Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Keep in mind that the economic/geopolitical stake of a Taiwan invasion just got a lot higher. Given where China's conventional capabilities are at right now, I think the likelihood of them being able to carry out a successful Taiwan invasion and fend off less committed US response by 2025 to be quite high. That would be the likely result of a scenario where Taiwan decides to disrupt status quo and declare independence. The willingness of large part of Taiwanese population to support such a move would be pretty low.

The big question is vs a more determined Taiwanese opposition and determined US response. This would be the likely outcome of a unilateral move on the mainland side to take Taiwan by force after it deems that all peaceful unification route have been exhausted. I would say that this is not something mainland should rush into. Most recently, it seems that US govenment would view this as a fight about its position in Pacific region rather than just about Taiwan. As such, this would mean a full blown decoupling and one where US is willing to commit large part of its forces As such, they should only try to do this if they are convinced they can beat back 2/3 of USN/USMC fleet (assuming the remaining is needed for homeland security and responsibilities in the Atlantic and Europe) or convince America that this it not a winnable fight. In this case, if PLA actually does get strong enough where it can beat US military in a war close in West Pacific or convince US military to not fight, then I don't see how Taiwan could stand against Chinese unification pressure. I think most Taiwanese elites/ruling class would just surrender in that case and accept the long awaited time has come. Keep in mind that this scenario is still quite far away. Maybe 2035 to 2045 range.

The US has never view China's reunification with Taiwan, peaceful or otherwise, as any thing other than about her position in the Pacific. Taiwan is a key link in the first island chain to encircle China.

It is just that the stake now is getting higher and higher for the US to maintain her global hegemony position.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
The US has never view China's reunification with Taiwan, peaceful or otherwise, as any thing other than about her position in the Pacific. Taiwan is a key link in the first island chain to encircle China.

It is just that the stake now is getting higher and higher for the US to maintain her global hegemony position.

I can assure you that back 15 to 20 years ago when I was first started following this, America elites did not see this as an existential issue. America does not need Taiwan to encircle China.
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
US doesn't even do military exercises with Taiwan, so zero joint-forces compatibility for joint-operations or coordination of defense. All US will do is scream bloody murder about "China Threat" or "China Really Bad" to reinvigorate an Asian NATO or add fuel to QUAD, much like it is doing with Russia. Nice thing about Taiwan as an island is almost zero US replenishment of arms or equipment.
 

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
I can assure you that back 15 to 20 years ago when I was first started following this, America elites did not see this as an existential issue. America does not need Taiwan to encircle China.

In the second half of the 90s, I was an expat in SE Asia and had to fly into Taiwan several times while the Chinese were still lobbing missiles over Taiwan every now and then and holding drills around Taiwan. It was widely discussed among my western expat friends as well as my Taiwanese colleagues that China view Taiwan as the "unsinkable" aircraft carrier (and China has no aircraft carrier at the time) to break through the first island chain into the Pacific Ocean, but the US would not let Taiwan fall because it would break the encirclement of China.

In my previous post, I did not say it was an existential threat (to the US as a hegemony) then, just recently. This part I agree with you.

My point is that the US never view Taiwan as a standalone issue, but always a part of a bigger strategy.
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
I can assure you that back 15 to 20 years ago when I was first started following this, America elites did not see this as an existential issue. America does not need Taiwan to encircle China.

Taiwan is tied to the US' strategic position in the Pacific, but it's not, and never will be, an existential issue for them.

US actions with regards to Taiwan is abundantly clear, and that is the most important lesson we can extract from the Ukraine war: the US will take direct military action if they are confident of victory, they will take proxy actions if they think they can profit from it, and they will back down if they see something threatening their actual existence.

The best hedge against US military intervention in Taiwan is a strong nuclear deterrence.
 

Coalescence

Senior Member
Registered Member
Taiwan is tied to the US' strategic position in the Pacific, but it's not, and never will be, an existential issue for them.

US actions with regards to Taiwan is abundantly clear, and that is the most important lesson we can extract from the Ukraine war: the US will take direct military action if they are confident of victory, they will take proxy actions if they think they can profit from it, and they will back down if they see something threatening their actual existence.

