Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

ZeEa5KPul said:

China doesn't share Russia's limitations and doesn't see America as ten feet tall. Given Russia's far smaller economy than both China and America as well as the inherently more difficult problem of dislodging America from Europe, I can understand why Russia must bound its ambitions. It might go to war in Ukraine but it will never even in its wildest dreams contemplate going to war against NATO. China is far stronger and its problem is easier: There isn't a continent-sized, technologically advanced appendage of the US grafted onto China the way Europe is to Russia.

Click to expand...

Russia completely reoriented its trade from West. hardly people feel that much pain in living standards and they pre-bought alot of consumer products. Russians can get airline tickets at reasonable prices to visit relatives in West due to extensive aviation connection with Middleast/Turkey.
Can China reorient its trade from EU/US/Latin America/Japan/Korea/Africa/Middleast/India.
Because i know the world attitude if Chinese cannot supply them which will happen when there is extensive conflict with US.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Yes, minimal losses in all scenarios. Of course, I exclude ludicrous scenarios like China allowing America to launch strikes against it without defending itself. It was unbelievable to think even a decade ago that China would be able to destroy US forces in the First Island Chain in some favourable scenarios, but here we are today. Who knows what another decade or so will bring?

China doesn't share Russia's limitations and doesn't see America as ten feet tall. Given Russia's far smaller economy than both China and America as well as the inherently more difficult problem of dislodging America from Europe, I can understand why Russia must bound its ambitions. It might go to war in Ukraine but it will never even in its wildest dreams contemplate going to war against NATO. China is far stronger and its problem is easier: There isn't a continent-sized, technologically advanced appendage of the US grafted onto China the way Europe is to Russia.

Click to expand...

NATO without America ceases to be a threat, there's a reason America has bases all over Europe. It doesn't contain Russia anymore than QUAD without America contains China right now.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Reunification is very much identical to challenging US supremacy in the western Pacific. If it wasn't, Taiwan would have been resolved long ago. I am sure the Chinese leadership realizes, even if it hasn't said this publicly, that America's presence in the western Pacific is at the root of all China's strategic problems and uprooting that presence is China's ultimate goal.

Click to expand...

If you think AR and attacking Guam are identical there's not much else I can say other than I think Americans would very much disagree with you.

The reason reunification hasn't happened doesn't have much to do with military strength. It hasn't been seen as politically necessary and the CPC was content keeping the status quo. Recent events may have changed that, we'll have to wait and see.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Risk averse isn't the proper way to think about this. America is not compelled to respond to Russia and North Korea in the same way it would be to China because they can't hurt America. America has defeated both and put them in cages - Russia is caged by NATO and the DPRK by the ROK. Most importantly, neither Russia nor North Korea have any hope of breaking out of their cages; if they ever break out it will be because China defeated America and broke them out.

Click to expand...

How does ROK contain a North Korea armed with nuclear ICBMs? I'd say North Korea is anything but contained right now.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Legality and international law have nothing to do with anything, this is power politics. If China is counting on international law as anything more than a rhetorical device to bludgeon its enemies then its position is truly a sorry one.

Click to expand...

Legality and international law have everything to do with power politics. Your definition of power politics seems limited to outright war.

If you're going to limit yourself to only that you'll be waiting a long time to get Taiwan, let alone the West Pacific.

Abominable said:

NATO without America ceases to be a threat, there's a reason America has bases all over Europe. It doesn't contain Russia anymore than QUAD without America contains China right now.

Click to expand...

The point is Russia doesn't have the strength to go at America directly (it has to nibble away at Ukraine) while China will soon have the strength to do exactly that. That's the most important lesson for China to learn from the Ukraine conflict: that it has nothing to learn from it. What a weaker power does to gain what petty advantage it can is that weaker power's business - what China must do to remake the world order is China's business.

Abominable said:

If you think AR and attacking Guam are identical there's not much else I can say other than I think Americans would very much disagree with you.

Click to expand...

I don't see what Americans think about this or anything else has to do with it. Even if they won't intervene today, what they think today can change tomorrow. Why should China place its future in the hands of something so uncertain and fickle?

The whole point of this exercise is for China to move past the point of caring what America thinks or does. Worrying about whether America will intervene is giving the initiative and deciding vote to America. Getting strong enough to bury America under the Pacific if it does anything less than swear on a stack of bibles that it won't intervene is the only way China can assure victory.

Abominable said:

The reason reunification hasn't happened doesn't have much to do with military strength. It hasn't been seen as politically necessary and the CPC was content keeping the status quo. Recent events may have changed that, we'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

That's a cope. The reason unification hasn't happened has everything to do with military strength. If China could accomplish it today at acceptable cost, do you think it would still be an issue?

Abominable said:

How does ROK contain a North Korea armed with nuclear ICBMs? I'd say North Korea is anything but contained right now.

Click to expand...

It's as contained as a state has ever been. Its neighbours don't trade with it, it's impoverished, and all its nuclear weapons do is guarantee state survival. They don't extend its power and they don't advance any of its interests. Interesting question: why doesn't China establish full, normal trade relations with North Korea? The crystal clear answer is that it's still too weak and too dependent on the American-led world to flip it off that brazenly. Getting strong enough to correct that should be China's sole concern.

Abominable said:

Legality and international law have everything to do with power politics. Your definition of power politics seems limited to outright war.

Click to expand...

Certainly not. Power politics has nothing to do with international law, it has everything to do with comprehensive national power and the balance of power. If international law claims Taiwan is part of China, why isn't international law delivering Taiwan to China?

