Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

solarz said:

It's not "boogeyman", it's simply inaccurate.

Click to expand...

They complied with government mandate. How is that inaccurate? The moment omicron spread and the government dropped the madate human traffic quickly returned to normal. The elderly didn't want to get vaccinated until omicron came along, NIMBYism is basically human nature.

Anyhow this is getting exceededly off topic.

tankphobia said:

I don't disagree that Chinese people are more compliant with government mandates, but a similar example would be Victoria,Australia which arguably endured a longer complete lock down than anywhere in China did practically.

Click to expand...

From the outside, it appears that the Chinese people are very compliant of their government-mandated lockdowns. But there is much more going on under the surface. The Covid 'lockdowns' in China was not just a government action, but an all-society action. The average Chinese citizens complied with the lockdowns. Chinese doctors, nurses, and soldiers answered their government's call, or even volunteered to go to Wuhan to provide additional medical manpower. Chinese businesses helped the government in many areas, such as providing venues, construction teams, production capacity, logistics, telecommunications, etc. There were plenty of citizen volunteers who helped out with everything. All of these contributed to the success of Wuhan in bringing Covid under control.

The lockdowns in Victoria was not the same. It was more of a plain government-mandated lockdown. There was not much else going on beyond that. Lockdowns alone are not effective at Covid control, as we have seen happening around the world. That is why Victoria was forced to be locked down longer. Australian citizens only complied with the lockdowns, but they didn't work with the government to do the other things. The two just don't trust each other, many times even resent each other. That is why Australia's Covid control is mediocre despite the longer lockdowns.

Most Chinese citizens consider the Chinese government as part of their way of life. If China faces a great challenge like pandemic or war, they would work together to overcome that challenge. Both work together for the sake of China.

In the West, such a thing is quite limited. Because there is so much distrust between the government and the average citizen. The Western governments today are elitists, and only truly care for the elites. They neglect and alienate the average citizens. Sometimes even despise them for not being cooperative. Such a fractured society is not resilient to hardships and wars. There are historical examples, such as the late Russian Empire, and the French 3rd Republic.

tabu said:

China also has its own set of problems. Firstly, dependence on resources, including foodstuffs, which are mainly supplied by sea through a limited number of straits.

Click to expand...

That is why China had worked hard on opening overland trade routes in it's BRI. It had been very successful in doing that. There is also Russia to north, who is one of the biggest exporter of foodstuff, minerals, and energy.

China have also secured food security for grains and crucial foodstuff. It's livestock industry still requires grain imports. But China can still import it's grains overland. Or just cut down on meat and dairy consumption.

Unlike China, SEA, Japan, and South Korea are almost exclusively dependent on sea trade. As such, they are the ones who will be in even bigger trouble if any straits are blockaded. And no, there is no such thing as 'selective blockade'. International shipping is too complex to enforce such a thing. Hence, everyone's shipping is gonna be blocked if a strait is blockaded. So anyone who is talking about blockading any straits to 'starve' China is not very intelligent.

tabu said:

Secondly, they are critically dependent on certain Western technologies;

Click to expand...

Like what? Chips? China is only denied from the top-of-the-line Western chips. Which are only used in a limited amounts of top end electronics and computing. China is already at 7nm technology level, which is on par with contemporary technology. It is not as far-fetched as you might think for China to catch up with the West in a couple of years.

China had also exceeded the West in many other crucial technologies, like AI, 5G, and hypersonics. So stop living in bubble.

tabu said:

thirdly, they have enemies in their neighbourhood who themselves have significant military capabilities.

Click to expand...

Like Japan and South Korea? So what? China have prepared to deal with them and the US combined. The Chinese would like to buy some more time to be in an even stronger position. But in an emergency, the Chinese are ready to deal with all of them today.

tabu said:

Fourth, their economy is indebted and unbalanced. If Xi is a madman like Putin, he can take the risk, but he most likely understands everything.

Click to expand...

What are you smoking? That must be some really strong stuff.

All major economies are indebted. At least the Chinese know how to manage their debt. Their debt is nothing like the monster debts in Japan and the US.

What are you talking about 'imbalanced' economy? China has one of the most balanced economies on the planet. It is a real economy, with a massive industrial sector, and a service sector to serve it. The US, UK, and Australia have much more imbalanced economies. Their service sectors are much larger than their industrial sectors. The UK and Australia are even more grotesquely imbalanced.

China has a real economy. So it can actually survive an economic crisis. Because it can produce practically all the goods that everyone needs. The US instead, is best at producing financial junk like bonds, stocks, cryptos, and printed currency. Which are all gonna be reduced to worthless in an economic crisis.

Sardaukar20 said:

That is why China had worked hard on opening overland trade routes in it's BRI. It had been very successful in doing that. There is also Russia to north, who is one of the biggest exporter of foodstuff, minerals, and energy.

China have also secured food security for grains and crucial foodstuff. It's livestock industry still requires grain imports. But China can still import it's grains overland. Or just cut down on meat and dairy consumption.

