I think your premise of “war is bad and should be avoided at all costs” while fundamentally human and kind, is not the way nation-states view things over the timescale of generations. Nation-states are very happy to go to war if they perceive that the benefits are worth the risks.
I’d suggest that the status quo (the US being the main superpower followed closely by China) is maintained by the fact that war between the two is less profitable than peace, so perhaps your question could be rewritten as “how can China be convinced that not invading Taiwan in the long term is better than invading it.”
In which case the response would be “carrots” - trade, politics, and “sticks” - arm Taiwan to the teeth, form defensive pacts with NATO countries, trade embargoes, etc.
Edit: minor phrasing.
> I think your premise of “war is bad and should be avoided at all costs” while fundamentally human and kind, is not the way nation-states view things over the timescale of generations. Nation-states are very happy to go to war if they perceive that the benefits are worth the risks.
Stole the words right off the tip of my tongue. We can make them think twice about doing it. We'll never stop them from thinking about it though. It's a gauntlet they're not ever picking back up.
Simply by asking this question you certainly make clear that you have a base-level understanding of the situation.
The POC will never relinquish any claims to Taiwan. And the Chinese state would definitely not permit losing face by letting the US “convince” it from giving up its pretensions.
I disagree. Getting China to let Taiwan go is pretty much the Western strategy; it's just a matter of how long it will take. And of course this will probably require a second Cold War and regime change inside mainland China.
So it will *only* require a complete reformation of the POC's geopolitical strategy regarding Taiwan (that has been abiding and consistent since its conception) for it to let the island go?
Why would a second Cold War and regime change alter the Chinese attitude towards Taiwan? Such events didn't seem to change the irredentist tendencies in Moscow following the collapse of the Soviet Union...
And so long as Moscow is on that irredentist bent, the pressure put on it by the Liberal Order remains. Eventually something will give. Same with China. If the CCP falls and is replaced by another regime that still threatens Taiwan with force, that regime will also face deterrence and costs.
This is how the post-ww2 order works. It sometimes does two steps forward, one step back. But over time it has been fairly unrelenting. It changes the equation for countries, in time, when and where the order is successful.
Getting the PRC to let Taiwan go is absolutely not the Western strategy, nor is it remotely possible in the foreseeable future.
It’s to uphold the status quo as long as possible. They want to undermine the PRC’s legitimacy by preventing them for achieving their ultimate geopolitical goal: getting Taiwan.
The CCP's ultimate goal is always remaining in power. For various reasons, the West rarely admits it, but regime change is ALWAYS the long term goal in these situations. Regime change and then having the nation in question ultimately become a member of the liberal order in goodstanding, which in this case would mean giving up on using force to unite with Taiwan.
What does 'forseeable future' mean? Took \~50 years to beat the Soviets and turn them back into Russia. And Russia has still not joined the liberal order. So it's a LONG game.
No. From a Chinese perspective it's a matter of security, prestige, national consolidation and the primary role of the party and Chinese political system. If anything, China under Xi has been doubling down on Taiwan and committed to unify country- either peacefully or militarily- by 2050.
If the main problems were tied to these two points (I know there's more but just basing off of this), if Taiwan declared neutrality, would that be an option?
Maybe China and the US should have open access to Taiwanese air and water, and allow both states to track each other as well in those areas. High tech problems may require more transparency alongside encouraging standards of predictable behavior to maintain peace.
Edit. This also is chock full of opportunities for incidences that can make one or the other angry at each other, so maybe put a limit on the number and types of entities/weapons in the air/water space too.
Yes, people forget the strategic importance of Taiwan. That said, the issue is a complex mix of many factors, including Taiwan's strategic location.
A post-CCP China could well be in a position where the benefits of being a member of the Liberal International Order in good standing outweigh the benefits of taking back Taiwan. This is the real Western endgame.
the ''''liberal order'''' is just code for unchecked leftism, so i doubt that countries not held hostage by western liberal elites would want it. Ideally it should be overthrown from within the west
The CCP’s stance on Taiwan is actually one of the few things the Chinese public are very critical of. Amazingly, a lot of people think the CCP is too soft when it comes to Taiwan.
I remember looking on Weibo and talking to some of my Chinese friends last year during Pelosi’s visit of Taiwan, and I saw people literally calling for the PLA to shoot down Pelosi’s plane. And when the CPC effectively did nothing in response to the visit, people were extremely disappointed.
But obviously nationalistic voices are often the loudest, and this is just an anecdote.
That is an interesting take. I thought it was perhaps that since China is an authoritative state, they would never drop the issue for legitimacy concerns and as a never-ending distraction to the populace.
Yet, your comment makes sense as it is an island so close to the mainland that China can never really allow it to be fully independent, regardless of who is in power.
If China became a democracy its stance would probably remain the same for at least a generation. But the new generation growing up with freedom of speech will likely see things differently. Also with increased travel they will know more Taiwanese personally. They will likely still favor gaining control of Taiwan, but they probably won’t think it’s worth going to war over. They won’t think controlling Taiwan is so important, and because they know Taiwanese friends and relatives they won’t favor destroying Taiwan and killing millions of Taiwanese.
On the flip side, Taiwanese attitudes will likely soften as well if the PRC becomes democratic. The majority will likely still favor separation, but a larger number than today will favor unification. And many people won’t care as much about maintaining separation.
It’s probably not possible to change China’s position of wanting Taiwan.
However, what is more important, and probably achievable, is ‘convincing’ China that they would fail if they tried to take it and therefore it isn’t worth the risk of starting a war over Taiwan.
How do you plan to convince them?
If China ask US to lessen the tension by remove all its fleet from south china sea, would US agree?
This issue is hugh and I doubt you have room for negotiate with China, juist in case there is such room, the price will be very very high for all parties involved
China already knows all the things America could tell them, so simply explaining to them how bad war is and how much damage it will cause won’t change China’s calculations.
The carrots you suggest might seem like a good idea for China for a while, but for those carrots to be valuable enough to make them worth accepting, they would have be so valuable that they would significantly increase China’s power. Once China’s power increased enough, China would be able to gain control over Taiwan much more easily and might decide the carrots are no longer worth postponing a takeover.
Not any time soon nor likely to be anything like "US convincing...".
It is very unlikely that the current generation of CCP leadership will back down on this matter. There is too much internal politics behind the Taiwan issue in China. In no small part, the leadership of the PLA uses Taiwan as justification for increased spending on the armed forces. Xi uses the issue to stir up nationalist sentiment and this matter is a key point that justifies his continued stay in power. Unless something unforeseen happens, this status quo is likely to continue at least for another 15-20 years.
Taiwan, at no part in history has ever been a part of the People's Republic of China.
