History is littered with modern examples.
The US Colonies (British Empire). Latin America (Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, British, French). The Viet Cong (US, France). Finland (Russia). Iraqi resistance groups (US). The Taliban, Mujahideen (US, Russia). North Korea (UN). Ukraine (Russia). Hezbollah (Israel). Yugoslavia (NATO). Emus (Australia).
Every giant well funded army has also lost at some point. For China, it's ideal to remove Taiwan as a staging ground that could be held by any opposition. Consider a scenario where it's NATO countries + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan, + Australia + New Zealand vs China in a massive conflict (or any similar variation). It would be far better to wholly control the island of Taiwan than not.
I don't disagree with your point (Chinese fears of encirclement), but the way you present. It's already the case and China is trying to invade Taiwan to change it. It's all consistent with China's attempt to phrase Taiwan as being separatist as opposed to the truth which is that China is being militaristic and imperialistic. It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.
You know that's not true.
>They don't say they are, but clearly they are.
So why don't they say that?
>The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States.
And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan?
>It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.
Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.
The PRC and the ROC have separate economies, militaries, governments, currencies. They engage in interational trade separately, organize telecommunications separately, they issue their own passports and they are recognized separately. The land controlled by the PRC and the land controlled by the ROC have been stable for 70 years. Those two landmasses have been united under one government for about 4 years in the last 125. To say that they are not two separate countries is totally delusional.
> And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan?
What does that matter? The facts on the ground are that they are separate countries. The US position that the PRC wasn't a country in the 50s and 60s didn't magically make it the case.
> Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.
You clearly don't live in reality.
Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize. From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.
> Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize.
Yes taking over the ROC is the real prize because right now it is _independent_ and the PRC wants that to change. The mental somersaults you do to avoid saying this obvious truth is mind boggling.
> From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.
This is true! The ROC claims the territories of the mainland as well as Mongolia in its constitution. This is delusional. Similarly the PRC claims the mainland and the ROC's territories as its own. This is also delusional. It matters how neither side officially sees themselves. They _are_ two separate countries.
Why can't you just admit that the PRC has imperialistic ambitions and tries to make up justifications to make the PRC look like it is in the right? Why are you so hellbent to ignore reality?
Another thing to keep in mind is that Taiwan consists of about 70% of mountainous areas, i.e the perfect terrain for an organized resistance.
Invading Taiwan is but an easy task and it is believed to be an endeavor that would surpass the D-day.
[0] https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=mzwGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT117&l... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war-wi...
FWIIW it was historically used by forces which threatened Chinese sovereignty, including Japan. Since Chinese leadership actually reads history instead of making stuff up as they go along, as Westerners do, that's probably why it's such a sore spot for them.