanced kingdom has a settled society built on top of rural + makers + traders economy, with a strong top governmental body; the barbarians are living a much more primitive life, and often trade with the advanced kingdom for things they cannot produce, and often resolve to invasion and looting when the climate cycle degrades their normal life condition beyond the normal capacity of their eudrance.
I don't know about Greeks. Ancient Chinese devote significant intellectual and military thinking and resources on barbarians. Dealing with Barbarians often determine the live and death of a Chinese dynasty. For example Tang, Song, Ming were all ended by barbarians (in the general sense). And the great dynasties of Chinese history is always characterized by a military success and political subdue of barbarians. Han in the Wu Di era, Tang in the Tai Zong era. Ming in the Cheng Zu era.
[deleted]
This is a funny comment considering that Taiwan considers mainland China and Mongolia to be part of Taiwan/the Republic of China.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Chinese leadership is very conservative, and they have a lot to lose from a military campaign gone wrong.
Russia has too much artillery to be humiliated.
They are shelling everything and rolling over the dust.
“Russia isn't fighting a campaign of attrition, it's waging a war of oblivion.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61634050.amp
They are shelling everything and rolling over the dust.
“Russia isn't fighting a campaign of attrition, it's waging a war of oblivion.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61634050.amp
Russia has already been humiliated. The allegedly second strongest army in the world could not defeat a much smaller neighboring country quickly and had to retreat from the proximity of Kyiv and Kharkiv.
They do still have their artillery, though, and they are trying to take Donbass. In a very piecemeal fashion, very slowly. They have learnt something from their spring failures.
The result of this war depends on how fast can the Ukrainians re-arm completely to Western weapons, including artillery. It does not make sense to send tons of heavy Western guns there, if there aren't enough trained soldiers to operate them and enough trained technicians to fix them.
This is the bottleneck, not the raw number of weapons; people tend to treat weapons as magic, but they only work in combination with skilled soldiers and a functioning supply chain.
The Ukrainians are learning fast - people generally learn fast when their country is on fire - but the process will likely take months.
They do still have their artillery, though, and they are trying to take Donbass. In a very piecemeal fashion, very slowly. They have learnt something from their spring failures.
The result of this war depends on how fast can the Ukrainians re-arm completely to Western weapons, including artillery. It does not make sense to send tons of heavy Western guns there, if there aren't enough trained soldiers to operate them and enough trained technicians to fix them.
This is the bottleneck, not the raw number of weapons; people tend to treat weapons as magic, but they only work in combination with skilled soldiers and a functioning supply chain.
The Ukrainians are learning fast - people generally learn fast when their country is on fire - but the process will likely take months.
> Russia has already been humiliated.
According to whom and compared to what? Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel and gear and are weeks, maybe days, from consolidating and absorbing the Donboss.
Keep in mind that Ukraine is the second largest military in Europe (after Russia) with their own military industrial complex, huge cache of Soviet weapons and the training and intelligence assets of NATO.
Can you name a single successful significant counter offensive (other than the Moskva) by Ukraine?
According to whom and compared to what? Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel and gear and are weeks, maybe days, from consolidating and absorbing the Donboss.
Keep in mind that Ukraine is the second largest military in Europe (after Russia) with their own military industrial complex, huge cache of Soviet weapons and the training and intelligence assets of NATO.
Can you name a single successful significant counter offensive (other than the Moskva) by Ukraine?
Under deploy your army, spread them too thin and attack at all fronts, send generals to die at the front line, retreat and focus everything on taking over a pile of rubble.
It is hilarious, if only it wasn’t so sad.
It is hilarious, if only it wasn’t so sad.
Russia has incompaciated the second largest military (a true near-peer) in just a handful of months. Like it or not, their tactics have worked. Read up on military feints and Maskarovka, nobody is better than this than the Russians: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception
Russia has incapacitated the second largest military indeed: their own. Trying to invade a country which a couple of years ago didn't have any real army to speak of, and failing terribly. They lost Kyiv, they lost Kharkiv, hopefully after Russian economy crashes they will also loose their territorial integrity.
"Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel"
That is a shallow measure. Most modern armies have "tooth to tail" [0] ratio less than 1:5. Combat-ready units constitute a minority of the entire military personnel everywhere, and Russia has deployed most of those in Ukraine. It cannot afford to deploy all of them, as it has long borders and shores that need patrolling.
