No he doesn't. I seriously hope that no one took Hu seriously lol. If you want an analogy, he is like China's fox news
Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis
- Thread starter sndef888
- Start date
- Status
Stories to tell? The story to tell is if you mess with me, I'll f... you up, and if you mess with my friends I'll f you up and your friends at the same time. Third world countries would be like, AWESOME!! Most of them wants protection and the ability to build their countries free from western perversions of all kinds.
What do you mean by lack of development? What sort of development you seem to hint? Examples?
We'll wait for 25 years for that to happen. But maybe even by then, the power it supposedly needs won't be optimal enough, so it will yet again come up with another excuse.
Sun Tzu: Bore your enemy to death and they will tire out.
Finally got off work and I'll share a bit of my thoughts on this matter.
First, I'm glad things did not go kinetic, a war over Taiwan is not something anyone can afford right now.
Before I begin, I just want to say that I see a lot of folks here use schemas and heuristics that make sense in interpersonal relationships and project them on geopolitical strategies, and I do not believe that is a valid method of approaching the subject. Although personal decisions and geopolitical decisions are both about interests, a key distinction is that people actually value feelings and emotions as a part of their core interests, whereas nations have no feelings, memories, or experiences - only tangible benefits. Using principles of interpersonal interaction to analyze geopolitical events inevitably leads to incorrect predictions about how nations interact with each other because the two are fundamentally different. For example, you cannot change your memories on demand, what you remember/felt and took place cannot be changed, but nations can change the history they teach to their people and within 1 generation people will have completely different idea of what their history is and how the world works (think about how US - China and China - Russia relationships changed in the past 10 years - would similar changes occur to your interposal relationships?). Furthermore, people can be extremely capable at justifying things and turn bad decisions into okay decisions, whereas for nations, a war lost is a war lost - if you cannot do something, you cannot do something - there is no use of fooling yourself unless that helps to create political stability. Anyways....Let get back to Pelosi.
First, what is China's ultimate goal for Taiwan? My opinion is that Taiwan marks a key pillar in US force projection in West Pacific. China's goal for Taiwan is to use the reunification of Taiwan to push US influence away from East and South East Asia, and the bigger Western Pacific region, and establish dominance here. If that is the ultimate goal here, the Pelosi visit represents no fundamental changes to the status quo: China is not the dominant power in West Pacific before her visit, nor after her visit, shooting down her plane, intercepting her plane will not change this any bit. You can pull all political stunts all you want, but reality cares little about people's feelings - shooting down Pelosi's plane will not change the fundamental power dynamic within West Pacific - which is why it was never really an option. Even intercepting is kind of useless unless you truly intend to shoot it down if a certain threshold is breached. If China's focus is on projecting a powerful imagine to the world, then it is necessary to put up a show for Pelosi's visit. But if China's focus is on diminishing US influence in Western Pacific, I don't see how deterring Pelosi's visit fundamentally adds to that - to achieve this goal, China still need to develop its military and economical capabilities further.
Now some may argue that not responding forcefully this time run the risk of delegitimizing China's influence and power, which not only emboldens Western politicians to play the Taiwan card but also run the risk of damaging One Belt One Road and such. This argument may have merit but is too simple. Reputation may impact a person's career and life, but nations are much more complex - so this relationship does not apply identically. In psychological research, it is found that general attitudes do not predict specific behaviors - your general attitude towards the Apple brand does not predict your purchasing behavior for iPhone 11 - because attitudes and decisions are fundamentally different things, with the latter being much more complex and situational dependent than the former. Playing the Taiwan card, quitting Belt and Road initiative, building alliances/dissolving alliances with China are complex decisions made based on many practical factors, Pelosi's visit can influence the decision but it is far from a deciding factor (most US gun owners hate China but will gladly buy a Holosun red dot even though they know it's made in China, that's how complex decisions can be...)
If you look at PRC's history you'll see that China has always been conservative when it comes to war, even under Mao, who many considered as much more daunting and powerful. The decision to intervene in the Korean War was literally made weeks prior to PVA's crossing of Yalu - by then the US has bombed many Chinese cities/towns on the Korean border and is pushing towards Yalu closer by the day. The 1962 offensive against the Indians took place after many Indian incursions and aggression which killed many PLAs, and Mao waited for quite a long time until the Cuban Missile Crisis to initiate the operation. 1969 Zhen Bao Dao is a similar deal, the Soviet had displayed violent and aggressive behavior for months if not years prior to the skirmish killing and injuring many Chinese civilians and border troops. If you look into the fine prints of these wars and history, you will find that China has always been careful about starting wars, and would usually endure what most modern internet folks would consider as extremely humiliating taunts before acting. But you all know the outcomes these war has on our modern history, so it begs this question: did China get to where it is today by responding forcefully to each taunt by its adversaries and projecting a strong and powerful image? (Let's take the US for another example, if it did not get into Afghanistan for 9/11 and instead, focused on China, would China be where it is at today? For Americans here in the forum who wishes for the destruction of CPC, don't you wish your leaders would handled 9/11 a bit more cautiously and focused more on China then?)