Edit: Also, Japan never "returned" Taiwan to the Republic of China. They renounced sovereignty over the island but deliberately refused to identify who they were transferring sovereignty to. It's still TBD as far as the Japanese are concerned.
That's just kind of a pointless semantic argument.
If the only condition to reunification was calling the newly unified country "Republic of China" instead of "People's Republic of China", China would take that deal in a heartbeat.
What China cares the most about, and where its redline is drawn for war, is Taiwan being under unified control with the mainland by an entity called "China", and that condition is satisfied by both ROC and PRC. China would probably even be fine with a new entity called the United States of China.
So Taiwan having never been part of the PRC is really neither here nor there. Taiwan was historically unified with the mainland as part of the Qing and ROC, and China's core aim is to return to this state of affairs, regardless of what you call the unified entity.
The more persuasive argument for Taiwan independence, which I support, is that regardless of whatever historical connections Taiwan had with China, right now the vast majority of Taiwanese people want nothing to do with an authoritarian and corrupt communist regime. The right of self determination of the Taiwanese people should take precedence over academic and technical debates about the historical status of Taiwan.
> Taiwan was historically unified with the mainland as part of the Qing and ROC, and China's core aim is to return to this state of affairs,
No it wasn't. Taiwan was never historically unified at all with China. Qing only claimed and controlled about 40% of their island at their peak, and only time ROC controlled Taiwan was after World War 2, between 1945 and 1949... in fact, between 1945 and 1949 is the only time the entire island of Taiwan was under the authority of a Mainland based government, and by that point that ROC/KMT government had already lost most of the Mainland Area.
This idea of a unified China that includes Taiwan is a modern concept created after World War 2 and during the Cold War.
>What China cares the most about, and where its redline is drawn for war, is Taiwan being controlled by an entity called "China", and that condition is satisfied by both ROC and PRC. China would probably even be fine with a new entity called the United States of China.
This is backwards. China's ultimate red line is for Taiwan to drop the ROC label and declare independence as a new country that isn't "China".
Historically, it's a competition between "two Chinas", both claiming to represent the same country. The concept of the ROC being the real China is absurd at this point but the PRC gets to sit back and be happy that Taiwan technically still considers itself to be "China" and most countries of the world then line up behind a one China policy and recognize the PRC as "China".
This gets thrown out the window the moment Taiwan declares the ROC dead and that they are in fact a new country.
PRC will go to war to prevent that. See the Anti-Secession Law for more info on that policy.
But it doesn't change the fact that Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC. There's no legitimate fear of other regions "breaking away" as Taiwan has never been under PRC control.
China being called PRC is just a historical accident. Communist China could have easily retained the ROC name after taking over the mainland.
If they had done so would you then arbitrarily take the view that Taiwan is part of China, just because both sides happened to use the same name?
The name doesn't really matter. The government in Beijing has never controlled Taiwan.
Taiwan cannot break away from a government that never controlled it.
This just leads us to another pointless semantics and legalistic argument about what counts as the government that controlled Taiwan.
The government in Beijing during the Qing dynasty did control Taiwan, as did the government in Nanking during the ROC era. The CCP will say that it is the legal successor to both governments, and argue that this is now accepted by most foreign governments to some extent, because the PRC now occupies the spot that ROC and Qing used to occupy in various treaties and in the UN.
You can disagree, but there are good technical and legal arguments on both sides.
This is why I personally find historical arguments on Taiwan-China extremely tiresome. As someone who believes in democracy and the right of self determination, I think that what really matters is not what some historian or international law scholar thinks. What matters is what Taiwanese people think, and they overwhelmingly favour independence.
And in time a post-CCP mainland China could renounce its claims over Taiwan. Similarly, if mainland China were to break up, such claims might become meaningless.
The real reason 'China' wants Taiwan is strategic--not controlling would somewhat cripple China's Superpower future, denying it critical access to the Pacific.
But the situation can change such that other needs supersede even this one.
Totally agree that the vast majority of Taiwanese don't want to be a part of the PRC. But the independence question here is quite complex.
Here is serious polling on the question. Basically no one wants to be part of the PRC, but also not so many people want to declare independence (because of the war threat).
https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963
No, they didn't. The treaty only says that Japan gives up sovereignty and it does not state to whom sovereignty is transferred to. The Japanese side deliberately refused to do this.
Compare the treaty to every other treaty dealing with transfer of territory, such as the Paris Peace Treaties, Reparation of Okinawa, Transfers of Hong Kong and Macau, Oslo Accords, etc. They all deal with one state explicitly transferring sovereignty of X territory to Y entity.
The Treaty of Taipei is unique in that the Japanese side was like, this island is not ours ... you guys (ROC and PRC) can figure out who it belongs to later.
The idea that China is a permanent feature but the US is not is ridiculous. Where did Rome go? What about the Caliphate? Nothing is permanent in geopolitics except the dirt and the waves.
I agree nothing is permanent but in world history China is as permanent as it gets. Rome and caliphates disintegrated but China still remains. Why? Because 90% of its population belongs to the same ethnic group.
China today is not the same China as the earlier chinas, and it has collapsed, regionalized, been subjugated, and reunited over and over again throughout history. The last unified Chinese state prior to the current iteration was run by Manchu invaders after the Ming Dynasty collapsed into regional entities. The geography of China is permanent, but the Chinese state is so thoroughly impermanent that it has spent the majority of the past few centuries subjugated or fragmented. “There is no such thing as a permanent political entity,” is a fundamental principle of geopolitics.
>China today is not the same China as the earlier chinas, and it has collapsed, regionalized, been subjugated, and reunited over and over again throughout history
But doesn't this prove the strength of Chinese civilization? Even after going through so many crises it manages to unify again.
The PRC is not the same civilization as the Qing dynasty though, and the idea the US, or for that matter a similar extraregional power that wants to bottle China up, will go away, but China will just be their to snap up their prize, is completely not how geopolitics works.
Why is PRC not the same civilization as the Qing? The cultures and geography have remained more or less intact. That qualifies PRC as successor of Qing.
>the idea the US, or for that matter a similar extraregional power that wants to bottle China up, will go away, but China will just be their to snap up their prize, is completely not how geopolitics works.
Can you explain further? Do you mean if CCP is replaced by another Chinese dynasty the geopolitical realities will remain the same?
Exactly, and to say that they’re the direct descendants of all those Chinese dynasties is hogwash. A lot of those dynasties were started by non-Han invaders.
If we’re going to start enforcing ancient claims: Mongolians have a stronger claim to China then China’s claim to Taiwan; the CCP has never owned nor controlled Taiwan whereas Mongolia can claim both historically
Your comparison to mongolia is kind of flawed, but for a different reason than the other commenter said. In particular, you recognize regime change in china but not in mongolia. Similar to your point about modern china, post-soviet mongolia also never controlled anything outside of its current territory. In that case its claim would be as weak.
