Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Of course Japan and Korea won't attack first, but if China never fires the first shot then this whole discussion is moot since this whole discussion is about reunification, if Taiwan is unwilling there's only one way for China to take Taiwan, so what is the point of not considering that they will get involved?

Additionally the survival of Taiwan will become a existential concern for both Japan and Korea, if Taiwan falls and the US doesn't stop it, what's stopping China from attacking the other two? Even if those two countries have to expend their entire military they will fight for it, after all this would've been the line in the sand that must not be crossed.

This is ridiculous logic. On one hand you understand this is the settlement of the civil war, but then you throw out a strawman invasion of Japan and South Korea. Using this fallacy, if the US is willing to attack mainland China, what’s to stop them from trying to conquer the entire country like Iraq or Afghanistan?

Plus you entire skipped the reality that North Korea would equally face an existential threat if South Korea decides to join in US shenanigans against PRC.

The point people are trying to make, it would be best for Japan and South Korea to stay out. However you had proposed a tripartite naval blockade.

That wasn't my main point, just an aside comparing China's inability to damage the western allies manufacturing centers while the West could conceivably do just that. My point was that strikes on High end chip manufacturing for IOT devices and Smart phones takes years to repair and does not seem to be as impossible as some posters here have implied, this would seriously damage the high value electronic device industry that would slow down the Chinese economy.
There's already examples of dense air defense not being enough to stop strikes in Ukraine, so why is everyone so sure that the Chinese AD is impenetrable?

No one thinks Chinese AD is impenetrable. However, you are saying that 16 LRASM from a single B2 can cause irreparable damage. Then you expanded this to continuous long range strikes from any missile in the US arsenal. Ukraine has nothing in the kind of air defences China has, no AWACS, no navy, no CV with combat air patrols, no long range fighters, etc. etc. This line of argument is equally as bad as nuking Tokyo, which mind you, the OP only suggested as a result of a Japanese unilateral intervention. On top of this, slowing down the Chinese electronics industry is slowing down the Global electronics industry, so the economic damage would be mutual.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Of course Japan and Korea won't attack first, but if China never fires the first shot then this whole discussion is moot since this whole discussion is about reunification, if Taiwan is unwilling there's only one way for China to take Taiwan, so what is the point of not considering that they will get involved?

Additionally the survival of Taiwan will become a existential concern for both Japan and Korea, if Taiwan falls and the US doesn't stop it, what's stopping China from attacking the other two? Even if those two countries have to expend their entire military they will fight for it, after all this would've been the line in the sand that must not be crossed.


Attacking South Korea or Japan has definite costs for China.

Think about it. China could theoretically conquer South Korea, but the costs would be far higher than what we see in Ukraine today.
So if you can avoid this scenario, then why not? South Korea and Japan are falling into China's economic orbit anyway.

Good relations with China are a pre-requisite for the economic prosperity of Japan and Korea. I'll do a post on this in more detail later

---

Plus from an ideological perspective, Putin is publicly talking about a new Russian Empire.

But the Communist party founding myth is based on China being the victim of nasty colonial powers like Imperial Japan or the British Empire flooding China with narcotics. It is a big stretch to go to celebrating dreams of conquest. Look at how the American Republic views colonial empires like the British Empire.

China is very unlikely to go on a rampage like Imperial Japan did in Asia when colonial empires were the mark of a *successful* nation. These days it is about trade, investments and hi-tech companies.
 

5unrise

Junior Member
Registered Member
Attacking South Korea or Japan has definite costs for China.

Think about it. China could theoretically conquer South Korea, but the costs would be far higher than what we see in Ukraine today.
So if you can avoid this scenario, then why not? South Korea and Japan are falling into China's economic orbit anyway.

Good relations with China are a pre-requisite for the economic prosperity of Japan and Korea. I'll do a post on this in more detail later

---
The premise that China is interested in conquering Japan and Korea is just so fantastical and non-sensical that I don't think is worth engaging with. It is an extremely fringe view that has basically no traction. A slightly less ridiculous view is that South Korea would actually fight China over Taiwan - Japan may potentially do it because it is geographically in a more defensible position, but South Korea is too close, and with a de facto land border, to afford to be directly confrontational. It would be a massive hurdle to have South Korea allowing the US to use its bases, let alone going to war with a gigantic land neighbour that basically faces no land-based military threat of its own.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Anyway, the biggest lesson from Ukraine is not to get into a war in the first place.

