Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Petrolicious88 said:

—People have talked about how China needs to go hard and destroy Taiwanese infrastructures at the getgo. Remember Russia did fire over 100 cruise missiles on runways, telecom stations, weapon depots, etc… during the first day.

Click to expand...

Did you say 100? That's like a Costco sample compared to what should have been done and what China can do to Taiwan, which is like the size of Ukraine's toe.

Petrolicious88 said:

—The line between civilian and military or dual use infrastructures are easily blurred in a war. Especially if Taiwanese military start to use civilian infrastructures as cover, something the Palestinians have done with success against Israel.

Click to expand...

You know, then they asked for it.

Petrolicious88 said:

—Taiwanese are brothers and sisters in the same way many Russians consider Ukrainians their “Kin” with relatives across borders.

Click to expand...

If they treat us like brothers and sisters, we recriprocate. If they kill our soldiers, we reciprocate harder...er

Petrolicious88 said:

—Careful on how hard you want to go as collateral damage will only turn more Taiwanese against China.

Click to expand...

Well being nice to them sure doesn't work, but you can absolutely count on it that when China makes it unsurvivable to be anti-Chinese in Taiwan, they will become friendly. That's how it always works in the world; with power, you can make those who you've beaten into a pulp friendly towards you, as Germany and Japan are to the US. Without power, you can run your sweet lips until they get roadrash and they will laugh at you as a beggar. The sword is infinitely more powerful than the pen.

Petrolicious88 said:

Remember Russia did fire over 100 cruise missiles on runways, telecom stations, weapon depots, etc… during the first day.

Click to expand...

100 is nothing.
China should be aiming for a 4-digit number here (including MLRS strikes)

The thing is, whatever ROC infrastructure the PLA destroys in the event of AR can be quickly rebuilt to even better quality afterwards thanks to the industrial might of the PRC and decades of experience building all types of projects non-stop. Minimizing civilian casualties is worth aiming for but preserving old, already crumbling roads and buildings shouldn't.

luosifen said:

The thing is, whatever ROC infrastructure the PLA destroys in the event of AR can be quickly rebuilt to even better quality afterwards thanks to the industrial might of the PRC and decades of experience building all types of projects non-stop. Minimizing civilian casualties is worth aiming for but preserving old, already crumbling roads and buildings shouldn't.

Click to expand...

The majority of infrastructure and buildings is likely useless in the short time frame. Most of the equipment and components are likely either from the West or came from places outsourced by the West. Not to mention it can also pose a security risk.

Petrolicious88 said:

—People have talked about how China needs to go hard and destroy Taiwanese infrastructures at the getgo. Remember Russia did fire over 100 cruise missiles on runways, telecom stations, weapon depots, etc… during the first day.

Click to expand...

I might be wrong, but I believe the more correct term would be Russia fired and dropped 100+ cruise missiles and bombs on the first day of the invasion.

Petrolicious88 said:

—Taiwanese are brothers and sisters in the same way many Russians consider Ukrainians their “Kin” with relatives across borders.
—Careful on how hard you want to go as collateral damage will only turn more Taiwanese against China.

Click to expand...

The Russian military conducted their invasion of Ukraine with only half their "hearts-and-minds" committed into it, with some pro-Russian sources even claiming that the Russian forces' "careful advances" across Ukraine and the refraining of mass, strategic bombings against key Ukrainian infrastructures and military targets were done because they want to avoid as much collateral damage and civilian casualties as possible, since the Russians "see the Ukrainians as their lost brothers".

So how have those worked out for Russia?

Here, we are talking about how the general Ukrainian populace after the 2014 coup, annexation of Crimea and the beginning of civil war in Donbass have become increasingly and emboldenly pro-US and anti-Russia. All that in just 8 years of time.

Imagine how the general Taiwanese populace would be like after more than 4-decades-worth of Sinophobic brainwashing by separatist elements on the island.

And, no, I absolutely reject the notion where military forces should specifically target opposing civilians in any military operation, battle or war, no matter how hateful the opposing civilians are towards said military forces - Because that is just plain inhumane and barbaric. Only in the cases where opposing civilians are directly participating in attacks and strikes against said military forces that they are considered legitimate targets, and that is according to international law of warfare.

However, collateral damage and civilian casualties due to military actions can rarely, if ever, be avoided at all - Especially for very large-scale military operations, battles and wars. Go find, for us all, any instance in human history where zero civilians were hurt or killed in any military operation, battle or war that were conducted on signficant scales and intensities.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

However, collateral damage and civilian casualties due to military actions can rarely, if ever, be avoided at all, especially for very large-scale military operations. Go find any instance in history where zero civilians were hurt or killed in any military campaign, battle or war of signficant scale and intensity.

Click to expand...

This is why its important for both the Chinese people and government to harden their hearts when an armed reunification becomes a necessity. The mistake Russia did in Ukraine by leaving the job unfinished and now conducting the operation half-heartedly must not be repeated, going all in would lead to less Chinese (this including Taiwanese) deaths and suffering in the long run.

Coalescence said:

The mistake Russia did in Ukraine by leaving the job unfinished and now conducting the operation half-heartedly must not be repeated, going all in would lead to less Chinese (this including Taiwanese) deaths and suffering in the long run.

Click to expand...

Beside that. There is also the complete lack of ability to adopt to the changing circumstances. Their stubborness to follow a strategy that was flimsy for 9 months until the PR disaster in August was ridiculous.

