> Russia was derided as an economy the size of Belgium and the Netherlands at the onset of the war, and experts around the West were certain that such a relatively small economy could not endure a drawn-out conflict. The Russians would run out of missiles, and then they would run out of shells, and then eventually they’d run out of bullets and hand grenades and shovels as well.
They nearly had a full fledged armed revolt and clearly lack the soldiers and materiel to hold the land they currently took, yet alone take more. They have underperformed time and time again when it comes to other military objectives, again for lack of materiel.
So Russians are not yet all corpses if that is what is meant by "endure" a drawn out war. But a supposed major power struggling to invade a neighbor is not exactly success.
> . The recent news that the US would send cluster bombs to Ukraine – a controversial weapon type that has been banned by most Nato countries – was telling. Not so much in moral terms, but for what it told us about the United States: the world’s largest economy was nearly out of conventional ammunition to send to Europe.
I suppose one only buys a screwdriver due a shortage of drills?
The West has achieved far more than initially hoped for in Ukraine. Supporting a Taliban style insurgency against Russian occupation was the expected result when this started.
Also, the US must know that it cannot win in any conflict with China regarding Taiwan right?
Taiwan is idealogical to China. Taiwan is merely a pawn in the game for the US. The US will bow out of a war for Taiwan within years but China will never give up - even if the war lasts 100 years.
Therefore, it's in everyone's best interest to maintain status quo and not to disturb the delicate balance of China/Taiwan/US. The Obama administration got it right. The Trump and Biden administrations have not. Nancy Pelosi flying to Taiwan looks great for her career, but terrible for everyone else.
What exactly did Nancy Pelosi gain? It's not like she wasn't going to be re-elected. I perceived that more as a favor to her party than as a career-booster.
Another way to look at Pelosi’s visit is that had the US not shown such a strong stance of support China would have already attempted an invasion, and it certainly looks like had Russia succeeded in their initial invasion plans China would have followed suite. Deterrence is a major diplomatic card to use to avoid open conflict and maintain the status quo.
This is what people are missing, defeating US / degrading US prescence in East Asia / PRC backyard that put and sustains PRC-TW civil war in stasis is the ultimate PRC strategic vision. I think fundementally PRC (and US) planners understand that historically outside hegemons are not displaced via politics but kinetic war. US isn't going to relinquish East Asian security architecture without a fight - bulk of PLA modernization is directed towards that fight.
China may be making plans if wars come their way. They'd be stupidly negligent not to do so. But they will be avoiding war for at least another decade unless forced into one. That will be foolishly and mistakenly construed as weakness by the West.
But in fact, China is steadily progressing on its way. It's an arithmetical certainty that in a few years, China will take over the 'Number One ' slot. Why would China have a war with anybody? That would only slow them down. And sooner or later, Taiwan will see which way will be more advantageous for them and will merge with China peacefully. (As with West and East Germany in the 1990s).
On the other hand, It's the US that can only slow the Chinese down by going to war to prevent the US losing the 'Number One' slot. How can it be 'exceptional' if it's not 'Number One'? And to initiate a war with China, there has to be some sort of casus-belli. Taiwan currently is a reasonably good candidate for this, as was done with Ukraine from about 2014 on.
The problem the US has with China is that China has more manufacturing capacity and more men of military-age than the whole of the West combined. To ensure victory in a war with China, the US needed to have started the conflict back around 2020 when the US was stronger and China was weaker. The US has missed that bus. It is too late. It can not win against China now.
> Also, the US must know that it cannot win in any conflict with China regarding Taiwan right?
Depends on your definition of "win".
The US can reduce China to a glowing crater - at the price of being reduced to a glowing crater itself. That's probably not "win" in your book (nor in mine).
The US cannot conquer mainland China.
Can the US defeat an attempted mainland invasion of Taiwan? Maybe. The answer would be no if they shared a land border, but they don't. That 90 miles of water makes an invasion much more difficult and vulnerable. And China has no experience with amphibious assaults. The US would take losses in such a case, but would they win? I'm not sure anybody knows.
> Taiwan is idealogical to China. Taiwan is merely a pawn in the game for the US. The US will bow out of a war for Taiwan within years but China will never give up - even if the war lasts 100 years.
Taiwan is at least somewhat ideological for the US. We believe in the right of self-determination (going clear back to the Declaration of Independence), and we believe that Taiwan should have that right.
It's ideological for China because Xi made it so. I'm not an expert, but I don't think it was ideological for China under, say, Deng. Well, Xi won't live another 100 years. Will it still be ideological for the next guy?
I sometimes wonder if the real issue is that Taiwan represents the incompleteness of the revolution. It's like if the Romanovs had escaped Russia and lived in exile. It would have been a constant thorn in the side of the soviet government. It's not just about the territory, it's about erasing the past.
With that said, no matter how ideologically important it is to China, I don't see how they're in a position to fight a protracted conflict. They would need it to be a sudden move, a _fait accompli_ by the time the west gets up in the morning. The fact is that China is a massive importer of food and other resources by sea and the US navy can blockade anything it wants.
PRC/TW is an unfinished civil war prolonged by US. Ultimately that's all there is to it. Civil wars end when one side defeats the other or some kind of mutual formal settlement. PRC won't settle for anything other than unification. Reunifying against US who sustains the divide in the first is just as signficiant.
