You're telling me, an island, literally connected, to our greatest current world foe (sorry Russia), is geopolitically meaningless?
You think Newsome would would be indifferent if China grabbed Catalina Island?
You think Newsome would would be indifferent if China grabbed Catalina Island?
Strategically speaking, yes. Nobody is landing troops or planes on Hong Kong. And China's ability to project military power onto it is unconstrained, today, by non-diplomatic factors.
Between leaving the population in place in hopes it makes Beijing's life more difficult, and offering them relief, the advantage--to the people and outsiders--seems heavily one sided.
> You think Newsome would would be indifferent if China grabbed Catalina Island?
Most Americans would be pissed if anyone grabbed any sliver of American territory. That doesn't make every inch of American territory high ground.
It's economically meaningful. But from a foreign policy or geopolitical perspective, strategically, it's not worth expending force over.
> having a tiny outpost of liberalism as a check on the worst impulses of the mainland
I'd prefer this too. But Beijing has made its intentions clear. Short of the U.S. deploying force to defend Britain's 1997 agreement, Hong Kong--as it exists today--has fallen.
A Chinese invasion of HK would make a great setting for the next "Fallen" movie, if only Hollywood wasn't so busy sucking up to the CCP.