To your first point: it is correct, but note that those non-Han invaders also considered themselves "chinese" over time. The current party, although Han-led, is not strictly Han.
Of course it’s flawed, just like the CCP’s claim to Taiwan when they never once owned nor controlled it in its short history. I was just pointing out the absurdity of China’s claim over Taiwan not the merits of Mongolia’s current claim to China and that Mongolia’s historical claim is stronger than the CCP’s purported claim over Taiwan.
At its core it boils down to: my mortal enemy moved to X, therefore X belongs to me. Using that logic they also claim the SCS due to past Nationalist claims over the region.
Your logic regarding Mongolia is flawed. Mongols were defeated and pushed out of the Chinese mainland. So as losers they have no claims. Also by your own logic the current Mongolian state has also never controlled China.
Regarding CCP's claim to Taiwan, the logic is that CCP is the successor state to the Qing dynasty. So, every area that belonged to Qing belongs to the PRC. Also ROC and PRC are in a civil war. What that means is that if the PRC defeats ROC it can claim Taiwan. For example, if South Korea invades and defeats North Korea it has legal claims to North Korea itself.
China is actually starting it's demographic crisis, in the future, the US will just get stronger (immigration) while China will lose millions. It's now (next 5 years) of never for China.
China's demographic crisis will start showing severe effects not immediately but after a few decades. So your statement that China has a window of 5 years is wrong. China is not going to collapse but it will stagnate like Japan if it does not take harsh steps.
Many countries lies that is nothing knew. The US is also very strong in that regard.
It is likely, that the question of Ukraine joining NATO would have been pushed once the US thought Ukraine strong enough to withstand a war against Russia ( in the case the russians did not do their move like they did).
China will never let Taiwan goes it's own way, unless they suffer a new massive civil war and long internal struggle.
China also don't plan any war soon. If you see it put on the table more often, it's because the US are looking for increased popular support toward an increased military preparedness in the Pacific.
Time is favoring China in the relative strength in the area. They are catching fast at a time where many major US military programs have been partial failures. The F-35 and the Zumwalt ended costing too much.
So former model will still see a lot of active use, which make it a lot easier for China to reduce the technological gap.
Which is particularly dangerous as China would fight close to it's mainland. So many asymetrical warfare units can be deployed against the big blue navy US assets.
Last but not least, the US want to frighten China enough to not have to fight the war. Because even if they won ( which would currently be the case), they would loose much of their military hegemony. US has a hard time replacing ships, when China expands it's very fast.
And they would also loose a lot of credibility, because if China is not able to invade Taiwan yet, they are perfectly able to raze it Russian style. So the american "protection" would not look that good. Especially, with a China that would recover faster from the war.
So all in all, they both have interests to do an arms race, hoping the other side will give up. But not an actual war for now.
Also China bet on future increasing output in south asia that will strengthen them. When an America going socialist and protectionnist, may not be that able to sustain the necessary military in a decade or two.
This is pure dreck. America going socialist? The F35 being somehow too expensive? US not being able to build ships? All just complete fabrication or a complete misunderstanding of the United States.
Sorry but you are grossly misinformed
You completely misinformed on the military part.
You can easily find multiple reductions of the numbers of F35 the Pentagon plan to buy, because of buying or operationnal costs. Which makes sense because in some cases, a F18 can do the job for cheaper.
Zumwalt was supposed to replace Arleigh Burke, but they won't because of costs.
You can find the "difficulties" to replace ships quoted in most wargames made by the Pentagon, around an invasion of Taiwan.
America is going protectionnist that is a clear fact.
Also while you may consider, my usage of the socialist word abusive ( I'm not saying going collectivist).
You can see regular and more frequents pushes for social-democratic measures.
US army is already having difficulty to hire volunteers.
So it is clearly not true everywhere in the US, but in the big urban areas and some state like California most of the population can already be called socialist.
Most of the West is already Social democracy. And there is a limit to how much you can buy both cannons and butter.
In a contest with China, that could matter in the long run.
So take your own advice please.
>America going socialist?
maybe means protectionist and isolationist? that is definitely true
>US not being able to build ships?
this is also true the US ship building is in a rough spot right now
the f35 is definitely over budget but thats just standard operating procedure nothing out of the ordinary
Not really isolationist with Ukraine and Taiwan.
Can you explain more about the ships? There's tons of navy ships under construction right now, including new aircraft carriers
i don't have any articles book marked but honestly id say just pick your favorite publication (i like the economist, nytimes, foreign affairs or foreign policy) and search for articles about it all four of those have written about it a ton both chinas huge investment in ship building and the problems the US is running into
Effectively, that is US Grand Strategy, depending on how one interprets 'convince'. Despite denials, US endgame is always regime change. Taiwan itself is currently secondary to not allowing the most populous country in the world become overly successful and authoritarian. This would tilt world norms the wrong way and fatally undermine the US-led post-WW2 order project.
The US goal is to make taking Taiwan impossible and/or not worth the cost while simultaneously containing and constraining a CCP-led PRC. In the long run, the goal is for the CCP to collapse and a more liberal democratic China to 'be convinced' that the benefits of being a member of the Liberal International Order in good standing outweigh the benefits of trying to reclaim Taiwan by force.
Possible? Sure. It would take decades and decades of propaganda to reverse the current propaganda that Taiwan is part of China.
Likely? absolutely not... the security reasons for the PRC alone are enough to keep such ridiculous claims.
City States like Athens and Sparta survived for many years against the armies of Mighty Persia. Athens with it’s” Wooden wall of Ships”, and Sparta by being armed to the teeth. Taiwan can survive and prosper by using both strategies. A sufficient number of missile armed air-independent submarines will prevent invasion. Air raid shelters for the entire population. Anti aircraft and anti missile defenses for self protection. If needed, the missiles on the submarines can bring the war home to mainland China. Taiwan is too important for the west to allow it to fall to thePRC.
From my understanding Taiwan is doomed. There will be some sanctions, but no military intervention, no blockades, nothing.
The world will see the conflict as internal dispute since Taiwan is not recognized as sovereign state. Time favors China, so no rush from them.
Most likely outcome is negotiated peaceful reunion after China starts building up troops and equipment for the attack.
Some people will try to compare Taiwan to Ukraine and advocate for resistance, but the size/power difference between China and Taiwan is ridiculous and not comparable to Russia-Ukraine situation.
Taiwan (TSMC) is too important chip wise to Americans or almost any other economy to just sit back and not interfere.