So far I am not seeing any major reactions to PLA's newly planned exercises around Taiwan, which is quite a few more magnitude higher in terms of intensity compared to the ones in 1996 - which were the real deal before they got canceled by US intervention. Honestly I see this as an absolute win. If the Wests thinks the Pelosi visit is a huge victory over China, it absolutely is from many perspectives. But I think PLA also got what they want - the ability to become more openly hostile and confrontational over Taiwan without raising the stakes. I love that most people in the West and China thinks China is so humiliated right now and is not taking the exercises seriously. Imagine if this exercise was announced 4 weeks ago? Everyone would have lost their minds, now people are literally laughing at it. Appear weak when you are strong type of stuff no? If this becomes the new normal I'm absolutely okay with this.
China usually do not fall short on its promises, I think China will deliver on what it promised, but only with regards to its strategic goals. When you are the underdog you do not have the privilege to have both 面子 and 里子，I'm glad to see that the CPC and PLA higher up is rational and calculated as usual - a trait rarely seen in political leaders these days.
I'll end with 3 Chinese quotes - understanding Chinese war philosophy is key in understanding CPC and PLA's decisions, these folks are surprisingly traditional when it comes to this, it is a shame that most modern Chinese never fully appreciate such wisdom anymore
兵者 国之大事 死生之地 存亡之道 不可不察也
其疾如风，其徐如林，侵掠如火，不动如山，难知如阴，动如雷震
你打你的，我打我的
Again, please feel free to debate my on my random thoughts - always love a good discussion
First, I'm glad things did not go kinetic, a war over Taiwan is not something anyone can afford right now.
Before I begin, I just want to say that I see a lot of folks here use schemas and heuristics that make sense in interpersonal relationships and project them on geopolitical strategies, and I do not believe that is a valid method of approaching the subject. Although personal decisions and geopolitical decisions are both about interests, a key distinction is that people actually value feelings and emotions as a part of their core interests, whereas nations have no feelings, memories, or experiences - only tangible benefits. Using principles of interpersonal interaction to analyze geopolitical events inevitably leads to incorrect predictions about how nations interact with each other because the two are fundamentally different. For example, you cannot change your memories on demand, what you remember/felt and took place cannot be changed, but nations can change the history they teach to their people and within 1 generation people will have completely different idea of what their history is and how the world works (think about how US - China and China - Russia relationships changed in the past 10 years - would similar changes occur to your interposal relationships?). Furthermore, people can be extremely capable at justifying things and turn bad decisions into okay decisions, whereas for nations, a war lost is a war lost - if you cannot do something, you cannot do something - there is no use of fooling yourself unless that helps to create political stability. Anyways....Let get back to Pelosi.
First, what is China's ultimate goal for Taiwan? My opinion is that Taiwan marks a key pillar in US force projection in West Pacific. China's goal for Taiwan is to use the reunification of Taiwan to push US influence away from East and South East Asia, and the bigger Western Pacific region, and establish dominance here. If that is the ultimate goal here, the Pelosi visit represents no fundamental changes to the status quo: China is not the dominant power in West Pacific before her visit, nor after her visit, shooting down her plane, intercepting her plane will not change this any bit. You can pull all political stunts all you want, but reality cares little about people's feelings - shooting down Pelosi's plane will not change the fundamental power dynamic within West Pacific - which is why it was never really an option. Even intercepting is kind of useless unless you truly intend to shoot it down if a certain threshold is breached. If China's focus is on projecting a powerful imagine to the world, then it is necessary to put up a show for Pelosi's visit. But if China's focus is on diminishing US influence in Western Pacific, I don't see how deterring Pelosi's visit fundamentally adds to that - to achieve this goal, China still need to develop its military and economical capabilities further.
