Our friend Escobar is trying to get a rise out of some of us here. Classic fishing tactic lol. Don't get hooked.
Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis
- Thread starter sndef888
- Start date
- Status
In times of actual, proper crisis, I think it's more important than usual to take a step back and avoid emotional fulfillment and venting of frustration towards the crisis or the circumstances of it.
If there's any moment to seriously put up some effort and discipline into posting, I think this would be it.
I basically have three overriding observations, that are taken together:
- Neither side at present actually wants to go to war, and thus neither side will carry out actions involving the use of lethal force in anger in a manner that can easily lead to direct military action against the other. But a variety of options and actions short of that is technically on the table, with the variety being so large that I believe it isn't worth speculating over.
- Pelosi will very likely end up carrying out her trip to Taiwan, and it is wishful thinking to believe that China or the PLA have the physical ability to obstruct or prevent her plane from touching down on Taiwan as that would have to involve the use of lethal force, thus invalidating the previous above point.
- China's warnings and the PLA's warnings towards Pelosi's trip was never one that threatened the use of lethal military force (or the threat of war) in this instance, but rather that the trip would be further moving China and the US state of further irreversible tension and/or confrontation that could result in conflict between China and Taiwan (and by extension the US) in the future. In essence it is a further warning that this is getting closer and closer to the red line. But it is not a threat of war and lethal force, and the US knows this, and we should all know this too. Anyone trying to portray China's warnings as if they are "toothless," are either genuinely misinterpreting the intent of China's signaling -- or they are being deliberately malicious.
I do not think trying to speculate beyond that level of detail is worthwhile at this stage, and instead the responsibility is to sit back and watch.
This will be my last contribution to the thread until the entire ordeal is finished.
If there's any moment to seriously put up some effort and discipline into posting, I think this would be it.
I basically have three overriding observations, that are taken together:
- Neither side at present actually wants to go to war, and thus neither side will carry out actions involving the use of lethal force in anger in a manner that can easily lead to direct military action against the other. But a variety of options and actions short of that is technically on the table, with the variety being so large that I believe it isn't worth speculating over.
- Pelosi will very likely end up carrying out her trip to Taiwan, and it is wishful thinking to believe that China or the PLA have the physical ability to obstruct or prevent her plane from touching down on Taiwan as that would have to involve the use of lethal force, thus invalidating the previous above point.
- China's warnings and the PLA's warnings towards Pelosi's trip was never one that threatened the use of lethal military force (or the threat of war) in this instance, but rather that the trip would be further moving China and the US state of further irreversible tension and/or confrontation that could result in conflict between China and Taiwan (and by extension the US) in the future. In essence it is a further warning that this is getting closer and closer to the red line. But it is not a threat of war and lethal force, and the US knows this, and we should all know this too. Anyone trying to portray China's warnings as if they are "toothless," are either genuinely misinterpreting the intent of China's signaling -- or they are being deliberately malicious.
I do not think trying to speculate beyond that level of detail is worthwhile at this stage, and instead the responsibility is to sit back and watch.
This will be my last contribution to the thread until the entire ordeal is finished.
Last edited:
bajingan
Senior Member
China can let her land in taiwan and avoid war, thats fine, her responses can be to accelerate to build more nukes, ships, carriers, J-20s, until military balance irreversibly tilt in China favor, and there is nothing the u.s can do about that
And until now China has been trying so hard to remain neutral in ukraine conflict, now China have the option openly support russia, since the eu won't stay neutral either in taiwan issue
And until now China has been trying so hard to remain neutral in ukraine conflict, now China have the option openly support russia, since the eu won't stay neutral either in taiwan issue
Yep. I think something will be done. The consequences of not doing anything is not good at all. Pelosi visiting tw issue has been trending on Weibo for days. It's gotten pretty big. Even douyin content creators are making videos on possible scenarios. Chinese public is aware of the significance of this potential crossing of their redline. Not doing anything is bad for CPC leadership. A massive blow to general morale and trust in the central leadership.
Putting aside the global implications, their most important concern surely should be the domestic audience. And the stakes are getting higher now if the Chinese people witness PLA not doing anything after all the buildup and warnings, especially even directly from Xi to Biden.