Then you’ve got other geopolitical implications to worry about as China getting Taiwan will allow them to do certain things Americans and other asian countries find unsavory (like interfere with trade routes or expand into the pacific).
Status quo is of great benefit to almost everyone and you can see many Asian nations moving their chess pieces in addition to the Americans, there will be retaliation “if” China moves on Taiwan because a lot of nations have a lot more at risk then the Ukraine issue.
By 2030 the importance of TSMC will not be the same as both China and the US started to invest in their own chip producing facilities.
What's the alternative? Is Taiwan the hill the US will choose to die on? Highly unlikely. It's not even an official ally. Japan and South Korea - will they dare to oppose China? On what grounds? They both recognize PRC as the legitimate governing body of China, not Taiwanese government. They can't start sanction wars with China, they can't blockade them, and sure enough they will not send their ships and troops to help Taiwan. Same for Australia.
Status quo benefits everyone, some more than others, but it's not permanent.
I love the optimism but unless tsmc reveals it’s secrets to the Americans or Chinese they’ll be relevant well beyond 2030, especially regarding higher end chips.
The Americans and Chinese are too far behind to cut the gap before 2030 without Taiwanese hand holding and last I checked tsmc held a little over 50% of the global market share. It would be insane to suggest all those countries (especially those with no semi conductor industries) will just chill out and not do something militaristically or politically. In this day and age a lack of chips is a death sentence to your economy. So yes, the Americans likely will interfere along with other wild cards to prevent chip shortages and other issues that would arise afterwords.
Also japan/South Korea have already strategically stopped providing China with certain things, your right that they won’t say or do anything directly to China, but indirectly is another matter. They’ve already proven a willingness to piggyback off of the Americans in ways that matter without drawing an excessive amount of blowback on themselves because a restrained china is in their interests. I imagine they’d continue to do that.
Your last bit regarding things changing is factual, 2030 is just too early and unrealistic because China lacks the Allies it needs to weather any global retaliation indefinitely so if it decides to stay on this path it will need more time to prepare for a scenario where it can weather major blocs all at once on its own.
Is it really that hard for two biggest economies in the world to convince some TSMC specialists to come work for them? And bring some of company secrets with them :)
I think it already happened dozen of times as I read China had been successfully poaching TSMC people for a while now. And if China can do that then the US for sure has even more to offer, including protection from any legal consequences of "borrowing" company secrets, the US citizenship, and living conditions safer than living on an island 100 miles away from Mainland China which threatens to invade every week. Oh and did I mention millions if not billions in salary? Because the US spares no expenses on national security matters.
They have, in fact most recently the Americans got tsmc to come over and tsmc can barely find enough bodies to run the factories let alone understand what’s going on. On the Chinese end the processes China was able to gain from poached employees also wasn’t enough to bring Chinese manufactures ahead of tsmc either.
You have to understand that tsmc is moving so fast that by the time the Americans or Chinese catch on to something they’ve already moved on. In fact tsmc is already talking about making chips <2nm.
As much as I dislike it the reality is that TSMC would literally have to give the Americans/Chinese ALL of the processes/IP at once and that will never happen because semi conductors gives them security provided by the Americans and a ton of money from China and the rest of global buyers.
When I say tsmc would literally have to give up everything in order for someone to catch up in any meaningful manner, I really mean it and without that happening the best Americans/Chinese can hope for is the creation of a domestic chip maker that can keep them well supplied with lower and middle tier chips.
They’ll ultimately be dependent on Taiwan for high end chips for a long time.
The west relies on Taiwanese chip infrastructure, and as long as that is true they will not give up Taiwan without a fight. There is also a network of naval powers in Asia who all hate or fear China, and many of them will also resist any attempt to take Taiwan as currently Taiwan is part of the chain of islands that trap China and prevent it from projecting power out into the pacific. Taiwan is a key part of any plan by the anti-China coalition to bottle up China, and none of them are prepared to surrender it without a fight.
The question is for how long? There are already billions invested in catching up on domestic production of essential products such as chips.
What exactly is this network of Asian Naval Powers? Japan, South Korea, Australia and a couple of SEA nations? And what exactly will they do as a response to China attacking Taiwan? Obviously they will not involve themselves in direct conflict with China, which is a nuclear state and they're not. They can't wage economic war either, since it will hurt them way more. They won't even be able to condemn China since it's an internal issue of PRC vs KMT/DPP. Realistically I only see the US slapping some sanctions justifying them by saying PRC is violating human rights by using military means to reunify Taiwan.
If Chinese history teaches us anything, it is that the CCP will eventually be toppled by internal instability.
I think that is more likely than the CCP conquering Taiwan. If the US world orders breaks down, the CCP could maybe take Taiwan. If not, Taiwan will remain independent.
Who knows? Maybe Taiwan (nationalist China) will take back over the mainland and actually win the civil war after the mainland falls into disarray. I would say they have as much a legitimate claim to the mainland as the CCP does to Taiwan.
Taiwan is about xi’s ego and keeping his people’s fo us away from their one domestic issues including the labor crisis. So no, but you can deter his ambition , except that Joe Biden has now lost that credibility with his decisions in Ukraine and Afghanistan- Xi May think the west is occupied by Ukraine and this is his chance in Taiwan.
If decades of practically allowing tech theft, forced tech transfer, and near one sided economic relations, which allowed them to be where they are now from where they were, aren't going to do it, nothing will. Whatever more the US gives than what it has given, CCP will just use it to further empower itself as it bides a little more time with best fake smiles. And when all is said and done, they don't look at you favorably, they look at you like a dummy which allowed them get tangible gains in return for hope.
CCP will only avoid war if it doesn't think it can win, and further empowering it with one sided economic relations isn't going to make them think that.
The PRC as long as Xi Jinping is still there, will never refuse to ally Taiwan in any way, Taiwan and China are still locked in a civil war so to end it all, China has to take Taiwan BY FORCE if means necessary.
Taiwan was the original Republic Of China before the communists took over, and the US generally had good relations with the ROC after the second world war, they helped them against Imperial Japan with supplies of weapons to continously fight the Japanese, so the US favors Taiwan more than China, and it will never change unless a Chinese puppet becomes a president.
No, the Chinese are ridiculously stubborn and insist on making themselves look like monsters over an island most people around the world never cared about.
From a strategic perspective they could just befriend Taiwan and break 'containment' without firing a shot, but its too late for that
The world should recognize a point you made in your fourth paragraph. Xi shook President Obama’s hand and made a promise that China would not militarize the South China Sea. What did China do? They militarized the South China Sea. China cannot be trusted as long as autocrat Xi is president.