The best hedge against US military intervention in Taiwan is a strong nuclear deterrence.
Could the capability of sinking all of US pacific naval assets and carrier fleet also a good enough deterrence?
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Keep in mind that the economic/geopolitical stake of a Taiwan invasion just got a lot higher. Given where China's conventional capabilities are at right now, I think the likelihood of them being able to carry out a successful Taiwan invasion and fend off less committed US response by 2025 to be quite high. That would be the likely result of a scenario where Taiwan decides to disrupt status quo and declare independence. The willingness of large part of Taiwanese population to support such a move would be pretty low.

The big question is vs a more determined Taiwanese opposition and determined US response. This would be the likely outcome of a unilateral move on the mainland side to take Taiwan by force after it deems that all peaceful unification route have been exhausted. I would say that this is not something mainland should rush into. Most recently, it seems that US govenment would view this as a fight about its position in Pacific region rather than just about Taiwan. As such, this would mean a full blown decoupling and one where US is willing to commit large part of its forces As such, they should only try to do this if they are convinced they can beat back 2/3 of USN/USMC fleet (assuming the remaining is needed for homeland security and responsibilities in the Atlantic and Europe) or convince America that this it not a winnable fight. In this case, if PLA actually does get strong enough where it can beat US military in a war close in West Pacific or convince US military to not fight, then I don't see how Taiwan could stand against Chinese unification pressure. I think most Taiwanese elites/ruling class would just surrender in that case and accept the long awaited time has come. Keep in mind that this scenario is still quite far away. Maybe 2035 to 2045 range.

I think China could beat US military in a war close in West Pacific in 2025 and surely in 2030. Even now, the chance of China beat the US is quite reasonable (~50%)
 

RedMetalSeadramon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As Russia runs out of tanks, will China’s military take a hit?

Russia is struggling to replace frontline military equipment lost in its war in Ukraine
But China, its second-biggest arms buyer, has reduced dependency in recent years

Published: 12:00pm, 30 May, 2022

Updated: 12:00pm, 30 May, 2022
Why you can trust SCMP

Russia has lost thousands of tanks, aircraft and weapons in its invasion of Ukraine. Abandoned Russian vehicles have shown them to be heavily reliant on components made by other countries – many of them sanctioning Russia – raising questions as to whether Moscow has the funds and parts to sustain the war.

It has now pulled decades-old T-62M tanks from storage for new battalions to be sent to Ukraine, the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces said in a daily update last week. The tanks, which entered Soviet service in 1983, were also photographed loaded on trains at a location verified to be the railway station of Russian-controlled Melitopol in southeastern Ukraine.
20 countries offer new arms for Ukraine, including missiles and helicopters

But while Russia is facing difficulties in replacing frontline military equipment and producing new arms, it may not have much of a knock-on effect on its second-largest weapons buyer: China. Analysts say the growing autarky of China’s military-industrial complex has minimised any impact of the Ukraine war on Chinese arms production.

China had imported mainly jet propulsion systems and surface-to-air missiles from Russia, but it has been actively developing its own versions of imports, said Richard Bitzinger, a visiting senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, China bought destroyers, Kilo-class attack submarines and Ilyushin Il-76 transport aircraft, he said.

“But in every one of these cases, the Chinese have started to develop Chinese counterparts, Chinese competitors, and then essentially and slowly been reducing their dependencies,” Bitzinger said.

“The last place they have any dependencies is in jet engines and maybe some missile systems. That’s gonna start going away, too.”
China bought Ilyushin Il-76 transport aircraft from Russia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Photo: Xinhua
China bought Ilyushin Il-76 transport aircraft from Russia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Photo: Xinhua

Russia was the world’s second-largest arms exporter from 2017 to 2021, and China was its second-biggest buyer behind India, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s arms transfer database.

The quality of products coming out of China’s domestic arms industry has improved, partly thanks to the reverse-engineering of US and Russian equipment, according to a 2021 report from the US-based Rand Corporation. Chinese firms would study foreign equipment, on which they would base the development of their own version.

China’s Shenyang WS-18 turbofan engine, for example, was reverse-engineered from the Soloviev D-30KP-2, originating from a 1960s Soviet design, imported from Russia. The Russian engines were fitted on Chinese-made Y-20 transporters and H-6K bombers, according to China Military Online, the People’s Liberation Army’s news website, highlighting the early difficulties of Chinese-made engines to provide enough range.