Another way to put it, regarding @Petrolicious88's final point, here's a scenario for you guys:

Let's assume that you are the Commander-in-Chief (CIC) of the Armed Forces of country/region A.

The following is what you do know from the very beginning:

1. Country/region B, which is a neighbour of your country/region, has 1000 civilians. The bilateral relations between the two country/region has always been tense, and many people from both countries/regions are far from being fond of the opposing side.

2. One day, relations between country/region B and your country/region got so bad that your government decides to go to war against country/region B.

3. Your country/region has a much more powerful militarythan country/region B. This means your country/region would have absolute chances of victory against country/region B.

4. This presents you, as the CIC of the Armed Forces of your country/region with 2 distinct choices - Either you could go the gentle but slow method, in order to minimize collateral damage and loss of life, or you could go rough but swift method, in order to achieve a quick and decisive victory.

Then, let's assume that some military experts of your country/region conducted a rough study and concluded the following:

1. If you choose the rough but swift method, the war against country/region B could be won within 5-6 months.

2. If you choose the gentle but slow method, the war against country/region B could only be won within 2.5-3 years.

But then, those military experts followed up with another rough study and concluded the following:

1. If you choose the rough but swift method, it is estimated that a whooping 20 civilians of country/region B could become war fatalities every month during the war.

2. If you choose the gentle but slow method, it is estimated that a meager 5 civilians of country/region B could become war fatalities every month during the war.

Those military experts then presented their findings to you.

But then, a military advisor hurriedly came to you with this news report:

"In case of war being waged by country/region A against country/region B, then country/region C (which is a well known supporter and ally of country/region B) would provide material, financial and intelligence support for country/region B. If the war between country/region A and country/region B becomes worse, then country/region C would consider intervening on the side of country/region B and fight against country/region A in order to help defend country/region B."

You also know very well that the military power of country/region C is a (near) comparable peer to your country/region.

The military advisor then explained that in case country/region C decides to intervene in the war, it is estimated that the military of country/region C could be considerably mobilized and sent to war within 4-6 months, and also could be fully mobilized and sent to war within 1-1.5 years.

Last but not least, he estimated that in case country/region C decides to intervene, the war could potentially last for another 1-2 years than originally envisioned, albeit victory for your country/region can be guaranteed.

Therefore, as the CIC of the Armed Forces of country/region A, here a question for you: What method would you choice?

Please analyse diligently and think carefully.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Here is a short piece of article that I would like to share here, which is from someone knowledgeable that I follow on Quora.


Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Short, yet concise and precise.

Click to expand...

Seems like it all goes back to Sun Tzu, know yourself and know your enemy and you will will the battle.

I am rooting for Russia but it seems like they didn't know themselves or the enemy.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

I might be wrong, but I believe the more correct term would be Russia fired and dropped 100+ cruise missiles and bombs on the first day of the invasion.


The Russian military conducted their invasion of Ukraine with only half their "hearts-and-minds" committed into it, with some pro-Russian sources even claiming that the Russian forces' "careful advances" across Ukraine and the refraining of mass, strategic bombings against key Ukrainian infrastructures and military targets were done because they want to avoid as much collateral damage and civilian casualties as possible, since the Russians "see the Ukrainians as their lost brothers".

So how have those worked out for Russia?

Here, we are talking about how the general Ukrainian populace after the 2014 coup, annexation of Crimea and the beginning of civil war in Donbass have become increasingly and emboldenly pro-US and anti-Russia. All that in just 8 years of time.

Imagine how the general Taiwanese populace would be like after more than 4-decades-worth of Sinophobic brainwashing by separatist elements on the island.

And, no, I absolutely reject the notion where military forces should specifically target opposing civilians in any military operation, battle or war, no matter how hateful the opposing civilians are towards said military forces - Because that is just plain inhumane and barbaric. Only in the cases where opposing civilians are directly participating in attacks and strikes against said military forces that they are considered legitimate targets, and that is according to international law of warfare.

However, collateral damage and civilian casualties due to military actions can rarely, if ever, be avoided at all - Especially for very large-scale military operations, battles and wars. Go find, for us all, any instance in human history where zero civilians were hurt or killed in any military operation, battle or war that were conducted on signficant scales and intensities.

Click to expand...

Thinking about the 8 years of time after the Russian annexation of Crimea did to Ukraine, remember that China spent 80 years of time after the war with the nazi powers, building up to prevent a new one.

The route used to invade China in ww2 by the Axis was first staging ground on Taiwan and Liaoning provinces. This is not forgotten by Chinese, who know that these 2 border areas are key to defending the country.

It is frankly not relevant whatever some Taiwan Island born people think, if they spend 4 minutes, 4 decades or 4 centuries on doing whatever, their opinion doesn't matter, any more than the opinions of Donbass Ukrainians matter to Zelensky.

China is at the end of the day fighting for its own territorial defense, for survival. US wants to fight halfway around the world for some land grab ordered by Biden or his successor, one wonders how much morale they will have doing that.

Chinese know about US brutality and don't look down on their military threat. They will rather scorched earth any territory than let US capture it, including any number of collaborating "civilians". There is no illusion among most Chinese that there is a cost to high to pay in order to win if America comes.

Especially if America calls in Japan, the war will surge the whole Chinese society into a war frenzy. 80 years of peace through deterrence, building readiness for a new nazi invasion, now the descendants of Hirohito and the ones that took on German and Jap war criminals attack. You do the math.