Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
[snip]

This is an exercise which is mainly symbolic and designed to make Beijing lose face. It can reciprocate to make the US and DPP lose face.
Military Exercises which do not recognise Taiwanese territorial borders and limits is a low cost way to do this, as the Taiwanese military is highly unlikely to respond, nor will the US.
If something stronger was needed, the PLA simply need to overwhelm and occupy a few of the smaller ROC controlled Islands just off the Fujianese coast. Again this would expose the impotence of Taipei and Washington at very little cost or risk.

The best way to deal with Pelosi is to respond in a way which blights her triumph and leaves vast numbers of those she purports to care about cursing her name and the fact she was ever born. Pelosi seems like a woman in search of a legacy and so to poison the one she is currently seeking to create, seems the most effective rebuttal.
The PLA won't take any of those islands, because once they do, Taipei would just as surely accuse Beijing of commencing forced reunification and then declare Taiwan's independence.

If the PLA takes any ROC-administered island, they're taking Taiwan whole.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
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
Thank you for such an erudite well written post. I'll stop posting nonsense about this from now on. Am just going to adopt a wait and see approach. In the meantime, am just going to read another book "How to react like a dummy."
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Chairman Rabbit already did a big public bazooka attack against him in a weibo post some hours ago. Can't say I disagree with him. Hu, a now retired person, has such a big reach that when he talks about his opinions the outside world regards this as the official position of the government.

Of course the blame doesn't fall to Hu alone but to the general Propaganda system because no person alone, and especially no retired person, should hold such power and influence on how China is perceived from the outside world.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Have you all considered that the CCP may never have had any real intention to perform armed reunification at all. Not since the 20th century. All threats on performing AR is to keep Taiwan from crossing red lines for as long as possible until it's revealed that there are no real intentions behind threats.

The US may have figured that out prior to and wanted to begin testing. Yes, no red lines are crossed yet but perhaps the US didn't care to risk it or they know for a fact that PRC does not wish to perform AR.

Peaceful reunification should be the goal. Prior to yesterday it appeared very convincing that the armed reunification route is there and certainly needs to be constantly reminded of just so it has effect for as long as possible.

If we think of this as a warring kingdoms dynamic then ccp being the ruler of the mainland ought to be incentivised to destroy its main political opponent in Taiwan. But perhaps something doctrinal changed in 1990s and ccp swore off armed reunification unless they are several steps ahead militarily as to not get bogged down into an unwinnable to extremely difficult win in an occupation war.

Doing it now risks making china a global pariah state and thwart its progress. After yesterday I suspect ccp never really was set on using any military force.

Personally this is a bit of a relief... Provided they won't cross red lines to test this theory but hoping no Chinese on Chinese war. Downside is ccp will now have to deal with increased western aggression and potential declaration of independence from Taiwan.
 

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
This I agree with.

CN: "lets sign this agreement"
SI: "but what if the US makes a special freedom operation?"
CN: "Don't worry we will protect you, we will send the PLAN"
SI: "Cool story bro, you got the US doing whatever it wants in Taiwan, literally next door to you, and now you come here and tell me that you will protect me when you are so far from SI lol. bye!"

I wouldn't dismiss this kind of stuff. Once you start making plays for gathering friends and allies for a multipolar world, well, you better be a solid pillar for them and not a bended stick. At that point you should show your strength and your capabilities to increase their morale and their trust in your leadership.
This is nonsense. China is about to do a test naval blockade of Taiwan island and the US will issue a solemn condemnation and do nothing but watch. Next time an island country considers US protection they'll remember that when hard power became involved, the US didn't dare to intervene. A naval blockade is highly instructive for the Solomon Islands.

Let's see what happens during the exercises surrounding Taiwan, but if Taiwan and the US don't intervene, they will lose more reputation than they gained. And sending aircraft carriers through the Taiwan strait after the exercises won't work this time
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
You can't really compare Mao's era to now. Back then China offered a fundamentally different vision of the future of humanity, ie. communism, and this vision, combined with dedicated investment into improving the lives of ordinary Chinese people was attractive to many overseas Chinese (though not all). Today, what China offers is not fundamentally different from the west so it will attract a different set of people and for different reasons. The best propaganda, however, is to have an economic system and living standards superior to your adversaries. I think market-based profit-driven investment has exhausted its ability to improve China's economy (and definitely western economies too), at least in certain industries like real-estate. It's time to innovate new ways of organizing the economy so China can continue to improve at a rapid pace and deliver material benefits to its people.
the problem is that the government has to invest more into explaining its own ideology. Why is socialism with Chinese characteristics good? By what mechanism does Chinese ideology improve the lives of the people?

US spends billions pumping out "why is capitalism so good and effective" even when their own capitalists cause global financial meltdowns and throw millions of their own people into homelessness, drug use or dead from COVID. The very fact that they're able to say that shit with a straight face tells volumes.

it has to be simple, easily understood, like "There is lower homelessness in China." "Poverty relief works." "Lifespan exceeded US."
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Have you all considered that the CCP may never have had any real intention to perform armed reunification at all. Not since the 20th century. All threats on performing AR is to keep Taiwan from crossing red lines for as long as possible until it's revealed that there are no real intentions behind threats.

The US may have figured that out prior to and wanted to begin testing. Yes, no red lines are crossed yet but perhaps the US didn't care to risk it or they know for a fact that PRC does not wish to perform AR.

Peaceful reunification should be the goal. Prior to yesterday it appeared very convincing that the armed reunification route is there and certainly needs to be constantly reminded of just so it has effect for as long as possible.

If we think of this as a warring kingdoms dynamic then ccp being the ruler of the mainland ought to be incentivised to destroy its main political opponent in Taiwan. But perhaps something doctrinal changed in 1990s and ccp swore off armed reunification unless they are several steps ahead militarily as to not get bogged down into an unwinnable to extremely difficult win in an occupation war.

Doing it now risks making china a global pariah state and thwart its progress. After yesterday I suspect ccp never really was set on using any military force.

Personally this is a bit of a relief... Provided they won't cross red lines to test this theory but hoping no Chinese on Chinese war. Downside is ccp will now have to deal with increased western aggression and potential declaration of independence from Taiwan.

AR was always on the table. They’ve been planning for it during the Chen Shuibian era and only postponed it due to Ma Yingjeou’s election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top