The Russian engines were later phased out in favour of China’s WS-18 and WS-20.

Bitzinger said China had been working for a quarter of a century to reduce its dependence on Russian arms, especially subsystems, but it would also have to buy spare parts to maintain Russian arms still in its inventory. Russian arms tended not to last long because the Soviet Union and Russia aimed at making arms cheaply but in large quantities.

However the trade of spare parts “flies below the radar of arms transfers” and it was difficult to gauge China’s dependence in the area, he said.
Russian engines were initially fitted on Chinese-made Y-20 transporters but were later phased out. Photo: AP
Russian engines were initially fitted on Chinese-made Y-20 transporters but were later phased out. Photo: AP

Zhou Chenming, a researcher at the Yuan Wang military science and technology think tank in Beijing, agreed that Russian sanctions had minimal impact on Chinese arms production.

“In general, China is capable of self-production. So, sanctions do not matter.”

He said China had largely stopped buying arms from Russia, and the war had done little to delay the delivery of Chinese orders.

Russian orders delivered to China since 2012 include anti-ship and anti-tank missiles, naval guns and transport aircraft, according to SIPRI’s arms transfer data. But Russian exports to China measured by military value have dropped from their peak in 2005.

Chinese state-owned arms manufacturers – some of the biggest globally – have propelled the industry to be the world’s second-largest in arms sales behind the US, data from SIPRI shows.
Russian and Chinese bombers flew near Japan during Quad summit in Tokyo

Zhou said China could easily replace Russian components with locally made ones, and that process would only take a few months. It could also be sped up if needed, he added.

The Ukraine war and sanctions on Russia therefore had “completely no impact” on Chinese arms production, he said. Raw materials for making arms, such as rare earth elements and metal alloys, did not need to be imported.

China had 37 per cent of the world’s rare earth element reserves as of 2019, according to the US Geological Survey – the largest share belonging to a single country. Vietnam had the second-largest at 18 per cent of the global share.

Zhou said in the next five years, there would be few weapons and equipment left that China would want to procure from other countries.

“There’s really nothing much we see to be worth buying – very little,” he said. “Maybe a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, but nobody is selling that.”

Incase SCMP isnt brain dead enough.

Really have to wonder who the audience is here. What is the cross section of stupid and easily manipulated people that believes both that Ukrainian claims are credible and that China runs Russian tanks? Id like to find them and sell them some NFT, could make a couple thousand bucks.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Taiwan is tied to the US' strategic position in the Pacific, but it's not, and never will be, an existential issue for them.

US actions with regards to Taiwan is abundantly clear, and that is the most important lesson we can extract from the Ukraine war: the US will take direct military action if they are confident of victory, they will take proxy actions if they think they can profit from it, and they will back down if they see something threatening their actual existence.

The best hedge against US military intervention in Taiwan is a strong nuclear deterrence.

You need strong nuclear deterrence to prevent the so called nuclear blackmail scenario. However, you still need to be able to win a war conventionally. It's one thing to face a less determined Taiwan and 2 US carrier groups. It's quite a different thing to face a determined Taiwan and 6 to 7 carrier groups along with 4 or 5 USMC LHDs. The latter is the certainly a possibility if China was trying to changing status quo unilaterally. That''s why what I talked about with Kiribati and Pacific islands is important. Having a Pacific base close enough to Hawaii means America needs to keep 2 carriers stationed in Pearl Harbour and maybe 1 in San Diego to defend the homeland. That's a huge game changer in any Taiwan scenario. Keep that in mind as we follow China's Pacific islands strategy.

It's very important to not equate US involvement in Ukraine to it's possible involvement in Taiwan scenario. Strategically, future rivalry with China in Pacific ocean is so much more important issue than Ukraine/Russia. If Russia actually attacked a NATO country, it will face the full might of the NATO alliance.

US officials have admitted that the anti-China alliance in Asia will fall apart the moment US does not defend Taiwan. So yes, it's a much larger deal than Ukraine.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Taiwan is tied to the US' strategic position in the Pacific, but it's not, and never will be, an existential issue for them.

It has the potential to be existential, economically.

e.g. Such tectonic shifts might effect the reserve status of the US dollar.

The Pacific may not be existential for America, but it is existential for Pax-Americana.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top