Russia no doubt has a huge cache of Soviet-era weapons, but it has already burnt through much of that cache, much like Ukraine did. Given that they are transferring T-62 to the theater, deploying ancient Kh-22 missiles and that the dud rate for both missiles and artillery shells seems to be between 10-30 per cent, it seems that they are already down to using older, less reliable stock. That does not mean that they ran out of modern stuff completely, but rather that the newer stock is depleted enough that they need to be careful about that.
For me, the humiliation consists of the current stalemate. I don't require any massive counteroffensives from the Ukrainians to see the Russian advance as a failure. They didn't manage to take freaking Kharkiv that lies just 40 km from the border and they fought three months over Mariupol, besieged from all sides.
This is just incompatible with the image of an unstoppable bear that Russia cultivated before the war.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio
That is a shallow measure. Most modern armies have "tooth to tail" [0] ratio less than 1:5. Combat-ready units constitute a minority of the entire military personnel everywhere, and Russia has deployed most of those in Ukraine. It cannot afford to deploy all of them, as it has long borders and shores that need patrolling.
Russia no doubt has a huge cache of Soviet-era weapons, but it has already burnt through much of that cache, much like Ukraine did. Given that they are transferring T-62 to the theater, deploying ancient Kh-22 missiles and that the dud rate for both missiles and artillery shells seems to be between 10-30 per cent, it seems that they are already down to using older, less reliable stock. That does not mean that they ran out of modern stuff completely, but rather that the newer stock is depleted enough that they need to be careful about that.
For me, the humiliation consists of the current stalemate. I don't require any massive counteroffensives from the Ukrainians to see the Russian advance as a failure. They didn't manage to take freaking Kharkiv that lies just 40 km from the border and they fought three months over Mariupol, besieged from all sides.
This is just incompatible with the image of an unstoppable bear that Russia cultivated before the war.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio
Can you provide any evidence that they actually went after Kharkiv in earnest other than blowing up some military targets? They'll probably eventually take that city as it is historically and majority Russian.
As for the (retrofitted) T-62s, those are mostly given to the Donboss militias and a perfect tank to use in the already conquered rear. They are still armor and they still function. US also runs some old gear if you didn't know.
As for the dud rates, I'd expect that for older missiles. Their new stuff (which is more advanced than anything the US has) is less than 10%. And it's clear they're not running out any time soon despite western media claims two months ago that their weapons stocks were days from depletion.
On the other hand, the dud rate for western supplied Javalins and NLAWs is around 80% as reported by Ukrainian military personnel. And it's actually now illegal for Ukrainian troops to publicly criticize the effectiveness of western supplied weapons.
Let's stop projecting and be honest about what's actually going on.
As for the (retrofitted) T-62s, those are mostly given to the Donboss militias and a perfect tank to use in the already conquered rear. They are still armor and they still function. US also runs some old gear if you didn't know.
As for the dud rates, I'd expect that for older missiles. Their new stuff (which is more advanced than anything the US has) is less than 10%. And it's clear they're not running out any time soon despite western media claims two months ago that their weapons stocks were days from depletion.
On the other hand, the dud rate for western supplied Javalins and NLAWs is around 80% as reported by Ukrainian military personnel. And it's actually now illegal for Ukrainian troops to publicly criticize the effectiveness of western supplied weapons.
Let's stop projecting and be honest about what's actually going on.
Russia's advanced new stuff is mostly vaporware. Like the Armata tank, which was accepted into service a couple of years ago, but can't be manufactured. Or MiG-35, which isn't particularly modern, but can't be manufactured either.
If you plan a quick win and instead manage to claim 2 provinces after you flattened them, that is humiliating.
Everything has its costs. I'm speculating here, as Russian officials never claimed quick victory. But my theory is that they indeed had a plan to quickly capture big Ukrainian cities (not necessarily Kiev) with help of some traitors. This plan did not work well, probably Ukrainian special services managed to prevent that plan. So they regrouped at east border and slowly demolishing Ukrainian army. It's not humiliating. It's smart. Many wars were lost because warmasters were too stubborn and tried to continue already lost cause. That's not the case here. Right now I don't see any change for Ukraine to survive this war. Their army will be destroyed, Russia apparently is too strong and did not collapse under sanctions and probably can continue its military pressure for months if not years, while Ukrainian front is breaking apart and more soldiers are giving up every day.
There's Russian adage: don't say gop until you jump over. This war is far from ending and early Russian mistakes did not turned into significant issues.