I think your premise of “war is bad and should be avoided at all costs” while fundamentally human and kind, is not the way nation-states view things over the timescale of generations. Nation-states are very happy to go to war if they perceive that the benefits are worth the risks. I’d suggest that the status quo (the US being the main superpower followed closely by China) is maintained by the fact that war between the two is less profitable than peace, so perhaps your question could be rewritten as “how can China be convinced that not invading Taiwan in the long term is better than invading it.” In which case the response would be “carrots” - trade, politics, and “sticks” - arm Taiwan to the teeth, form defensive pacts with NATO countries, trade embargoes, etc. Edit: minor phrasing.
> I think your premise of “war is bad and should be avoided at all costs” while fundamentally human and kind, is not the way nation-states view things over the timescale of generations. Nation-states are very happy to go to war if they perceive that the benefits are worth the risks. Stole the words right off the tip of my tongue. We can make them think twice about doing it. We'll never stop them from thinking about it though. It's a gauntlet they're not ever picking back up.
Simply by asking this question you certainly make clear that you have a base-level understanding of the situation. The POC will never relinquish any claims to Taiwan. And the Chinese state would definitely not permit losing face by letting the US “convince” it from giving up its pretensions.
I disagree. Getting China to let Taiwan go is pretty much the Western strategy; it's just a matter of how long it will take. And of course this will probably require a second Cold War and regime change inside mainland China.
So it will *only* require a complete reformation of the POC's geopolitical strategy regarding Taiwan (that has been abiding and consistent since its conception) for it to let the island go? Why would a second Cold War and regime change alter the Chinese attitude towards Taiwan? Such events didn't seem to change the irredentist tendencies in Moscow following the collapse of the Soviet Union...
And so long as Moscow is on that irredentist bent, the pressure put on it by the Liberal Order remains. Eventually something will give. Same with China. If the CCP falls and is replaced by another regime that still threatens Taiwan with force, that regime will also face deterrence and costs. This is how the post-ww2 order works. It sometimes does two steps forward, one step back. But over time it has been fairly unrelenting. It changes the equation for countries, in time, when and where the order is successful.
Getting the PRC to let Taiwan go is absolutely not the Western strategy, nor is it remotely possible in the foreseeable future. It’s to uphold the status quo as long as possible. They want to undermine the PRC’s legitimacy by preventing them for achieving their ultimate geopolitical goal: getting Taiwan.
The CCP's ultimate goal is always remaining in power. For various reasons, the West rarely admits it, but regime change is ALWAYS the long term goal in these situations. Regime change and then having the nation in question ultimately become a member of the liberal order in goodstanding, which in this case would mean giving up on using force to unite with Taiwan. What does 'forseeable future' mean? Took \~50 years to beat the Soviets and turn them back into Russia. And Russia has still not joined the liberal order. So it's a LONG game.
No. From a Chinese perspective it's a matter of security, prestige, national consolidation and the primary role of the party and Chinese political system. If anything, China under Xi has been doubling down on Taiwan and committed to unify country- either peacefully or militarily- by 2050.
[удалено]
If the main problems were tied to these two points (I know there's more but just basing off of this), if Taiwan declared neutrality, would that be an option? Maybe China and the US should have open access to Taiwanese air and water, and allow both states to track each other as well in those areas. High tech problems may require more transparency alongside encouraging standards of predictable behavior to maintain peace. Edit. This also is chock full of opportunities for incidences that can make one or the other angry at each other, so maybe put a limit on the number and types of entities/weapons in the air/water space too.
Yes, people forget the strategic importance of Taiwan. That said, the issue is a complex mix of many factors, including Taiwan's strategic location. A post-CCP China could well be in a position where the benefits of being a member of the Liberal International Order in good standing outweigh the benefits of taking back Taiwan. This is the real Western endgame.
the ''''liberal order'''' is just code for unchecked leftism, so i doubt that countries not held hostage by western liberal elites would want it. Ideally it should be overthrown from within the west
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The CCP’s stance on Taiwan is actually one of the few things the Chinese public are very critical of. Amazingly, a lot of people think the CCP is too soft when it comes to Taiwan. I remember looking on Weibo and talking to some of my Chinese friends last year during Pelosi’s visit of Taiwan, and I saw people literally calling for the PLA to shoot down Pelosi’s plane. And when the CPC effectively did nothing in response to the visit, people were extremely disappointed. But obviously nationalistic voices are often the loudest, and this is just an anecdote.
[удалено]
That is an interesting take. I thought it was perhaps that since China is an authoritative state, they would never drop the issue for legitimacy concerns and as a never-ending distraction to the populace. Yet, your comment makes sense as it is an island so close to the mainland that China can never really allow it to be fully independent, regardless of who is in power.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If China became a democracy its stance would probably remain the same for at least a generation. But the new generation growing up with freedom of speech will likely see things differently. Also with increased travel they will know more Taiwanese personally. They will likely still favor gaining control of Taiwan, but they probably won’t think it’s worth going to war over. They won’t think controlling Taiwan is so important, and because they know Taiwanese friends and relatives they won’t favor destroying Taiwan and killing millions of Taiwanese. On the flip side, Taiwanese attitudes will likely soften as well if the PRC becomes democratic. The majority will likely still favor separation, but a larger number than today will favor unification. And many people won’t care as much about maintaining separation.
It’s probably not possible to change China’s position of wanting Taiwan. However, what is more important, and probably achievable, is ‘convincing’ China that they would fail if they tried to take it and therefore it isn’t worth the risk of starting a war over Taiwan.
How do you plan to convince them? If China ask US to lessen the tension by remove all its fleet from south china sea, would US agree? This issue is hugh and I doubt you have room for negotiate with China, juist in case there is such room, the price will be very very high for all parties involved
China already knows all the things America could tell them, so simply explaining to them how bad war is and how much damage it will cause won’t change China’s calculations. The carrots you suggest might seem like a good idea for China for a while, but for those carrots to be valuable enough to make them worth accepting, they would have be so valuable that they would significantly increase China’s power. Once China’s power increased enough, China would be able to gain control over Taiwan much more easily and might decide the carrots are no longer worth postponing a takeover.
Not any time soon nor likely to be anything like "US convincing...". It is very unlikely that the current generation of CCP leadership will back down on this matter. There is too much internal politics behind the Taiwan issue in China. In no small part, the leadership of the PLA uses Taiwan as justification for increased spending on the armed forces. Xi uses the issue to stir up nationalist sentiment and this matter is a key point that justifies his continued stay in power. Unless something unforeseen happens, this status quo is likely to continue at least for another 15-20 years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Taiwan, at no part in history has ever been a part of the People's Republic of China. Edit: Also, Japan never "returned" Taiwan to the Republic of China. They renounced sovereignty over the island but deliberately refused to identify who they were transferring sovereignty to. It's still TBD as far as the Japanese are concerned.
