Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ecaedus

New Member
Registered Member
looking at the absolutely abysmal performance/strategy of the VDV being sent to capture local airfield outside of Kyiv (also maybe to "capture" UKR leadership?), and the fact that they even lost a Maj. Gen while doing it, i think it's safe to say the PLA shouldn't try any massive vertical landing assault unless there are established and secured beach heads for further ground reinforcements.

also from past propaganda paintings they seem to suggest taking the Presidential building by force and capturing tw leadership alive for trial. it seems extremely risky to send special forces hoping to "capture" TW leadership alive right after the 1st wave of PGM/EM strikes without any landing points secured. and by the time full amphibious landing has occurred, the leadership would've long disappeared underground and any buildings of "significance" would be emptied out.

best way is to pound away at any known locations of cmd headquarters/bunkers non stop and come after these leaders at the very end. once the blockade has been formed around the waters and air space closed, it's just a matter of time before getting them. it's an island after all, they can't swim their way out.
 
FriedButter

FriedButter

Colonel
Registered Member
ecaedus said:
looking at the absolutely abysmal performance/strategy of the VDV being sent to capture local airfield outside of Kyiv (also maybe to "capture" UKR leadership?), and the fact that they even lost a Maj. Gen while doing it, i think it's safe to say the PLA shouldn't try any massive vertical landing assault unless there are established and secured beach heads for further ground reinforcements.

also from past propaganda paintings they seem to suggest taking the Presidential building by force and capturing tw leadership alive for trial. it seems extremely risky to send special forces hoping to "capture" TW leadership alive right after the 1st wave of PGM/EM strikes without any landing points secured. and by the time full amphibious landing has occurred, the leadership would've long disappeared underground and any buildings of "significance" would be emptied out.

best way is to pound away at any known locations of cmd headquarters/bunkers non stop and come after these leaders at the very end. once the blockade has been formed around the waters and air space closed, it's just a matter of time before getting them. it's an island after all, they can't swim their way out.
Click to expand...
is it comparable? As far as I am aware, the VDV did not have support. They were on their own to capture and defend their position.
 
E

ecaedus

New Member
Registered Member
FriedButter said:
is it comparable? As far as I am aware, the VDV did not have support. They were on their own to capture and defend their position.
Click to expand...
which is why i'm saying this tactic of sending in vertical landing assault groups on their own without timely ground reinforcements is pure suicide, and PLA would be wise not to try pulling this off when it comes to tw. wait for proper staging and support before going in.
 
G

GumNaam

New Member
Registered Member
Honestly, there are no lessons to learn here, the goals are completely different. China wants to take over taiwan as its province that is globally recognized as China's province albeit a rebellious one. But Russia does NOT want to take over ukraine in my assessment, Russia wants to disarm, subdue and control ukraine in its foreign, military and economic policies while leaving it as an "independent nation". That naturally means that the execution of hostilities will be different in nature. China wants to take over taiwan while keeping its infrastructure intact since it is economically.fairly robust so it would only help China once it takes taiwan over. Russia doesn't give two cents from modi's bunghole about ukraine's infrastructure...in fact, Russia would probably be more interested in ruining ukraine's infrastructure so that ukraine becomes of no use to the e.u. and nato.
 
G

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
IMO the lesson is that a serious military option is off the table for Taiwan. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept. Ukraine had 8 years to prepare for war with Russia and it did a very good job. Taiwan has had 25+ years to prepare if we count starting from the time the idea Taiwan independence started to gain traction and China responded with the 1st Taiwan strait crisis.

The entire developed world (and most of the rest)would unite against China and completely cut off China, sending its economy into a tailspin. And that's the best case scenario. It's possible that NATO would intervene directly because they are far more Sinophobic than Russophobic, plus they are less scared of China's 200+ nukes than Russia's thousands of them. And then it would be WWIII.

Since the one child era many Chinese parents have only had one son, so if he died in combat their entire lives would be destroyed.

Really, that is the only lesson worth taking from this.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
ecaedus said:
looking at the absolutely abysmal performance/strategy of the VDV being sent to capture local airfield outside of Kyiv (also maybe to "capture" UKR leadership?), and the fact that they even lost a Maj. Gen while doing it, i think it's safe to say the PLA shouldn't try any massive vertical landing assault unless there are established and secured beach heads for further ground reinforcements.

also from past propaganda paintings they seem to suggest taking the Presidential building by force and capturing tw leadership alive for trial. it seems extremely risky to send special forces hoping to "capture" TW leadership alive right after the 1st wave of PGM/EM strikes without any landing points secured. and by the time full amphibious landing has occurred, the leadership would've long disappeared underground and any buildings of "significance" would be emptied out.

best way is to pound away at any known locations of cmd headquarters/bunkers non stop and come after these leaders at the very end. once the blockade has been formed around the waters and air space closed, it's just a matter of time before getting them. it's an island after all, they can't swim their way out.
Click to expand...
VDV had a political purpose.

@plawolf explained it well.

US could've dropped a small token force of "peacekeepers" at those airports and refused to leave. Now what? Russia themselves did it in Kosovo I believe.

By making those airports dangerous on day 1 it closes the option of doing that.