There's Russian adage: don't say gop until you jump over. This war is far from ending and early Russian mistakes did not turned into significant issues.
Claiming only 20% of the country is humiliating?
I suppose they can fortify that and come back in 10 years and take the rest.
Remember when Hannibal destroyed the Roman armies? That sure was humiliating.
What happened next?
I suppose they can fortify that and come back in 10 years and take the rest.
Remember when Hannibal destroyed the Roman armies? That sure was humiliating.
What happened next?
It is yes. Because their initial goal here was instead to go in and overthrow the government in a couple days, while not expecting any significant international response.
There is a huge difference between their initial expectations, and what actually happened. And now they are in too deep to undo their mistakes.
There is a huge difference between their initial expectations, and what actually happened. And now they are in too deep to undo their mistakes.
I'll send you a $1,000 over Venmo or in Bitcoin if you can share where even a single top level Russian official said that amoung their goals was to take the capital.
They landed airborne troops at the capital, and had a very long convoy headed for the capital.
Regardless of what they said, they tried to attack the capital. That says more about whether they tried to take the capital than public statements.
Regardless of what they said, they tried to attack the capital. That says more about whether they tried to take the capital than public statements.
> their goals was to take the capital.
You think those large amount of troops and resources, that were in the process of attempting to surround and take the capital were just sacrificed for no reason?
They spent a lot of resources on those attacks, and they didn't gain much from them.
Surely you should consider that it was a mistake, and don't think it was intentional for them to have taken such losses with little to show for it.
You think those large amount of troops and resources, that were in the process of attempting to surround and take the capital were just sacrificed for no reason?
They spent a lot of resources on those attacks, and they didn't gain much from them.
Surely you should consider that it was a mistake, and don't think it was intentional for them to have taken such losses with little to show for it.
You're thinking like a westerner as are so many other armchair generals. Russia military doctrine has more tolerance for loosing people and equipment if that helps achieve their end goal.
But you understand that there isn't some end goal that doing this failed offensive helps right?
As in, they could have just not done a failed attack on the capital, and instead focused their troops on other regions to achieve some other goal.
However many resources they sacrificed on that attack could have been sacrificed elsewhere more effectively, which shows pretty clearly that this specific failed offensive wasn't some success and instead was a failed offensive that they had to back off on.
As in, they could have just not done a failed attack on the capital, and instead focused their troops on other regions to achieve some other goal.
However many resources they sacrificed on that attack could have been sacrificed elsewhere more effectively, which shows pretty clearly that this specific failed offensive wasn't some success and instead was a failed offensive that they had to back off on.
[deleted]
Taiwan is a core interest of US for it's a choke point to deep sea access path to Pacific. Ukraine was never a core strategic interest for US.
Russia has been humiliated abroad. Now, they must be humiliated at home.
This means Crimea returning to Ukrainian control.
That... will require a significantly greater commitment from Nato allies, or the US.
Until Nato makes a greater commitment, the Chinese will (correctly) read this as a sign that in the event of a Taiwan invasion, the US will provide military support, but stop before committing troops to enforcing the status quo in the Taiwan strait.
That... will require a significantly greater commitment from Nato allies, or the US.
Until Nato makes a greater commitment, the Chinese will (correctly) read this as a sign that in the event of a Taiwan invasion, the US will provide military support, but stop before committing troops to enforcing the status quo in the Taiwan strait.
> Humiliated abroad
The vast majority of human kind are neutral or pro Russia regarding the situation. Sorry, but the English speaking countries (sans India) and EU are not "the word" despite the sense of superiority and entitlement.
As for Crimea, that ain't never happening. The people there are majority Russian and Tartar and with a very small Ukrainian minority. Not only does Wikipedia tell me that, but I've talked with people there (in person).
The vast majority of human kind are neutral or pro Russia regarding the situation. Sorry, but the English speaking countries (sans India) and EU are not "the word" despite the sense of superiority and entitlement.
As for Crimea, that ain't never happening. The people there are majority Russian and Tartar and with a very small Ukrainian minority. Not only does Wikipedia tell me that, but I've talked with people there (in person).
There was a UN resolution a while back condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Did 141 countries vote in favor of it with just 35 abstaining?
Did 141 countries vote in favor of it with just 35 abstaining?
Sum up those opposing and abstaining countries population sizes. Some very important countries with large and growing economies and populations are neutral.