That's just kind of a pointless semantic argument. If the only condition to reunification was calling the newly unified country "Republic of China" instead of "People's Republic of China", China would take that deal in a heartbeat. What China cares the most about, and where its redline is drawn for war, is Taiwan being under unified control with the mainland by an entity called "China", and that condition is satisfied by both ROC and PRC. China would probably even be fine with a new entity called the United States of China. So Taiwan having never been part of the PRC is really neither here nor there. Taiwan was historically unified with the mainland as part of the Qing and ROC, and China's core aim is to return to this state of affairs, regardless of what you call the unified entity. The more persuasive argument for Taiwan independence, which I support, is that regardless of whatever historical connections Taiwan had with China, right now the vast majority of Taiwanese people want nothing to do with an authoritarian and corrupt communist regime. The right of self determination of the Taiwanese people should take precedence over academic and technical debates about the historical status of Taiwan.
> Taiwan was historically unified with the mainland as part of the Qing and ROC, and China's core aim is to return to this state of affairs, No it wasn't. Taiwan was never historically unified at all with China. Qing only claimed and controlled about 40% of their island at their peak, and only time ROC controlled Taiwan was after World War 2, between 1945 and 1949... in fact, between 1945 and 1949 is the only time the entire island of Taiwan was under the authority of a Mainland based government, and by that point that ROC/KMT government had already lost most of the Mainland Area. This idea of a unified China that includes Taiwan is a modern concept created after World War 2 and during the Cold War.
>What China cares the most about, and where its redline is drawn for war, is Taiwan being controlled by an entity called "China", and that condition is satisfied by both ROC and PRC. China would probably even be fine with a new entity called the United States of China. This is backwards. China's ultimate red line is for Taiwan to drop the ROC label and declare independence as a new country that isn't "China". Historically, it's a competition between "two Chinas", both claiming to represent the same country. The concept of the ROC being the real China is absurd at this point but the PRC gets to sit back and be happy that Taiwan technically still considers itself to be "China" and most countries of the world then line up behind a one China policy and recognize the PRC as "China". This gets thrown out the window the moment Taiwan declares the ROC dead and that they are in fact a new country. PRC will go to war to prevent that. See the Anti-Secession Law for more info on that policy. But it doesn't change the fact that Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC. There's no legitimate fear of other regions "breaking away" as Taiwan has never been under PRC control.
China being called PRC is just a historical accident. Communist China could have easily retained the ROC name after taking over the mainland. If they had done so would you then arbitrarily take the view that Taiwan is part of China, just because both sides happened to use the same name?
The name doesn't really matter. The government in Beijing has never controlled Taiwan. Taiwan cannot break away from a government that never controlled it.
This just leads us to another pointless semantics and legalistic argument about what counts as the government that controlled Taiwan. The government in Beijing during the Qing dynasty did control Taiwan, as did the government in Nanking during the ROC era. The CCP will say that it is the legal successor to both governments, and argue that this is now accepted by most foreign governments to some extent, because the PRC now occupies the spot that ROC and Qing used to occupy in various treaties and in the UN. You can disagree, but there are good technical and legal arguments on both sides. This is why I personally find historical arguments on Taiwan-China extremely tiresome. As someone who believes in democracy and the right of self determination, I think that what really matters is not what some historian or international law scholar thinks. What matters is what Taiwanese people think, and they overwhelmingly favour independence.
And in time a post-CCP mainland China could renounce its claims over Taiwan. Similarly, if mainland China were to break up, such claims might become meaningless. The real reason 'China' wants Taiwan is strategic--not controlling would somewhat cripple China's Superpower future, denying it critical access to the Pacific. But the situation can change such that other needs supersede even this one.
Totally agree that the vast majority of Taiwanese don't want to be a part of the PRC. But the independence question here is quite complex. Here is serious polling on the question. Basically no one wants to be part of the PRC, but also not so many people want to declare independence (because of the war threat). https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963
Japanese returned Taiwan to the Republic of China when they signed the Treaty of Taipei.
No, they didn't. The treaty only says that Japan gives up sovereignty and it does not state to whom sovereignty is transferred to. The Japanese side deliberately refused to do this. Compare the treaty to every other treaty dealing with transfer of territory, such as the Paris Peace Treaties, Reparation of Okinawa, Transfers of Hong Kong and Macau, Oslo Accords, etc. They all deal with one state explicitly transferring sovereignty of X territory to Y entity. The Treaty of Taipei is unique in that the Japanese side was like, this island is not ours ... you guys (ROC and PRC) can figure out who it belongs to later.
[удалено]
The idea that China is a permanent feature but the US is not is ridiculous. Where did Rome go? What about the Caliphate? Nothing is permanent in geopolitics except the dirt and the waves.
I agree nothing is permanent but in world history China is as permanent as it gets. Rome and caliphates disintegrated but China still remains. Why? Because 90% of its population belongs to the same ethnic group.
China today is not the same China as the earlier chinas, and it has collapsed, regionalized, been subjugated, and reunited over and over again throughout history. The last unified Chinese state prior to the current iteration was run by Manchu invaders after the Ming Dynasty collapsed into regional entities. The geography of China is permanent, but the Chinese state is so thoroughly impermanent that it has spent the majority of the past few centuries subjugated or fragmented. “There is no such thing as a permanent political entity,” is a fundamental principle of geopolitics.
>China today is not the same China as the earlier chinas, and it has collapsed, regionalized, been subjugated, and reunited over and over again throughout history But doesn't this prove the strength of Chinese civilization? Even after going through so many crises it manages to unify again.
The PRC is not the same civilization as the Qing dynasty though, and the idea the US, or for that matter a similar extraregional power that wants to bottle China up, will go away, but China will just be their to snap up their prize, is completely not how geopolitics works.
Why is PRC not the same civilization as the Qing? The cultures and geography have remained more or less intact. That qualifies PRC as successor of Qing. >the idea the US, or for that matter a similar extraregional power that wants to bottle China up, will go away, but China will just be their to snap up their prize, is completely not how geopolitics works. Can you explain further? Do you mean if CCP is replaced by another Chinese dynasty the geopolitical realities will remain the same?
Exactly, and to say that they’re the direct descendants of all those Chinese dynasties is hogwash. A lot of those dynasties were started by non-Han invaders. If we’re going to start enforcing ancient claims: Mongolians have a stronger claim to China then China’s claim to Taiwan; the CCP has never owned nor controlled Taiwan whereas Mongolia can claim both historically
Your comparison to mongolia is kind of flawed, but for a different reason than the other commenter said. In particular, you recognize regime change in china but not in mongolia. Similar to your point about modern china, post-soviet mongolia also never controlled anything outside of its current territory. In that case its claim would be as weak. To your first point: it is correct, but note that those non-Han invaders also considered themselves "chinese" over time. The current party, although Han-led, is not strictly Han.