It's not like Xi Jinping is really keen to launch an invasion of Taiwan as his relatives living in Taiwan may end up dying.

So the key thing is to manage the adjustment to a Chinese-dominated order in the Western Pacific in the following decades.
(But the idea of conceding anything to China is such a toxic notion in the West, and attracts so much hate, especially if you do this publicly)

If I look at the strategic situation in the Western Pacific, the key is Japan. Without Japan, the US has no way to sustain a credible presence in the Western Pacific. It doesn't really matter which way South Korea or the Philippines goes.

---

Now Japan has decided to double-down on its alliance with the USA and actively work against China. So it makes sense for China to increase economic and military pressure against Japan, to demonstrate that this is a bad course of action. If we look at the Japanese automotive industry as an example:

1. they do about $80 Billion in automotive exports per year. If trends continue and Japanese companies don't go electric, they are going to lose those exports and start being an net importer of automobiles, batteries, etc

2. about 8 million cars per year are made on Japanese soil, with about half as exports. Even if Japan retains its domestic car sales, the domestic Japanese car industry would be cut in half. That impacts jobs, creates financial losses, impacts economic growth, reduces tax revenues for increased military spending, etc etc

3. in the long-term, Japan would then have a current account deficit of $100 Billion per year, just from autos/batteries. Presumably they would start running down their overseas assets and eventually start importing capital. But where are they going to be importing capital from? The biggest saver and source of capital would still be China.

---

So Japanese automobile companies are going to lose out badly unless they embrace electric cars AND can find Chinese partners to work with.

So let's use Tesla as an example, which makes and sells more electric cars in China than the rest of the world combined. (Note that China is also the technology leader in terms of electric vehicles and batteries in general. Plus these industries in China are larger than the rest of the world combined)

We have Elon Musk on record as saying Tesla cars made in Shanghai are higher quality and lower cost than the Tesla cars made in the US.

We also see Tesla's embrace of China has resulted in booming sales and profits at Tesla, which has made Elon Musk the richest man in the world. At the same time, Tesla's embrace of China has accelerated the transition to electric vehicles by years. This has measurably reduced the probability of catastrophic climate change which would cause mass suffering for billions of people and potentially the extinction of humanity. (One can also ask why is it the Chinese government that is pushing the hardest for a zero-carbon society and not the USA, given that the US is by far the largest polluter with 20% of total carbon emissions released since 1850. In comparison, China only accounts for half this number at 11%)

Anyway, there's a huge lesson here for Japanese automakers and the Japanese government.

---

And it's not like China would treat Japan harshly if Japan returned to a Sino-centric world instead of clinging to a US alliance.

Japan is a wealthy, hi-tech nation and would be one of the biggest supporters of China on the global stage.
So there's no point in China constantly berating Japan over its past.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Anyway, the biggest lesson from Ukraine is not to get into a war in the first place
No. The biggest lesson is to properly invest in appropriate military spending share per GDP.

Current military spending for China is ridiculously low if we take into account the threats it is facing, the ambitions it has, and given history showing what happens when a rising superpower comes to head with the established superpower/hegemon. All of the above considered, everything points to a military confrontation <2030

I would rather be ready and armed to the teeth than caught with my pants down when (not if) a war happens saying "but we want peace!! No excessive military spending!"

It's not like Xi Jinping is really keen to launch an invasion of Taiwan as his relatives living in Taiwan may end up dying.
Its not Xi that wants to launch a war. Its a certain "you-know-who" country which is currently planning to do that
 

W20

Junior Member
Registered Member
The purpose of the "Ukrainian Gambit" was (A) to destabilize Russia, provoke a regime change in Moscow, return to the 'good old days' of the drunkard, control Russia's enormous resources, and as icing on the cake and jackpot corner China, and the consolation prize was (B) to consolidate the European Vassal Club, an objective that has been fully achieved.

I think the Ukrainian Gambit has clarified the Taiwanese Gambit.

I am not completely sure; but it is what I have seen with the Ukrainian Gambit: sacrifice a few tens of thousands of Ukrainians to hurt Russia but avoid a direct confrontation.

On the other hand, the general situation was "towards 1914": in 1870 the British Empire saw the emergence of a new power, Germany, and around say 1900 a hard core within the ruling class of the British Empire decided to wait for a propitious occasion to destroy Germany, a propitious occasion that arose when (1914) France and Russia agreed to attack Germany in unison.

But now the question is who will play the role of France and Russia ... Japan and Australia (!?)