They are neutral, but that doesn't mean they are on Russia's side. See China, for example - of course they can't officially join American sanctions, but Huawei is closing down its Russian stores anyway.
China is more likely to have its government choose a very different leader with resulting policy changes than attack Taiwan. Its economy and along with this politics have increasing problems which are unlikely to reach a plateau or improve in the next decade, possibly longer, and the current leader's policies are accelerating and exacerbating these problems. The only major wild card I see is if the government is able to make a unilateral move against Taiwan in an effort to distract from its internal problems. I don't know how the PRC works well enough to have some notion of how realistic this might be. Given Biden's restatement of the US positions it seems even less likely this would happen. And if it did I'd expect the US and Japan will immediately become involved, promptly followed by other allies if it escalates. What I also cannot gauge is what might happen if action were limited to only a place like Kinmen. If so the arms shipments to Taiwan and would likely immediately change and who knows maybe both Japan and the US would setup military bases there.
[deleted]
I see this, and I just wonder about the millions of dollars in radar technology sold by american companies owned by american congressmen...
I wonder if the chips they're using are made in taiwan... heheh
I wonder if the chips they're using are made in taiwan... heheh
Biden said he would militarily defend Taiwan (throw Ukraine under the bus). The leash on Taiwan is officially off now.
Embrace for more aggression from both sides to challenge the status quo.
Embrace for more aggression from both sides to challenge the status quo.
I'm not convinced the equivalence you mention - "aggression from both sides" - is really there. The current Taiwanese government's only stated goal is to defend itself; there is no serious surviving political will in Taiwan to attack China.
China could attack Taiwan (particularly Matsu and Kinmen), but an attack on the mainland also appears less likely these days, given the very real chance of humiliation a la Russia in Ukraine.
China could attack Taiwan (particularly Matsu and Kinmen), but an attack on the mainland also appears less likely these days, given the very real chance of humiliation a la Russia in Ukraine.
Russia has regrouped and moved past the “humiliation“ event.
Russia has 10 times the artillery as Ukraine and they are putting it to work. The West is simply not providing enough to Ukraine
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will eventually die, and they could lose.
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-risks-losing-artillery-war-...
Russia has 10 times the artillery as Ukraine and they are putting it to work. The West is simply not providing enough to Ukraine
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will eventually die, and they could lose.
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-risks-losing-artillery-war-...
Even if Russia manages to level a few more cities, it's hard to see the past three months as anything but a humiliation of Russia's military might. The damage to Russian military international respect (fear, even) has already been done.
According to whom? Western journalists with degrees in subjects like humanities? US television news? Subreddits?
Russia invaded with the inverse of the ratio recommended by the US Military for attackers versus defenders (3:1) [which is why they had such significant losses in the first several weeks of personnel and equipment]. They have used probably less than 20% of their personnel and equipment.
Despite the assumption that the West has the best gear, at this point in time Russia has not only the best ballistics (hypersonic, etc) but also the best layered air defense systems. The best electronic warfare systems hands down. More diverse longer range artillery systems and more numerous than anything the West can throw at them.
Can you name a single significant counter offensive that the Ukrainian army, the second largest and well-armed in all of Europe with piles of Soviet equipment, their own military industrial complex as well as NATO intelligence and training (other than the sinking of the Moscow, which was pretty impressive).
Regarding tactics, google up "Maskirovka" and military feints. And please read Manufacturing Consent.
The massive English language Ukrainian social media effort does not win wars. We need to be realistic and honest about what is going on instead of projecting what we wish were happening.
Russia invaded with the inverse of the ratio recommended by the US Military for attackers versus defenders (3:1) [which is why they had such significant losses in the first several weeks of personnel and equipment]. They have used probably less than 20% of their personnel and equipment.
Despite the assumption that the West has the best gear, at this point in time Russia has not only the best ballistics (hypersonic, etc) but also the best layered air defense systems. The best electronic warfare systems hands down. More diverse longer range artillery systems and more numerous than anything the West can throw at them.
Can you name a single significant counter offensive that the Ukrainian army, the second largest and well-armed in all of Europe with piles of Soviet equipment, their own military industrial complex as well as NATO intelligence and training (other than the sinking of the Moscow, which was pretty impressive).
Regarding tactics, google up "Maskirovka" and military feints. And please read Manufacturing Consent.
The massive English language Ukrainian social media effort does not win wars. We need to be realistic and honest about what is going on instead of projecting what we wish were happening.