Now some may argue that not responding forcefully this time run the risk of delegitimizing China's influence and power, which not only emboldens Western politicians to play the Taiwan card but also run the risk of damaging One Belt One Road and such. This argument may have merit but is too simple. Reputation may impact a person's career and life, but nations are much more complex - so this relationship does not apply identically. In psychological research, it is found that general attitudes do not predict specific behaviors - your general attitude towards the Apple brand does not predict your purchasing behavior for iPhone 11 - because attitudes and decisions are fundamentally different things, with the latter being much more complex and situational dependent than the former. Playing the Taiwan card, quitting Belt and Road initiative, building alliances/dissolving alliances with China are complex decisions made based on many practical factors, Pelosi's visit can influence the decision but it is far from a deciding factor (most US gun owners hate China but will gladly buy a Holosun red dot even though they know it's made in China, that's how complex decisions can be...)
If you look at PRC's history you'll see that China has always been conservative when it comes to war, even under Mao, who many considered as much more daunting and powerful. The decision to intervene in the Korean War was literally made weeks prior to PVA's crossing of Yalu - by then the US has bombed many Chinese cities/towns on the Korean border and is pushing towards Yalu closer by the day. The 1962 offensive against the Indians took place after many Indian incursions and aggression which killed many PLAs, and Mao waited for quite a long time until the Cuban Missile Crisis to initiate the operation. 1969 Zhen Bao Dao is a similar deal, the Soviet had displayed violent and aggressive behavior for months if not years prior to the skirmish killing and injuring many Chinese civilians and border troops. If you look into the fine prints of these wars and history, you will find that China has always been careful about starting wars, and would usually endure what most modern internet folks would consider as extremely humiliating taunts before acting. But you all know the outcomes these war has on our modern history, so it begs this question: did China get to where it is today by responding forcefully to each taunt by its adversaries and projecting a strong and powerful image? (Let's take the US for another example, if it did not get into Afghanistan for 9/11 and instead, focused on China, would China be where it is at today? For Americans here in the forum who wishes for the destruction of CPC, don't you wish your leaders would handled 9/11 a bit more cautiously and focused more on China then?)
So far I am not seeing any major reactions to PLA's newly planned exercises around Taiwan, which is quite a few more magnitude higher in terms of intensity compared to the ones in 1996 - which were the real deal before they got canceled by US intervention. Honestly I see this as an absolute win. If the Wests thinks the Pelosi visit is a huge victory over China, it absolutely is from many perspectives. But I think PLA also got what they want - the ability to become more openly hostile and confrontational over Taiwan without raising the stakes. I love that most people in the West and China thinks China is so humiliated right now and is not taking the exercises seriously. Imagine if this exercise was announced 4 weeks ago? Everyone would have lost their minds, now people are literally laughing at it. Appear weak when you are strong type of stuff no? If this becomes the new normal I'm absolutely okay with this.
China usually do not fall short on its promises, I think China will deliver on what it promised, but only with regards to its strategic goals. When you are the underdog you do not have the privilege to have both 面子 and 里子，I'm glad to see that the CPC and PLA higher up is rational and calculated as usual - a trait rarely seen in political leaders these days.
I'll end with 3 Chinese quotes - understanding Chinese war philosophy is key in understanding CPC and PLA's decisions, these folks are surprisingly traditional when it comes to this, it is a shame that most modern Chinese never fully appreciate such wisdom anymore
兵者 国之大事 死生之地 存亡之道 不可不察也
其疾如风，其徐如林，侵掠如火，不动如山，难知如阴，动如雷震
你打你的，我打我的
Again, please feel free to debate my on my random thoughts - always love a good discussion
That is the ultimate mistake that people have with Chinese state media. Hu/Global Times represent the extreme hawkish views of people in the gov. That is not the necessary view or policy that will be implemented. Think of it as foxnews or whatever whoes reporters/guests also only represent one extreme side of the government.
But the problem was no one seems brave enough to reign in Hu's comment. Even other government spokespeople join in with their own bellicose statements now with eggs on their faces.
Broccoli
Senior Member
You "forgot" that Russian leadership both civilian and military have many times announced that they don't see Ukraine as independent nation and want to take it over fully and many have demanded return of old imperial borders. Clearly an imperilaist but this is all very much offtopic.
Most recent nonsense.
Lots of people took him seriously and expected camera lights action as soon as Pelosi’s plane landed.
Hes also regularly quoted by foreign media and many of his statements are never rebuked by the Chinese government. So Hu clearly serves a purpose.
Last edited:
Imagine if we took anything Tucker Carlson said as official American foreign policy
- Status