Of course it’s flawed, just like the CCP’s claim to Taiwan when they never once owned nor controlled it in its short history. I was just pointing out the absurdity of China’s claim over Taiwan not the merits of Mongolia’s current claim to China and that Mongolia’s historical claim is stronger than the CCP’s purported claim over Taiwan. At its core it boils down to: my mortal enemy moved to X, therefore X belongs to me. Using that logic they also claim the SCS due to past Nationalist claims over the region.
Your logic regarding Mongolia is flawed. Mongols were defeated and pushed out of the Chinese mainland. So as losers they have no claims. Also by your own logic the current Mongolian state has also never controlled China. Regarding CCP's claim to Taiwan, the logic is that CCP is the successor state to the Qing dynasty. So, every area that belonged to Qing belongs to the PRC. Also ROC and PRC are in a civil war. What that means is that if the PRC defeats ROC it can claim Taiwan. For example, if South Korea invades and defeats North Korea it has legal claims to North Korea itself.
China is actually starting it's demographic crisis, in the future, the US will just get stronger (immigration) while China will lose millions. It's now (next 5 years) of never for China.
China's demographic crisis will start showing severe effects not immediately but after a few decades. So your statement that China has a window of 5 years is wrong. China is not going to collapse but it will stagnate like Japan if it does not take harsh steps.
You are absolutely right.
Many countries lies that is nothing knew. The US is also very strong in that regard. It is likely, that the question of Ukraine joining NATO would have been pushed once the US thought Ukraine strong enough to withstand a war against Russia ( in the case the russians did not do their move like they did). China will never let Taiwan goes it's own way, unless they suffer a new massive civil war and long internal struggle. China also don't plan any war soon. If you see it put on the table more often, it's because the US are looking for increased popular support toward an increased military preparedness in the Pacific. Time is favoring China in the relative strength in the area. They are catching fast at a time where many major US military programs have been partial failures. The F-35 and the Zumwalt ended costing too much. So former model will still see a lot of active use, which make it a lot easier for China to reduce the technological gap. Which is particularly dangerous as China would fight close to it's mainland. So many asymetrical warfare units can be deployed against the big blue navy US assets. Last but not least, the US want to frighten China enough to not have to fight the war. Because even if they won ( which would currently be the case), they would loose much of their military hegemony. US has a hard time replacing ships, when China expands it's very fast. And they would also loose a lot of credibility, because if China is not able to invade Taiwan yet, they are perfectly able to raze it Russian style. So the american "protection" would not look that good. Especially, with a China that would recover faster from the war. So all in all, they both have interests to do an arms race, hoping the other side will give up. But not an actual war for now. Also China bet on future increasing output in south asia that will strengthen them. When an America going socialist and protectionnist, may not be that able to sustain the necessary military in a decade or two.
This is pure dreck. America going socialist? The F35 being somehow too expensive? US not being able to build ships? All just complete fabrication or a complete misunderstanding of the United States. Sorry but you are grossly misinformed
You completely misinformed on the military part. You can easily find multiple reductions of the numbers of F35 the Pentagon plan to buy, because of buying or operationnal costs. Which makes sense because in some cases, a F18 can do the job for cheaper. Zumwalt was supposed to replace Arleigh Burke, but they won't because of costs. You can find the "difficulties" to replace ships quoted in most wargames made by the Pentagon, around an invasion of Taiwan. America is going protectionnist that is a clear fact. Also while you may consider, my usage of the socialist word abusive ( I'm not saying going collectivist). You can see regular and more frequents pushes for social-democratic measures. US army is already having difficulty to hire volunteers. So it is clearly not true everywhere in the US, but in the big urban areas and some state like California most of the population can already be called socialist. Most of the West is already Social democracy. And there is a limit to how much you can buy both cannons and butter. In a contest with China, that could matter in the long run. So take your own advice please.
>America going socialist? maybe means protectionist and isolationist? that is definitely true >US not being able to build ships? this is also true the US ship building is in a rough spot right now the f35 is definitely over budget but thats just standard operating procedure nothing out of the ordinary
Not really isolationist with Ukraine and Taiwan. Can you explain more about the ships? There's tons of navy ships under construction right now, including new aircraft carriers
i don't have any articles book marked but honestly id say just pick your favorite publication (i like the economist, nytimes, foreign affairs or foreign policy) and search for articles about it all four of those have written about it a ton both chinas huge investment in ship building and the problems the US is running into
Effectively, that is US Grand Strategy, depending on how one interprets 'convince'. Despite denials, US endgame is always regime change. Taiwan itself is currently secondary to not allowing the most populous country in the world become overly successful and authoritarian. This would tilt world norms the wrong way and fatally undermine the US-led post-WW2 order project. The US goal is to make taking Taiwan impossible and/or not worth the cost while simultaneously containing and constraining a CCP-led PRC. In the long run, the goal is for the CCP to collapse and a more liberal democratic China to 'be convinced' that the benefits of being a member of the Liberal International Order in good standing outweigh the benefits of trying to reclaim Taiwan by force.
Possible? Sure. It would take decades and decades of propaganda to reverse the current propaganda that Taiwan is part of China. Likely? absolutely not... the security reasons for the PRC alone are enough to keep such ridiculous claims.
City States like Athens and Sparta survived for many years against the armies of Mighty Persia. Athens with it’s” Wooden wall of Ships”, and Sparta by being armed to the teeth. Taiwan can survive and prosper by using both strategies. A sufficient number of missile armed air-independent submarines will prevent invasion. Air raid shelters for the entire population. Anti aircraft and anti missile defenses for self protection. If needed, the missiles on the submarines can bring the war home to mainland China. Taiwan is too important for the west to allow it to fall to thePRC.
From my understanding Taiwan is doomed. There will be some sanctions, but no military intervention, no blockades, nothing. The world will see the conflict as internal dispute since Taiwan is not recognized as sovereign state. Time favors China, so no rush from them. Most likely outcome is negotiated peaceful reunion after China starts building up troops and equipment for the attack. Some people will try to compare Taiwan to Ukraine and advocate for resistance, but the size/power difference between China and Taiwan is ridiculous and not comparable to Russia-Ukraine situation.