Entire US can blockade PRC is old/irrelevant narrative now. The basis is US can unilaterally blockades with little cost to itself. Thats no long true. PRC has established mutual homeland vunerability on CONUS - they can conventionally degrade US critical infra via long range strikes which is just blockade further down the extraction chain. TLDR is resource autarky means nothing wihtout security. US gained shale/energy autarky but lost security relative to PRC. Hence US less likely to blockade PRC to disrupt PRC mainland if PRC can exact proportional cost on CONUS at scale - something US adversairies historically could not do. Which makes TW fair accompli even more irrelevant - PRC's ultimate strategic goal is to displace US military out of east asia / her back yard. They benefit and are designing a military around a protracted war with US+co (JP/SKR/PH). Basically bulk of PRC/PLA modernization is designed to fight US because TW is a freebie if US military challenged to point where it can't intervene in IndoPac at all.
13 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 41.6 ms ] threadThey nearly had a full fledged armed revolt and clearly lack the soldiers and materiel to hold the land they currently took, yet alone take more. They have underperformed time and time again when it comes to other military objectives, again for lack of materiel.
So Russians are not yet all corpses if that is what is meant by "endure" a drawn out war. But a supposed major power struggling to invade a neighbor is not exactly success.
> . The recent news that the US would send cluster bombs to Ukraine – a controversial weapon type that has been banned by most Nato countries – was telling. Not so much in moral terms, but for what it told us about the United States: the world’s largest economy was nearly out of conventional ammunition to send to Europe.
I suppose one only buys a screwdriver due a shortage of drills?
The West has achieved far more than initially hoped for in Ukraine. Supporting a Taliban style insurgency against Russian occupation was the expected result when this started.
Also, the US must know that it cannot win in any conflict with China regarding Taiwan right?
Taiwan is idealogical to China. Taiwan is merely a pawn in the game for the US. The US will bow out of a war for Taiwan within years but China will never give up - even if the war lasts 100 years.
Lee Kuan Yew (first Singapore PM) said it best: https://youtu.be/q_gr3dtBaic?t=682
Therefore, it's in everyone's best interest to maintain status quo and not to disturb the delicate balance of China/Taiwan/US. The Obama administration got it right. The Trump and Biden administrations have not. Nancy Pelosi flying to Taiwan looks great for her career, but terrible for everyone else.
And as mentioned, war would benefit no one except defense stocks. Certainly not American tax payers like myself.
So if America isn’t going to win the war, everyone will pay a heavy price, then why disturb the balance? This is a rhetorical question.
But in fact, China is steadily progressing on its way. It's an arithmetical certainty that in a few years, China will take over the 'Number One ' slot. Why would China have a war with anybody? That would only slow them down. And sooner or later, Taiwan will see which way will be more advantageous for them and will merge with China peacefully. (As with West and East Germany in the 1990s).
On the other hand, It's the US that can only slow the Chinese down by going to war to prevent the US losing the 'Number One' slot. How can it be 'exceptional' if it's not 'Number One'? And to initiate a war with China, there has to be some sort of casus-belli. Taiwan currently is a reasonably good candidate for this, as was done with Ukraine from about 2014 on.
The problem the US has with China is that China has more manufacturing capacity and more men of military-age than the whole of the West combined. To ensure victory in a war with China, the US needed to have started the conflict back around 2020 when the US was stronger and China was weaker. The US has missed that bus. It is too late. It can not win against China now.
Depends on your definition of "win".
The US can reduce China to a glowing crater - at the price of being reduced to a glowing crater itself. That's probably not "win" in your book (nor in mine).
The US cannot conquer mainland China.
Can the US defeat an attempted mainland invasion of Taiwan? Maybe. The answer would be no if they shared a land border, but they don't. That 90 miles of water makes an invasion much more difficult and vulnerable. And China has no experience with amphibious assaults. The US would take losses in such a case, but would they win? I'm not sure anybody knows.
> Taiwan is idealogical to China. Taiwan is merely a pawn in the game for the US. The US will bow out of a war for Taiwan within years but China will never give up - even if the war lasts 100 years.
Taiwan is at least somewhat ideological for the US. We believe in the right of self-determination (going clear back to the Declaration of Independence), and we believe that Taiwan should have that right.
It's ideological for China because Xi made it so. I'm not an expert, but I don't think it was ideological for China under, say, Deng. Well, Xi won't live another 100 years. Will it still be ideological for the next guy?
With that said, no matter how ideologically important it is to China, I don't see how they're in a position to fight a protracted conflict. They would need it to be a sudden move, a _fait accompli_ by the time the west gets up in the morning. The fact is that China is a massive importer of food and other resources by sea and the US navy can blockade anything it wants.
Entire US can blockade PRC is old/irrelevant narrative now. The basis is US can unilaterally blockades with little cost to itself. Thats no long true. PRC has established mutual homeland vunerability on CONUS - they can conventionally degrade US critical infra via long range strikes which is just blockade further down the extraction chain. TLDR is resource autarky means nothing wihtout security. US gained shale/energy autarky but lost security relative to PRC. Hence US less likely to blockade PRC to disrupt PRC mainland if PRC can exact proportional cost on CONUS at scale - something US adversairies historically could not do. Which makes TW fair accompli even more irrelevant - PRC's ultimate strategic goal is to displace US military out of east asia / her back yard. They benefit and are designing a military around a protracted war with US+co (JP/SKR/PH). Basically bulk of PRC/PLA modernization is designed to fight US because TW is a freebie if US military challenged to point where it can't intervene in IndoPac at all.