Russian here. I condemn this war but let's be realistic. The extremely poor performance of Russian military at the start of the war is due to the following factors:
- extreme underestimation of Ukrainian people and government will to resist the occupation
- extremely poor planning and overstretching the communication lines
- frontlines in the beginning of the campaign were vastly undermanned for a conventional war (ww2 fronts in the same are had 5-15 times more soldiers per km)
- many troops in the initial wave were unwilling to fight this particular opponent. Brother nation and all that.
Now, many of these factors are no longer the same. Fronts are shrinked. RAF military better understands the capabilities of the UAF, and is countering their tactics more efficiently. Soldiers are better equipped with night vision equipment, drones, and they use artillery without hesitation. And most of all, new troops coming to front are no longer the kind of people who were brought in for a military exercise and found themselves invading Ukraine: they consciously signed up a (lucrative for provincial russians) military contract and know exactly what their objective is.
The humiliation is such thing. Yes, you are humiliated, so what? USSR was humiliated in the Winter war, yet, people often forget that it actually won it, taking 20% of Finland ( * ). Currently, Putin holds 20% of Ukraine, and I assess he can get a further 10% at this rate by the year end.
(Russia does have the resources to fight it till the end of the year, meanwhile the western public is clearly oversatiated with this war - last week I haven't seen a single Ukraine related topic trending on Twitter)
* - one can argue that Soviet poor performance in Winter war has led Hitler to attack USSR, but 1) I believe Hitler would have attacked regardless, high on confidence after having beaten France and 2) there are nobody now to attack Russia but possibly China, who wouldn't risk it while it is still in one piece. After it desintegrates as a result of Putin's genius rule, probably, I'll take some far East provinces, but not now. Also, unsuccessful wars are the best reality check if you manage to survive them, so if anything, Ukraine war experience will highly improve the real capabilities of Russian military. Equipment can be replaced far more easily than capable soldiers with war experience.
- extreme underestimation of Ukrainian people and government will to resist the occupation
- extremely poor planning and overstretching the communication lines
- frontlines in the beginning of the campaign were vastly undermanned for a conventional war (ww2 fronts in the same are had 5-15 times more soldiers per km)
- many troops in the initial wave were unwilling to fight this particular opponent. Brother nation and all that.
Now, many of these factors are no longer the same. Fronts are shrinked. RAF military better understands the capabilities of the UAF, and is countering their tactics more efficiently. Soldiers are better equipped with night vision equipment, drones, and they use artillery without hesitation. And most of all, new troops coming to front are no longer the kind of people who were brought in for a military exercise and found themselves invading Ukraine: they consciously signed up a (lucrative for provincial russians) military contract and know exactly what their objective is.
The humiliation is such thing. Yes, you are humiliated, so what? USSR was humiliated in the Winter war, yet, people often forget that it actually won it, taking 20% of Finland ( * ). Currently, Putin holds 20% of Ukraine, and I assess he can get a further 10% at this rate by the year end.
(Russia does have the resources to fight it till the end of the year, meanwhile the western public is clearly oversatiated with this war - last week I haven't seen a single Ukraine related topic trending on Twitter)
* - one can argue that Soviet poor performance in Winter war has led Hitler to attack USSR, but 1) I believe Hitler would have attacked regardless, high on confidence after having beaten France and 2) there are nobody now to attack Russia but possibly China, who wouldn't risk it while it is still in one piece. After it desintegrates as a result of Putin's genius rule, probably, I'll take some far East provinces, but not now. Also, unsuccessful wars are the best reality check if you manage to survive them, so if anything, Ukraine war experience will highly improve the real capabilities of Russian military. Equipment can be replaced far more easily than capable soldiers with war experience.
Not Russian but B1 level Russian speaker with lots of experience in that country and armchair general of the 404th chairborn division.
On your 2nd and 3rd points, you might be right. But have you considered the Russian war technique of Maskirovka and military feints?
Maybe (somewhat) surrounding the capital city was pure incompetence or was actually part of the plan, either way, it sufficiency tied up and discombobulated Ukrainian forces and allowed Russia to advance in the Donboss.
It's interesting to read comments from other Westerners who are so totally sure of Russias objectives but have never read Putin's invasion speech (which lays out the stated objectives) or any other Russian officials comments. Because that would be below them; all Russians are alcoholic, corrupt barbarians, don't you know?