Unlike China, SEA, Japan, and South Korea are almost exclusively dependent on sea trade. As such, they are the ones who will be in even bigger trouble if any straits are blockaded. And no, there is no such thing as 'selective blockade'. International shipping is too complex to enforce such a thing. Hence, everyone's shipping is gonna be blocked if a strait is blockaded. So anyone who is talking about blockading any straits to 'starve' China is not very intelligent.


Like what? Chips? China is only denied from the top-of-the-line Western chips. Which are only used in a limited amounts of top end electronics and computing. China is already at 7nm technology level, which is on par with contemporary technology. It is not as far-fetched as you might think for China to catch up with the West in a couple of years.

China had also exceeded the West in many other crucial technologies, like AI, 5G, and hypersonics. So stop living in bubble.


Like Japan and South Korea? So what? China have prepared to deal with them and the US combined. The Chinese would like to buy some more time to be in an even stronger position. But in an emergency, the Chinese are ready to deal with all of them today.


What are you smoking? That must be some really strong stuff.

All major economies are indebted. At least the Chinese know how to manage their debt. Their debt is nothing like the monster debts in Japan and the US.

What are you talking about 'imbalanced' economy? China has one of the most balanced economies on the planet. It is a real economy, with a massive industrial sector, and a service sector to serve it. The US, UK, and Australia have much more imbalanced economies. Their service sectors are much larger than their industrial sectors. The UK and Australia are even more grotesquely imbalanced.

China has a real economy. So it can actually survive an economic crisis. Because it can produce practically all the goods that everyone needs. The US instead, is best at producing financial junk like bonds, stocks, cryptos, and printed currency. Which are all gonna be reduced to worthless in an economic crisis.

Click to expand...

Not worth to engage with a blatant shill that already got booted off the Ukraine war thread.

In short, he is a rabid American nationalist that cheerleads for American invasions while condemning Russia for doing the same (lmao)

On the topic of Taiwan, we can just say to American nationalists and wannabe invaders of all stripes: "you want it? Come and take it then"

Back on the topic of AR and Ukranian conflict, what do people in this thread think about air assualt and paratroopers? It seems that the VDV have been relegated to elite shocktroopers compared to the very first days of the war when they stormed Hostomel airport via air assualt.

Since then neither side have had much luck with helicopter borne troops and helicopters are now rarely seen on the front line in any sort of troop carrying capacity.

With the proliferation of Manpads it seems that helicopter intrusion into even lightly defended areas are highly risky, which makes paratrooper assualt basically a suicide mission if attempted without air supremmacy.

Even before the conflict started the Russian defense ministry started adding some T-72B3s to VDV units. So I am pretty certain they already had the issue of their lack of hard combat capability in mind. In a lot of countries, not just in Russia, people think having too many soldiers in Special Forces units degrades the ability of the regular army to recruit and retain quality personnel. You could argue that is the case with the VDV. Add to that most of them are still using older lightweight vehicles like the BMD-2 only makes things worse.

Overemphasis on special forces is a form of military decadence, and the U.S. has been a major force in pushing it.

In a real conventional war, the overall quality of the general military is what is important.

Paratroopers today is no longer the same as in WW2. Back then, it was a battlefield innovation. Today, it is not suitable to use them against an adversary that has competent air defences. There are still opportunities to deploy paratroopers. Like when complete air superiority has been achieved. Or when the enemy has negligible air defence. Airborne assault today can be useful, but only when air superiority has been achieved.

MANPADS is a serious danger to paratroopers. But they can be mitigated by flying combat escorts ahead of and along the transport aircraft. The combat escort role is primarily to screen and suppress enemy MANPADS. While their secondary role is to become the missile bait and counter measure aircraft. Kinda like the Wild Weasel aircraft role.

The Russian VDV did land paratroopers at the very early stages of the Ukraine War. They ended up getting surrounded and having to fight for their survival until Russian mechanized units rescued them. They fought well, but their leaders took a very risky gamble with them.

In an AR scenario, I don't think paratroopers will appear in the early stages. It's just too risky to do so. Perhaps at the advance stage of AR, when the enemy navy, air force, and ground air defence has been neutralized, and the PLA ground forces have secured a beach head, can the paratroopers start to be deployed. Once deployed, they can play a number of useful roles, such as recon, vanguard units, special forces, shock assault units, or high-mobility maneuver elements.

Using paratrooper is always a gamble even back in WW2.

You might have a cluster fuck that turn out to be effective due to dumb luck like Normandy landing. Where allied paratroop scatter around and cause confusion among German defender because they cannot pin point where the enemy are gathered.

Or you might have Market Garden campaign, which looking good in early stage but then everything going down hill from there. End up with a bunch of British paratroops getting surrounded and final objective cannot be reached. All that lost for a bunch of bridge that lead to nowhere.

In my opinion, paratroops is no longer work in real modern conflict due to advancement of AD and radar. They are not the element of surprise anymore. For Taiwan scenario, it would be better to establish landing point on shore than insertion behind enemy line.

Also need to prepare for a possible US interception of a Chinese sea invasion after a period of blockade.