I've advocated elsewhere that Xi should seize this opportunity to break oppositions to higher military spending. However, there's no point in openly supporting Russia thus burning all bridges with Europe. I doubt there are things China can do (short of sending in PLA) to help Russia win the war decisively. Problems with Russian military cannot be fixed with some drones or PHL-16s. And what are the benefits of a quick Russian victory for China?
for appropriate escalation that is long lasting i.e. no more useless military exercises that scare no one and do not actually raise readiness, there's a few options. the end result must be that real changes occur on the ground.
1. I think diplomacy is rapidly losing value. in the interests of saving money, expel US ambassador and downgrade US relations to charge d'affairs. when they're serious about diplomacy China can send a new ambassador.
2. full sanctions on Pelosi and her entire family.
3. selling appropriate defensive weapons to North Korea such as J-10 and SAMs.
4. quietly refuse to move on tariffs.
5. Wang Yi visit to Donbass.
1. I think diplomacy is rapidly losing value. in the interests of saving money, expel US ambassador and downgrade US relations to charge d'affairs. when they're serious about diplomacy China can send a new ambassador.
2. full sanctions on Pelosi and her entire family.
3. selling appropriate defensive weapons to North Korea such as J-10 and SAMs.
4. quietly refuse to move on tariffs.
5. Wang Yi visit to Donbass.
not as much as letting the crisis continue at least until the winter where the weapon stock piles will have been depleted both in Ukraine and in Europe and also when the USA has spent much of the gas/oil/weapons to show to the whole world that the help of the USA and the west is unreliable to the world at large. A quick Russia victory runs the risk of allowing the prospect of guriella warfare to continue along with giving the USA and the EU a chance to recover and white wash the situation easier. A thorough victory has the prospects of weakening the west more then a quick one along with depleting the resources the EU and the USA has that a quick victory will not do, thus making it easier for China to act in the future when the west inevitably have civil unrest to deal with when the leadership cannot explain to the people how they gave up their lifestyle for a third world country like status because the leadership is in bed to the hip with the USA and simply cannot stope escalating. It’s better to let Russia do their thing while China uses this opportunity to expand their arsenal so when the USA inevitable tries to start a real fight when the nation is rife with problems unresolved, well China can counter them easier
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Sorry but this is circular reasoning where you have assumed China’s warnings have no teeth and then used that as the basis for everything else.
To think that countries will only go to war when they are good and ready is uncharacteristically naive.
Indeed, if we look back at history, many of the biggest wars happened precisely when none of the parties involved are fully ready nor wanted those wars, and this exact same underlying assuming that they other side is bluffing because of XYZ is a fundamental cause for the oversteps that tipped everyone over the edge.
For America this is purely a political stunt, but for China, there is only an incredibly small amount of leeway it can give on this most sensitive of issues. The timing of this stunt is also incredibly sensitive and may well be what tips things over the edge.
At the best of times Beijing would be hard pressed to let such a visit slide, but to time it just as Xi is about to take his 3rd term is adding a whole new level of stakes to this matter since the Taiwan issue is the core justification for Xi to get his 3rd term in the first place. Intentionally or not, this visit is a direct challenge to Xi’s 3rd term on top of a near unprecedented challenge to status quo.
Yet your underlying assumption here is that Pelosi’s will to see things through is greater Xi’s. How does that compute exactly?
You are also apparently trying to apply American government standards to China. When has China ever explicitly said cross this line and it mean war when China actually had gone to war before? It’s unreasonable and illogical to demand China say things in a way it has never done before just because that’s how the American public expects to hear such messages.
This is not to say war is inevitable, but it is absolutely possible. Likely even. It would be stupid frankly to write that possibility off on such flimsy grounds. I can only hope the decision makers in Washington are not making the same mistake, because that’s how great wars start when people on power make such fundamental errors.
Maybe it is a bluff.
Pelosi's trip is not the bluff. The consequences of the trip, that is the bluff.
(Since we do not know if the consequences of the Pelosi trip will be a winner or loser, then that is a bluff).
What the PRC decides to do, is put on an even bigger bluff.
That is where we are.
It is up to Pelosi and the United States to call this bluff.
The problem here for the United States, is that the PRC will increase the stakes, either in this hand or the next hand.
So, all of this could go either way, or any way.
Tough to predict.
It would be simpler to just SAM that broomstick rider from da sky!
A lot of American support for that.
- Status