On your 2nd and 3rd points, you might be right. But have you considered the Russian war technique of Maskirovka and military feints?
Maybe (somewhat) surrounding the capital city was pure incompetence or was actually part of the plan, either way, it sufficiency tied up and discombobulated Ukrainian forces and allowed Russia to advance in the Donboss.
It's interesting to read comments from other Westerners who are so totally sure of Russias objectives but have never read Putin's invasion speech (which lays out the stated objectives) or any other Russian officials comments. Because that would be below them; all Russians are alcoholic, corrupt barbarians, don't you know?
> But have you considered the Russian war technique of Maskirovka and military feints?
From what information I was able to absorb about the start of the campaign, I think that Putin indeed was planning to take Kiev and Kharkiv in less than a week, and then suppress the riots there using riot police - as evidenced by him bringing in riot police troops equipped to disperse unarmed mobs, not to fight am army.
Regarding Putin's objectives, they were (I think, intentionally) very vague - 'denazify Ukraine' and 'secure Donbass'. So, for example, you can bomb a kindergarten and call it a day: Ukraine is now 'sufficiently denazified', Donbass is secure, and we can safely go home. With such goals, Putin can stop the war at any day and his propaganda corps will present any state of affairs as 'the greatest victory since WW2'.
From what information I was able to absorb about the start of the campaign, I think that Putin indeed was planning to take Kiev and Kharkiv in less than a week, and then suppress the riots there using riot police - as evidenced by him bringing in riot police troops equipped to disperse unarmed mobs, not to fight am army.
Regarding Putin's objectives, they were (I think, intentionally) very vague - 'denazify Ukraine' and 'secure Donbass'. So, for example, you can bomb a kindergarten and call it a day: Ukraine is now 'sufficiently denazified', Donbass is secure, and we can safely go home. With such goals, Putin can stop the war at any day and his propaganda corps will present any state of affairs as 'the greatest victory since WW2'.
Possibly; it could have been a type of feint/maskirovka or simply an attempt to scare the Zelenski administration into an early agreement. Either way, it was never enough forces to actual subdue a city the size of Kiev. But it certainly distracted a lot of Ukrainian forces away from the main front.
I sure hope that it stops at Donbass (and that this nightmare ends asap). But if western weapons keep pouring into Ukraine (which were never going to be enough to defeat the Russian military), then Russia might think that it needs to take the entire country to put an end to the hostilities (hope not).
I sure hope that it stops at Donbass (and that this nightmare ends asap). But if western weapons keep pouring into Ukraine (which were never going to be enough to defeat the Russian military), then Russia might think that it needs to take the entire country to put an end to the hostilities (hope not).
Once again, you're reading way too much Sputnik - those fantasies about "20%" choice is a direct quote from Russian propaganda. The reality is, Russia has invested everything they had in this war - and so far lost twice. The quickest way to end hostilities is to provide Ukraine with more weapons - because Russia needs to be bled out.
For me, the humiliation comes to Russian society/governance in general. It’s pretty clear that Putin just wants to be another Czar. And the prevailing “well, what are you going to do” fatalism in Russian society means it’s just going to go on. Post 1990, as a child of the Cold War, I naively believed that “change was afoot.” That there was a desire amongst eastern countries to move beyond mideval behavior. It took a few years, but we’re right back to “I wanna be the boss forever”. People malign Putin for this. I have lost faith in the general Russian system at large that just keeps making one Stalin, kruschev, Putin after another. That the Russian system cannot move beyond this, is to me the real humiliation.
Nope, a few missteps in the first 90 days of the war will hardly matter a decade from now.
The West really needs to update their news cycle. While everyone was laughing at the problems Russia had early in the war, they went into full artillery mode.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/world/europe/ukraine-ammo...
The West really needs to update their news cycle. While everyone was laughing at the problems Russia had early in the war, they went into full artillery mode.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/world/europe/ukraine-ammo...
> The current Taiwanese government's only stated goal is to defend itself.
That is entirely wrong. There are plenty of people in the current government pushing the envelope to achieve more "pronounced" independence.
Two examples:
Biden’s democracy summit incident. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/curious-case-map-...
Change of passport. The current government is also pushing to get the day-to-day name Taiwan more prominent. For example, they are putting the Taiwan name on the passport now, even though their constitutional name is Republic of China (I am wondering when they will change that).
Depending on which side you are, you may consider these are declaration of independence and a change of status quo.