So yes they get captured or surrounded and taken out. That's not the point. It is both to divert attention and stop token US reinforcement early on, and any future drop is going to be a high cost escalation.

China won't need to do that. With the amount of runway cratering munitions China has, landing a transport plane filled with token peacekeepers would be impossible.
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
gadgetcool5 said:
IMO the lesson is that a serious military option is off the table for Taiwan. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept. Ukraine had 8 years to prepare for war with Russia and it did a very good job. Taiwan has had 25+ years to prepare if we count starting from the time the idea Taiwan independence started to gain traction and China responded with the 1st Taiwan strait crisis.

The entire developed world (and most of the rest)would unite against China and completely cut off China, sending its economy into a tailspin. And that's the best case scenario. It's possible that NATO would intervene directly because they are far more Sinophobic than Russophobic, plus they are less scared of China's 200+ nukes than Russia's thousands of them. And then it would be WWIII.

Since the one child era many Chinese parents have only had one son, so if he died in combat their entire lives would be destroyed.

Really, that is the only lesson worth taking from this.
Click to expand...

I think the conclusion is actually opposite, and that this will just cause the Chinese leadership to increase both their nuclear deterrence (which they've begun to do already), and also to invest more into conventional Taiwan specific capabilities that they previously hadn't done (A2G strike and ISR in particular).
I would be surprised if this didn't result in massive military expansion.

And in terms of strategic planning, of course it will just naturally result in a requirement to make the US and Taiwan understand that the political status of Taiwan is something that the Chinese government is willing to take as much of Taiwan and the rest of the world to hell over, if it came to military action.
 
G

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
I think the conclusion is actually opposite, and that this will just cause the Chinese leadership to increase both their nuclear deterrence (which they've begun to do already), and also to invest more into conventional Taiwan specific capabilities that they previously hadn't done (A2G strike and ISR in particular).
I would be surprised if this didn't result in massive military expansion.

And in terms of strategic planning, of course it will just naturally result in a requirement to make the US and Taiwan understand that the political status of Taiwan is something that the Chinese government is willing to take as much of Taiwan and the rest of the world to hell over, if it came to military action.
Click to expand...
So that ends up with everyone in hell? As you point out, China doesn't have enough nukes for that, right now.

Edit: Also, military expansions are extremely costly. But they don't necessarily result in an increased advantage. The reason is that by pouring more resources into military expansion, you cause your opponents to also pour more resources into military expansion, cancelling out your own gain. The result is an arms race where everybody loses, but doesn't necessarily change the balance of military power.

But really, the contours of a China- Taiwan deal are extremely simple. China can offer to take the military option off the table if Taiwan agrees formally never to declare independence and participates in international organizations as Chinese Taipei. This seems to be a consensus view that both the leadership in Beijing and the vast majority of people on Taiwan would accept. It's a worthy alternative to nuclear war/WWIII.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
ecaedus said:
which is why i'm saying this tactic of sending in vertical landing assault groups on their own without timely ground reinforcements is pure suicide, and PLA would be wise not to try pulling this off when it comes to tw. wait for proper staging and support before going in.
Click to expand...

The Russians did try to send in timely reinforcements. In war, sometimes things just don't go as expected.

I think the lesson here is the strengths and limitations of using airborne assault to take objectives behind enemy lines. The strengths are speed and surprise, especially done simultaneously against a large number of targets. Everyone was surprised by the speed of Russian advance in the first day. The limitation is that you need to back them up with reinforcements, and this can be tricky if the small force you sent in was not able to secure their objective. This is where close air support and drones would shine.

The other lesson is that when trying to capture airports, don't expect to be able to send in reinforcements using that airport. The Russians had to divert their initial reinforcements sent in on IL-76s because the runway was damaged (according to reports). They might have had more success it they just kept ferrying in more men via helicopter.

I wouldn't be surprised if the PLA started putting more focus on airborne assaults from now on.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
gadgetcool5 said:
So that ends up with everyone in hell? As you point out, China doesn't have enough nukes for that, right now.

Edit: Also, military expansions are extremely costly. But they don't necessarily result in an increased advantage. The reason is that by pouring more resources into military expansion, you cause your opponents to also pour more resources into military expansion, cancelling out your own gain. The result is an arms race where everybody loses, but doesn't necessarily change the balance of military power.

But really, the contours of a China- Taiwan deal are extremely simple. China can offer to take the military option off the table if Taiwan agrees formally never to declare independence and participates in international organizations as Chinese Taipei. This seems to be a consensus view that both the leadership in Beijing and the vast majority of people on Taiwan would accept. It's a worthy alternative to nuclear war/WWIII.
Click to expand...
China has 300+ new silos that finished construction so if they want to keep believing their old numbers they can try it and see what happens.

And actually military buildups do change the balance of power. Not everyone can equally afford a military buildup and not all spending is equally effective.

Whether Taiwan is a minor regional conflict or WW3 isn't up to China. If they can blackmail China over Taiwan they can use the same blackmail for anything they want. What if they said China must limit it's GDP per capita to no more than the world average or it risks WW3 because China is using too many resources and causing global warming? The correct conclusion to draw is to strengthen yourself such that WW3 blackmail isn't a credible threat because you'll hurt them so bad no gain is worth it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top