Abominable said:

If you're going to limit yourself to only that you'll be waiting a long time to get Taiwan, let alone the West Pacific.

Click to expand...

I have time. Much more importantly, China has time. Are you in some hurry? Do you think China is in a hurry? Does it have somewhere it needs to be?

ZeEa5KPul said:

What does any of this have to do with how China is supposed to treat Russia today?

Click to expand...

Only two days ago, I said "As everyone in China knows, a dynasty is not forever, and the Communist Dynasty will be no exception. Therefore China must not arrogantly assume that it will always be stronger than the Russians. Treating Russia well is therefore recommended. This is morally right -- and it is also good policy, as many other countries in the world are watching."

You responded to that, so you do not have the excuse of not having read it.

You do have the excuse, however, of not having understood it.

And what does China's behaviour today have anything to do with how it would be treated if it fell? Are you naïve enough to believe that it would make any difference if China were "nicer"? If so, conversations like this really aren't your speed.

Click to expand...

China does not have to be "nicer" to the Russians; China only has to be decent, and the Russians will reciprocate. And yes, what China does now will echo down the ages.

B.I.B. said:

England must have 10 or more dynasties if one was to use the Saxon period as the starting point.

Click to expand...

That may be true; I haven't counted.

Nutrient said:

Only two days ago, I said "As everyone in China knows, a dynasty is not forever, and the Communist Dynasty will be no exception. Therefore China must not arrogantly assume that it will always be stronger than the Russians. Treating Russia well is therefore recommended. This is morally right -- and it is also good policy, as many other countries in the world are watching."

You responded to that, so you do not have the excuse of not having read it.

You do have the excuse, however, of not having understood it.



China does not have to be "nicer" to the Russians; China only has to be decent, and the Russians will reciprocate. And yes, what China does now will echo down the ages.

Click to expand...

I understood the point you made perfectly well, it's just a very silly one. It's very silly because the People's Republic is not a "dynasty" and the Communist Party is not a royal family. It's also silly because it completely ignores how states have behaved throughout history. There hasn't been a single instance of a formerly powerful state being treated well because it was "nice" when it was powerful. When states are strong they are obeyed, when they are weak they are victimized - that's all there is to it.

China is already very decent to Russia, certainly much more decent that the balance of power obliges it to be. As for Russia reciprocating, you'll have to point out some examples because I don't see Russia going out of its way to do anything for China's benefit. The kindest thing that can be said about it is that it hasn't been a problem.

Blitzo said:

Your overall argument would have been much stronger if you simply said "China should continue to aim for good relations with its geographical neighbours (including Russia) and region in context of its overall geopolitical strategy and priorities

Click to expand...

You have summarized my position well. But I did want to limit the discussion to the Russians. This is a Taiwan thread, after all.

By invoking hypotheticals (such as what future the trajectories of geopolitical power and power balance between China and Russia could look like, about the permanence/transience of Chinese political systems), you've really opened this can of worms upon yourself, even though the base argument is not an insensible one.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

ZeEa5KPul said:

I understood the point you made perfectly well, it's just a very silly one. It's very silly because the People's Republic is not a "dynasty" and the Communist Party is not a royal family. It's also silly because it completely ignores how states have behaved throughout history. There hasn't been a single instance of a formerly powerful state being treated well because it was "nice" when it was powerful. When states are strong they are obeyed, when they are weak they are victimized - that's all there is to it.

Click to expand...

No, that is not all there is to it. You are expressing an extremely short-sighted philosophy. When Xi Jinping spoke of building a "community of a shared future for mankind", he meant every word. We can't have a shared future if there is no future. We've had two world wars, and human civilization will likely not survive World War 3.

Relationships based purely on power, as you advocate, are quite unstable; to stop WW3 was why the United Nations was formed. Some words from the opening sentence of the UN Charter: "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind...."

So the hope is that China/Russia can show the world how to build a stable community with a shared future for mankind. First of all, by treating each other decently.

Your way forces each major power to arm itself to the teeth, and that has already failed disastrously twice in just the twentieth century. How many examples do you need to learn?

Minm said:

Russia is at a 300 year low in power. Its power has declined to a relative position in europe similar to the times before Peter the Great. It's useful as an ally for now, but I would bet on Russia being even smaller and relatively weaker than today 100 years from now.

Click to expand...

If Russia is so weak, why are no NATO soldiers officially fighting in Ukraine? Has any country in NATO -- including the mighty US -- dared to risk a few brigades of their own soldiers against the Russian Army? No, none of them have the courage to do it.

Regardless of Russia's strength, the Chinese would be fools to treat the Russians badly -- and that is probably why so many people in this forum advise the Chinese to do just that.

It's better to treat other countries appropriately for their position in the hierarchy, junior allies who believe they are equal partners will only resent the senior ally when the senior ally makes a decision they don't like.

Click to expand...

Better than a hierarchy of power, have the UN working again -- which is why the Russians and the Chinese have been emphasizing it.

ZeEa5KPul said:

The point is Russia doesn't have the strength to go at America directly (it has to nibble away at Ukraine) while China will soon have the strength to do exactly that. That's the most important lesson for China to learn from the Ukraine conflict: that it has nothing to learn from it. What a weaker power does to gain what petty advantage it can is that weaker power's business - what China must do to remake the world order is China's business.

Click to expand...

They right on the border. I dont think any other country is investing up North on this scale. I am sure even with smaller drones and boats they can invade.
Russia has started this Ukraine invasion regardless of historic reason so it has to take into account wider interests.
Isolated countries dont perform well over long term.