Why do people predicts such things? Why aren't your working towards a peaceful solution instead?
It's not his job to make peace. It's his job to put a well-honed weapon into the hands of the Statesman back in Washington. It is their purview to actually preserve the peace through diplomacy.
But make no mistake, the peace starts with China understanding that the weapon in-hand is sharp and ready.
And what is the USA even doing in China's sphere of influence, if not provoke? Do you see Chinese shipps patrolling the Mexican bay?
China's sphere of influence? Are you also an apologist for Russia's adventures within their claimed "sphere of influence" ?
If it wasn't already clear, you've pretty much outed yourself.
Surely we wouldn’t go to war on Taiwan’s behalf solely to support their independence. It would be to guarantee our access to their microchips. So why not produce those ourselves, and end our dependence on both China and Taiwan.
Well, the smartest dumb move, anyway. The Chinese fixation on claiming Taiwan is already a serious waste of their mental energies, but the real cost for making such a move at any time would be massive. Even without Western involvement.
Never the less, we've seen men do stupider things for pride. See: Ukraine.
Different people seem to have different value systems. The "costs" involved may not concern Xi all that much, provided he "wins".
Hell, we've got genuine believers (...or shills) even in these comments talking about how US support for Taiwan is all just a ploy to weaken China.
If Xi makes a move on Taiwan, he turns China into a Russia-like pariah to the West and bears an immense cost in lives and materiel. For what gain exactly?
Taiwan is worth more as a bogeyman he can point to for nationalistic rallying than as an actual possession.
How do you measure gain? If consider only economic benefits, why did Putin attack Ukraine?
Now if you consider that these men have big egos, are more driven by nationalist motives than economic ones and that they want to go down in history as the next Peter the Great or Qin Shihuang?
Then maybe they are willing to tolerate that their peoples experience a period of economic decline, to ensure the greatnest of the nation and the supreme leader?
Given their value systems, this may even be rational.
Deng Xiaoping brought Hong Kong and Macao back, but he was memorated as a great leader not because of this, but because he opened the door for China to its economic prosperity.
Xi needs to take Korea and Japan too?
Why not? The parallels with Czechoslovakia in 1938 are dramatic. The 20th century showed that if you let dictators win, you just fight a bigger war later.
Powerful nations have a moral obligation to stick up for free populations. If the Taiwanese don't want to live under the CCP's thumb, they shouldn't have to.
The US's objective is to keep China divided and as weak as possible. Taiwan is at at important strategic location and it suits the US's interests that it does not reunite with mainland China and stays dependent on the US. The type of government in Taiwan is irrelevant (as long as it's not communist) and really it's only desirable that Taiwan be governing itself in that it implies weakness.
In any case, it is extremely unlikely that the US would attack China in case of an invasion of Taiwan.
If you wanna try to go all real-politik here, sure it's useful to the United States to hold something back from China that they're weirdly fixated on. But these days the real value of Taiwan is mostly about semi-conductor supply chains.
China's antagonism and petulance toward Taiwan is an own-goal they choose to continue making. It's not the United State's fault, and it doesn't have to be this way.
The US have no troops stationed in Taiwan equally on purpose: to make sure they will NOT be dragged into a war with China.
It's not just about face. Neither side wants to escalate the situation or to be dragged into war.
NATO is adjacent to Ukraine. Has Russia attacked them? No. Has NATO attacked Russia? No. Neither side are suicidal. So it remains a proxy war. The same would happen over Taiwan.
Geopolitics 101, really.
That's sue for peace, prepare for war and it's as true now as when it was first written.
So, imo, that phrase primary serves to get ready for violence you intend to start, all the while you are convincing yourself your intentions are good and you are just a victim of circumstances.
Yeah, I can't either.
It's good advice; all else equal, the visibly weak are more often assaulted than the visibly strong. But it can be taken to excess; it's one thing to carry oneself as if one means business, and quite another to go everywhere with one's finger on the trigger of a shotgun with a chambered shell. After a certain point, you make people feel they need to defend themselves from you.
I wrote a little about it here [1].
Should the US win such a war, it may cause China to go even more militaristic than they currently are, and seek a rematch in 2050, or so. That's what happened after WW1, and there are plenty of cases throughout history of countries losing a war going for a rematch 1-2 generations later.
And IF there is a rematch in 2050, even if China loses again, the economic costs of two such conflicts may drain both countries to such a degree that a new power emerges as dominant. India would be the most likely candidate, but by the end of the century, one could even imagine a rejuvenated Europe
We are lucky the US was predicting the Russians were going to invade last year; the preparation saved the country (for now).
Peace by trade failed.
If that didn't happen, there would simply be no war in Ukraine.
Because if the president is corrupt and the population is angry about it, it's USA's (or EU's) fault?
There's a good record of Yanukovych's luxury residence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezhyhirya_Residence), do you believe is it also just Western lies and propaganda?
Maybe the Western governments should just let protesters know that they the support corrupt governments? Of course it's hardly a good argument from me because this is what the West does a lot, e.g. with Saudi Arabia or the Egyptian government before the Arab revolution. I suppose what you want is everyone supporting authoritarian governments, because hey, at least there the oppression is quiet and doesn't involve mass violence (e.g. individuals will be tortured behind closed doors instead of masses being shot in public).
There's a good record of Yanukovych's luxury residence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezhyhirya_Residence), do you believe is it also just Western lies and propaganda?"
This is a weak argument. There are plenty of luxurious residences in the West, from the Buckingham Palace to Palace of Versailles, etc. Why should they be exempt from the evidence of "corruption" you speak of?
The second paragraph should be a clear indication that the West cares not if the country is democratic or not. As long as it serves their interests.
Oh, what a great argument. You win! /s
> Why should they be exempt from the evidence of "corruption" you speak of?
Because there's a paper trail of how these buildings came to be in the posession of their owners, and it's all rightful. Besides, Versailles, what a solid argument, duh, it's owned by the country? (But hey, don't let this fool you into believing you made a stupid argument). As for Buckingham Palace, well, the monarchy is a weird concept but it's now been molded into something that's palatable with democracy but hey, congratulations, now you've successfully changed to argument to be about monarchy vs democracy instead of the corrupt Yanukovych and Putin governments. You're so clever!
Talking about weak argument... Next level whataboutism.
Ukraine didn't want to be involved with soviet mentality.
Source: literal refugee friends from Ukraine.
All too well, in fact. That is why the trade agreement is being nullified. It no longer benefits the USA.
Gas was found in Crimea that could replace Russian deliveries.
Guess what they invaded first in 2014.
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but yes of course they are.
It seems like, the more democratic you are, the more wars youstart.
Except, the USA is trully a Republic. Figures, same as Rome.
And what was the cost of peace? Ceaușescu and his wife killed far more than 2000 Romanians every year with their brutal communist regime.
How about No.
EDIT: Except WWIII?
Furthermore, if China invaded Taiwan it would be China starting WWIII not America.
People like this see Russia invading Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 and go “ah-ha, clearly the work of the USA”. They see Russia launch a full scale invasion in 2022, and see a secret USA/NATO plot to destabilise Russia. They see Trump losing an election and deduce that it must have been some pro-war nefarious deep state trickery.
They are broken, unless you want to have a bit of fun winding them up a bit you would have a more enriching conversation with a brick wall :-)
Mexico doesn't own the Gulf of Mexico.
- Budget
- Seen as a leading voice
- True conviction
Any one of the three are enough.