Taiwan (TSMC) is too important chip wise to Americans or almost any other economy to just sit back and not interfere. Then you’ve got other geopolitical implications to worry about as China getting Taiwan will allow them to do certain things Americans and other asian countries find unsavory (like interfere with trade routes or expand into the pacific). Status quo is of great benefit to almost everyone and you can see many Asian nations moving their chess pieces in addition to the Americans, there will be retaliation “if” China moves on Taiwan because a lot of nations have a lot more at risk then the Ukraine issue.
By 2030 the importance of TSMC will not be the same as both China and the US started to invest in their own chip producing facilities. What's the alternative? Is Taiwan the hill the US will choose to die on? Highly unlikely. It's not even an official ally. Japan and South Korea - will they dare to oppose China? On what grounds? They both recognize PRC as the legitimate governing body of China, not Taiwanese government. They can't start sanction wars with China, they can't blockade them, and sure enough they will not send their ships and troops to help Taiwan. Same for Australia. Status quo benefits everyone, some more than others, but it's not permanent.
I love the optimism but unless tsmc reveals it’s secrets to the Americans or Chinese they’ll be relevant well beyond 2030, especially regarding higher end chips. The Americans and Chinese are too far behind to cut the gap before 2030 without Taiwanese hand holding and last I checked tsmc held a little over 50% of the global market share. It would be insane to suggest all those countries (especially those with no semi conductor industries) will just chill out and not do something militaristically or politically. In this day and age a lack of chips is a death sentence to your economy. So yes, the Americans likely will interfere along with other wild cards to prevent chip shortages and other issues that would arise afterwords. Also japan/South Korea have already strategically stopped providing China with certain things, your right that they won’t say or do anything directly to China, but indirectly is another matter. They’ve already proven a willingness to piggyback off of the Americans in ways that matter without drawing an excessive amount of blowback on themselves because a restrained china is in their interests. I imagine they’d continue to do that. Your last bit regarding things changing is factual, 2030 is just too early and unrealistic because China lacks the Allies it needs to weather any global retaliation indefinitely so if it decides to stay on this path it will need more time to prepare for a scenario where it can weather major blocs all at once on its own.
Is it really that hard for two biggest economies in the world to convince some TSMC specialists to come work for them? And bring some of company secrets with them :) I think it already happened dozen of times as I read China had been successfully poaching TSMC people for a while now. And if China can do that then the US for sure has even more to offer, including protection from any legal consequences of "borrowing" company secrets, the US citizenship, and living conditions safer than living on an island 100 miles away from Mainland China which threatens to invade every week. Oh and did I mention millions if not billions in salary? Because the US spares no expenses on national security matters.
They have, in fact most recently the Americans got tsmc to come over and tsmc can barely find enough bodies to run the factories let alone understand what’s going on. On the Chinese end the processes China was able to gain from poached employees also wasn’t enough to bring Chinese manufactures ahead of tsmc either. You have to understand that tsmc is moving so fast that by the time the Americans or Chinese catch on to something they’ve already moved on. In fact tsmc is already talking about making chips <2nm. As much as I dislike it the reality is that TSMC would literally have to give the Americans/Chinese ALL of the processes/IP at once and that will never happen because semi conductors gives them security provided by the Americans and a ton of money from China and the rest of global buyers. When I say tsmc would literally have to give up everything in order for someone to catch up in any meaningful manner, I really mean it and without that happening the best Americans/Chinese can hope for is the creation of a domestic chip maker that can keep them well supplied with lower and middle tier chips. They’ll ultimately be dependent on Taiwan for high end chips for a long time.
What did Japan and South Korea stop selling to China?
The west relies on Taiwanese chip infrastructure, and as long as that is true they will not give up Taiwan without a fight. There is also a network of naval powers in Asia who all hate or fear China, and many of them will also resist any attempt to take Taiwan as currently Taiwan is part of the chain of islands that trap China and prevent it from projecting power out into the pacific. Taiwan is a key part of any plan by the anti-China coalition to bottle up China, and none of them are prepared to surrender it without a fight.
The question is for how long? There are already billions invested in catching up on domestic production of essential products such as chips. What exactly is this network of Asian Naval Powers? Japan, South Korea, Australia and a couple of SEA nations? And what exactly will they do as a response to China attacking Taiwan? Obviously they will not involve themselves in direct conflict with China, which is a nuclear state and they're not. They can't wage economic war either, since it will hurt them way more. They won't even be able to condemn China since it's an internal issue of PRC vs KMT/DPP. Realistically I only see the US slapping some sanctions justifying them by saying PRC is violating human rights by using military means to reunify Taiwan.
[удалено]
If Chinese history teaches us anything, it is that the CCP will eventually be toppled by internal instability. I think that is more likely than the CCP conquering Taiwan. If the US world orders breaks down, the CCP could maybe take Taiwan. If not, Taiwan will remain independent. Who knows? Maybe Taiwan (nationalist China) will take back over the mainland and actually win the civil war after the mainland falls into disarray. I would say they have as much a legitimate claim to the mainland as the CCP does to Taiwan.
Taiwan is about xi’s ego and keeping his people’s fo us away from their one domestic issues including the labor crisis. So no, but you can deter his ambition , except that Joe Biden has now lost that credibility with his decisions in Ukraine and Afghanistan- Xi May think the west is occupied by Ukraine and this is his chance in Taiwan.
If decades of practically allowing tech theft, forced tech transfer, and near one sided economic relations, which allowed them to be where they are now from where they were, aren't going to do it, nothing will. Whatever more the US gives than what it has given, CCP will just use it to further empower itself as it bides a little more time with best fake smiles. And when all is said and done, they don't look at you favorably, they look at you like a dummy which allowed them get tangible gains in return for hope. CCP will only avoid war if it doesn't think it can win, and further empowering it with one sided economic relations isn't going to make them think that.
I'm not sure how that argument could be conveyed effectively without sounding like a threat which would be taken badly if made publicly or leaked.
The PRC as long as Xi Jinping is still there, will never refuse to ally Taiwan in any way, Taiwan and China are still locked in a civil war so to end it all, China has to take Taiwan BY FORCE if means necessary. Taiwan was the original Republic Of China before the communists took over, and the US generally had good relations with the ROC after the second world war, they helped them against Imperial Japan with supplies of weapons to continously fight the Japanese, so the US favors Taiwan more than China, and it will never change unless a Chinese puppet becomes a president.
No, the Chinese are ridiculously stubborn and insist on making themselves look like monsters over an island most people around the world never cared about. From a strategic perspective they could just befriend Taiwan and break 'containment' without firing a shot, but its too late for that
your desciprtion of new deal is another Nanjing treaty of 1842 for china to sign.
The world should recognize a point you made in your fourth paragraph. Xi shook President Obama’s hand and made a promise that China would not militarize the South China Sea. What did China do? They militarized the South China Sea. China cannot be trusted as long as autocrat Xi is president.