> China could attack Taiwan (particularly Matsu and Kinmen), but an attack on the mainland also appears less likely these days, given the very real chance of humiliation a la Russia in Ukraine.
I think you may misunderstand the CCP. Even the perception of losing Taiwan will cause them to lose control in the mainland. What matters most to CCP? And imagine what they will do.
That is entirely wrong. There are plenty of people in the current government pushing the envelope to achieve more "pronounced" independence.
Two examples:
Biden’s democracy summit incident. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/curious-case-map-...
Change of passport. The current government is also pushing to get the day-to-day name Taiwan more prominent. For example, they are putting the Taiwan name on the passport now, even though their constitutional name is Republic of China (I am wondering when they will change that).
Depending on which side you are, you may consider these are declaration of independence and a change of status quo.
> China could attack Taiwan (particularly Matsu and Kinmen), but an attack on the mainland also appears less likely these days, given the very real chance of humiliation a la Russia in Ukraine.
I think you may misunderstand the CCP. Even the perception of losing Taiwan will cause them to lose control in the mainland. What matters most to CCP? And imagine what they will do.
It's remarkable that anyone would classify something like a change of passport or a color on a map as "aggression" toward China! Especially when the Chinese aggression discussed here is airstrikes and missile barrage, followed by a naval invasion.
Everyone understands that Taiwan will not invade China. To classify Taiwan as the aggressor is wildly disingenuous.
Everyone understands that Taiwan will not invade China. To classify Taiwan as the aggressor is wildly disingenuous.
What I meant is to start a conflict (intentional or unintentionally) to get US military involved. Just watch the local news commentors there. It is definitely been constantly discussed.
Some US news commentators talk about supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That doesn't mean it's official policy.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-russia-ukrain...
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-russia-ukrain...
I understand your point. But ambiguity has deterred a formal Taiwan president from declaring independence. "Aggression" may not be the right choice of word, but this is what I meant, "the leash is gone" in the original post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/12/11/t...
> to achieve more "pronounced" independence.
Well they already are independent. They have their own laws, taxes, government, population, and borders. And this has been the case for 70 years.
The only "difference" here is that they aren't officially saying that they are independent. Even though yes, they are obviously already an independent country.
Recognizing the obvious reality isn't aggression.
Well they already are independent. They have their own laws, taxes, government, population, and borders. And this has been the case for 70 years.
The only "difference" here is that they aren't officially saying that they are independent. Even though yes, they are obviously already an independent country.
Recognizing the obvious reality isn't aggression.
China is always overstepping their bounds and needs to be checked by the superpowers of the world. Without checks and balances, they will continue to bully the neighboring countries by force and deception.
China, Russia, and the United States are the only 3 superpowers.
China already has a larger economy in terms of PPP. It passed the United States in 2017.
Russia appears to have bigger plans beyond Ukraine:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-38099842
Also, people seem to be a month behind on what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-06-10/ukraine-a...
China already has a larger economy in terms of PPP. It passed the United States in 2017.
Russia appears to have bigger plans beyond Ukraine:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-38099842
Also, people seem to be a month behind on what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-06-10/ukraine-a...
Russia is a superpower? o-O I would understand if you put EU there. Or if you consider it to be separate states, Germany, UK, and France. Russia has not been a superpower since the collapse of USSR and even regaining those territories (which is not going to happen) won't turn them into one. Neither China, nor US are superpowers because they have a lot of land. They are superpowers because they have immense industries, which the world depends on.
> people seem to be a month behind on what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
What are you talking about?
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offens...
What are you talking about?
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offens...
So, you and I both posted the same information about the current assessment.
Thanks. It’s great to discuss the current situation
“Ukrainian officials are increasing the urgency of their requests for more-sophisticated Western-provided weapons systems amid reports of growing Russian artillery superiority”
Thanks. It’s great to discuss the current situation
“Ukrainian officials are increasing the urgency of their requests for more-sophisticated Western-provided weapons systems amid reports of growing Russian artillery superiority”
No. You asserted that mainstream information is behind by a month.
[deleted]
A gaggle of billionaires with a nation in their pocket. They want to grow. Mugging your neighbors might be the only option.
[deleted]
As a great power, does China need to keep Russia and America in check?
what does "checked" mean? does it involve aircraft carriers? I don't mind if we keep playing the midgame part of chess for a while longer...
You can participate by actively seeking to avoid purchasing products made in China.
[deleted]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinmen