The CHIPS act of 2022 is trying to rectify the situation where we are dependent on Taiwan for chips. Lots of chip manufacturing plants in the US are in the works. The problem in the past was capitalism (globalization). It's way cheaper to produce chips in Taiwan than it is in the US, so that's where chips are produced. But now we realize maybe it's not such a great idea to depend on one small country under constant threat of invasion for such an important product. As for Biden saying the US does not support Taiwan independence, that has been standard US policy since 1979. Pretty sure we would aid Taiwan's defense like we have Ukraine's (unless Repubs in congress refuse to allow it). Not sure how actively involved we would get because I don't think there's any way to know that. I think the 2024 election is a big factor here. If China wants an incompetent president who might even decide to cede Taiwan to China because it's none of our business what other dictators do, then maybe they wait until Trump is president to invade. Or maybe they invade before the election to throw the world into chaos and the election to Trump.
All based on the fallacy that Putin did this for "conquest." You can't conquer and occupy the 2nd largest country in Europe with 150,000 troops. If you offered Putin the four occupied oblasts and Crimea, plus a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality going forward in exchange for a peace treaty, he'd take it in a heartbeat. He is protecting Russia's backyard against Western encroachment. Angela Merkel recognized this in 2008 when she voted to keep Ukraine out of NATO, stating Putin would view it as a "declaration of war." If the Russians were attempting to set up a satellite government in Ottawa, you don't think the U.S. military would protect our interests there? It's fine if you want to disagree about the reasons behind the war, but don't come on here acting like some kind of isolationist and still support what's going on in Ukraine. It will inevitably have gross repercussions for the United States, just as almost all of our previous foreign soil forays have. Pushing Russia into a 'no limits' partnership with China probably wasn't a good idea.
I think you're WAY off here. I was in Hong Kong in '96. The propaganda was everywhere - pro China. Now perhaps it was just that, but there was a strong "we're coming home" kinda vibe. I've been to Taiwan several times. My wife is Taiwanese and her family is still there. There may be pockets of kowtowing to China, but it's not the norm. Taiwan ain't Hong Kong. Not close. The culture, the language, all of it are vastly different. Naturally the Hong Kong residents freaked once they found out what they were in for. The Taiwanese knew all along.
I don't have a direct source. Just years of reading. It may have changed. As I also noted, support for integration has gone way down as Chinese thuggery has become more obvious. But even when elections like the last one are framed explicitly as a referendum on the issue of whether there should be closer ties, there's still a substantial vote for the party that stands closest to that, including winning the legislative seats in the most recent election. But I could be wrong. It's just what I've read over the years
It looks like you have far more close connections than I do. Mine's just based on outside reading. I do know a few Taiwanese people who hate the mainland with a passion, but I'm just going off of my reading.
Let me clarify what I meant a bit about Hong Kong. I agree there was enthusiasm in 1997. But it was based upon the belief that China would abide by one nation, two systems for at least 50 years and leave Hong Kongers with the same freedoms they had under British rule. From what I have read, the Chinese never intended to abide by that promise and were already infiltrating Hong Kong civil service and civil society with the intent of ending freedoms as soon as possible. My thesis, and it's my own supposition, is that any sympathy there was among the Taiwanese for imagining they could integrate and keep freedoms largely dissipated after that.
My guess is “strongly suspected” is a better expression than “know,” but recent Chinese behavior toward its people in Hong Kong more or less confirmed Taiwanese suspicions.
You are once again repeating Russian talking points (the actual fallacy) designed to minimize the scope of the military defeat it suffered in early 2022. Yes, Russia had unlimited objectives for all of Ukraine and Moldova. We don’t think this. We know this. Ukraine caught more than enough high-ranking prisoners in 2022 who independently verified the signal intelligence we already had about Russian plans. Russia had an operational design for a lightning offensive that would quickly decapitate the Ukrainian government and set up a Quisling regime in its place. If all had gone according to plan, they would have had a vassal Ukrainian rump state, similar to Belarus, and very few Russian forces would have been needed in Ukraine outside of what would have been necessary to sustain occupation of Moldova, which Russia had assessed to be more demographically challenging. If your point is that plan sounds stupid, well, then we agree. Their plan was stupid. They underestimated the will of Ukraine to resist, underestimated the effectiveness of Western arms and training, underestimated the world’s reaction, and overestimated the performance of their own armed Forces. Disaster followed. Good thing they have people like you to parrot talking points designed to minimize that disaster. If you want a historical example of a similar operation that worked (executed in this case by competent armed forces), then I give you the German conquest of France in 1940. Germany invaded with far fewer forces than were necessary to occupy the whole country. They shattered France’s C2 network, and cut off a large body of their forces in the north from the rest of the country. France panicked and quit while it still had the means to resist. And Germany negotiated a favorable armistice with a puppet government that enable it to only occupy the areas of France it needed to continue the war with Britain. As to your second point that Putin would be willing to settle for the provinces that he has “annexed,” well, I don’t doubt that he would. That would be a magnificent face-saving way out this disastrous war for him. Considering that Ukraine is sitting on large tracts of land that Russia had already annexed, getting Ukraine just to hand that over would be better still. He would not have to demonstrate any more Russian buffoonery in offensive operations, and could save himself a lot more casualties. Unfortunately, for Putin, even if Western aid is greatly reduced, Ukraine is probably still going to make him fight for the rest of those provinces. And I have not yet seen any indications that Russia is ready to resume offensive operations.
I am also concerned with the prospect of Trump returning to power (for many reasons, but specifically within the scope of this topic). However, I don’t think the issue here is Trump standing aside and letting a dictator do want he wants. While no one ever knows Trump’s intentions (not even sure he does), the evidence suggests to me that he would be more likely to intervene than Biden and would be prepared to escalate a great deal more. Since we’re talking about a guy who doesn’t listen to anyone, especially subject-matter experts who know a lot more than him, I am concerned he would show some of the contemptuous disrespect for our Chinese opponents that some people have posted in this thread. He might, therefore, be disastrously aggressive in his opening moves, resulting in unnecessary and catastrophic losses on our part. Since that, of course, won’t be his fault, he will blame the Biden Administration for failing to prepare for the war, not that that will miraculously regenerate any of our aircraft or ships. I worry then how much he would be willing to escalate the war with China just to save face.
This post should be flagged for misinformation (I’ve always wanted to say that). Russia suffered no such defeat. Rather, its modest insertion of no more than 75k to 80k troops achieved its goal of forcing Kyiv to the table whereupon a deal was scuttled by the UK. If you can’t accept this then you disagree with former Zelensky mouthpiece Arestovich. Compare it to the outlandish trope that Russia sent 75 to 80k troops to conquer a nation the size of Texas and it was shocked and dismayed that it didn’t work.
And the reason you’re not seeing a massive Russian offensive is that, in this modern era of ISR and drones it’s suicidal to pour thousands of troops into the open. See what happened to Ukraine’s much ballyhooed counter-offensive. And so Russia continues with its almost agonizingly patient war of attrition.
In 1996, the people of Hong Kong appeared to be very enthusiastic about joining the PROC. That enthusiasm is not evident in Taiwan. Nearly a century ago Chian Kai-shek eschewed the burgeoning Chinese communist party in an attempt to unify through the nationalist party. He was essentially exiled to Taiwan, where he received much support from the U.S. to build Taiwan's economic infrastructure. While the U.S. broke diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979 (in order to form a more open relationship with China), the island has maintained its strong mindset of independence from China. The Taiwanese consider themselves an independent nation, and have since about 1955, never wishing to become engulfed by the communist empire. You're welcome.
Can you fill in on two bits I have read about. First, the Han ethnic link, as opposed to the HK Cantonese issue? I have read that Taiwanese do feel a cultural bond due to Han ethnicity, although I defer to you and agree that they do not want to surrender their independence. in any way, and despise the Communists, Second, I have read that there is a lingering resentment at the authoritarianism and role of the military in the oppression that occurred until approximately 1981 (cant recall precisely). This is the book I read about 2 years ago that discussed it, which also discussed the issues with Chiang Kai-shek statues as discussed here Chiang Kai-shek statues - Wikipedia
Actually, they’ve really only started considering themselves (carefully never declaring it, of course) an independent country the 20 years between the end of martial law and the bloom into democracy from the 70s to the 90s. Before that, generally speaking, they considered themselves the real seat of One China with the rest of the country in enemy hands.
The signal intelligence tells you what the government wants you to hear. No offense, but military personnel get lied to all the time, even about stuff that's comparatively non-consequential. I highly doubt the Russians assumed they could overrun Ukraine like the Germans did to the French in 1940. Recall they've been fighting in the Donbass since 2014. They knew quite a bit more about Ukrainian resistance than you give them credit for. As we've discussed before, the cost to occupy all of Ukraine would be a massive drain on Russia. They only need the areas they currently hold to render Ukraine impotent and thus not suitable for NATO ascension. And again, as we've discussed before, if the Ukrainians had laid down their arms ala the French in 1940, sure, Moscow would have driven straight on into Kyiv. It only makes sense to apply some pressure there and see what happens. A less than 4 week retreat tells me Putin was good if it worked out, good if it didn't. They don't need Kyiv to accomplish the mission. That's the point.
Look, you’re clearly just grasping at what you want to believe and ignoring all of the evidence of a disastrously blown operation by the Russians. They could have done what you are talking about — probably a lot easier, certainly with fewer casualties —without having launched their two-pronged offensive to surround Kyiv. Certainly they could have done so without destroying the flower of their airborne and special forces in the disastrous attempt to take Antonov Airport outside of Kyiv. But whatever, believe what you want. Some people out there choose believe the world is only 10,000 years old, and all of the evidence that says otherwise is a lie. There are even people — I’m told; never met one — who actually believe the world is flat, and you can’t show them pictures of the earth. So if you want to believe that this disastrous stalemate — against a country a fraction of Russia’s size and strength; resulting in more casualties than Russia has seen since WW2; the destruction of large portions of its warships, aircraft, and armor; having to mobilize its wartime economy and conduct two rounds of conscription — was just all part of Russia’s plan, and Russia is just showing remarkable forbearance, then that is your right. But expect anyone who knows better to dismiss your assertions.
Debatable considering everybody expected a full occupation. If the Ukrainians were convinced the main push would be in the Donbass, they would have reinforced those areas and left a skeleton crew to protect Kyiv just in case. My assessment is the Russians used the feint to the north as a way to get a larger footprint in the southeast and firm up their control of the Black Sea ports. The Russians have lost way more troops and equipment fighting for Bakhmut, for example, than they did driving into Kyiv. That indicates a hierarchy of importance for the Russians. You have to remember this is all about the West moving NATO East. So the Russians would have expected a fight. After all, it's not as if NATO takes these sorts of things lightly. You're approaching this as if the Russians thought they were up against a rogue Ukrainian government. But it's well-documented they knew this was a war with NATO a long time ago and likely knew to a large extent how much Kyiv had armed since 2014 with the help of NATO.