By all this I mean that I am a little more optimistic now than I was a few years ago. I think that sooner or later we will leave this beautiful asteroid and painful world to its rightful heirs: bacteria. But honestly now I don't see on the near horizon that cataclysm. I don't know. "The future is in constant motion."
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
No. The biggest lesson is to properly invest in appropriate military spending share per GDP.

Current military spending for China is ridiculously low if we take into account the threats it is facing, the ambitions it has, and given history showing what happens when a rising superpower comes to head with the established superpower/hegemon. All of the above considered, everything points to a military confrontation <2030
Current military spending for China is about 5% of government budget (1.4ish% of gdp i believe).

Sipri i think it was, estimated that an additional 33% is not counted within the military budget, but infl fact should, which brings it up to around ~7%.

US is about 10% of government budget, but I think there might be about another 20% not counted in budget, resulting in about 12% (from some various estimates, I think even sipri?)

Now then, does China get about twice the value in what it spends compared to the US? Yes, I think so.

As for upping military spending, US can very much be considered to be a heavy spending (~3.4% of gdp i think it was), and the more money China can not spend on the military, the bigger chances are they can use more money to grow their economy, which results in a bigger military budget!
I would rather be ready and armed to the teeth than caught with my pants down when (not if) a war happens saying "but we want peace!! No excessive military spending!"
I think China's military spending might really be ok/enough, its very much a very hard balancing act, not to mention I very much think that China spends more than their official budget (around 7ish % of government spending).

Also, with ships for the PLAN, the PLA can't train and recruit enough people, so it's actually more like the ships waiting for people, and not people waiting for ships.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
The purpose of the "Ukrainian Gambit" was (A) to destabilize Russia, provoke a regime change in Moscow, return to the 'good old days' of the drunkard, control Russia's enormous resources, and as icing on the cake and jackpot corner China, and the consolation prize was (B) to consolidate the European Vassal Club, an objective that has been fully achieved.

I think the Ukrainian Gambit has clarified the Taiwanese Gambit.

I am not completely sure; but it is what I have seen with the Ukrainian Gambit: sacrifice a few tens of thousands of Ukrainians to hurt Russia but avoid a direct confrontation.

On the other hand, the general situation was "towards 1914": in 1870 the British Empire saw the emergence of a new power, Germany, and around say 1900 a hard core within the ruling class of the British Empire decided to wait for a propitious occasion to destroy Germany, a propitious occasion that arose when (1914) France and Russia agreed to attack Germany in unison.

But now the question is who will play the role of France and Russia ... Japan and Australia (!?)

By all this I mean that I am a little more optimistic now than I was a few years ago. I think that sooner or later we will leave this beautiful asteroid and painful world to its rightful heirs: bacteria. But honestly now I don't see on the near horizon that cataclysm. I don't know. "The future is in constant motion."
Personally I see the situation as more dire.

The US seeks to reshape the whole world under what it itself calls "the rules based order", the foundation of this order is:

1. The old idea of sovereign nations will be gone, instead, America will be first, nations closer integrated into US will be second, and everyone else will obey.

2. Finance and political function will be governed centrally worldwide from Washington. No transaction or political movement will be allowed without the white house's say so.

3. American companies will have primacy and the last word in all markets. Competitors are only allowed if US gives the green light, which can be revoked at anytime.

4. All countries must accept American jurisdiction over their home territories.

5. America shall reshape other territories as they see fit, merging countries or balkanizing them as they wish.

The world has probably never seen such a brazen challenge ever since 1941, when Germany proclaimed Europe will be put under it's "new order", except even back then, it was "just" Europe and not the whole world.

America has been way smarter than Germany at reshaping the world, using covert infiltration of international institutions and salami slicing rather than total war against other large countries.

However, US is now running out of small countries to salami slice at without accidentally touching powder kegs. Their recent actions have alerted the international community about the degree of US infiltration in international systems, they cannot move anywhere near as freely as they could 10 or 20 years ago.

Smaller countries and mid sized countries are rapidly heading towards forming coalitions, while USA is enforcing unity in its own vassals, causing some to split off and others to become more extreme. These more extreme US underlings such as neo nazis, salafists etc. create even higher chance of conflict, as they may drag America into a war even they don't want.

As long as USA doesn't give up on this ridiculous and totalitarian "dream", they are headed towards a full frontal collision with any country who values their own freedom. WW3 will happen if they keep pushing for more and mroe while ignoring international law.

It isn't about great power competition, its about 1 side refusing to accept anything except totalitarian rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top