Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
US has sticked its reputation on defending Taiwan. Not doing it means it will lose its credibility as a Hegemon.
never underestimate racism and hubris.
The stakes are different, US could afford to lose Ukraine, but if they start an invasion of China, they need to get some result or they will immediately have their back broken.
Imagine if Putin started the SMO but Ukraine immediately destroyed every major Russian base within air range of Ukraine, destroyed the logistics depots required to send out the Russian army, and then wiped out the rebels in the Donbass. That would more likely than not be the end of Russia, perhaps not as a polity but as a relevant polity.
However US only really has the capacity to hit Taiwan and islands in the SCS. Every other Chinese area has too high strategic depth and is too well defended.
Even true coastal cities like Liaoning have comparable distance to them from US bases as Lvov has compared to Russian bases. USAF has less bombers than RuAF, although some are of higher quality. But China has overwhelmingly better air defense and air force compared to Ukraine.
Russians can also choose many different bases to hit Ukraine from, but US faces a signficant bottleneck because China will bomb their bases and after awhile may start strategic bombing of the countries hosting the bases. While countries like Japan may have an air defense on a similar level to Ukraine (meaning China would need to be more cautious and use cruise/ballistic missiles + drones rather than glide bombs), countries like Philippines have no major AD to speak of.
Besides attacking Taiwan which isn't covered by any tight AD at the start of conflict, any US bomber force is liable to lose more US pilots than whatever facilities they could hit in return.
Last edited:
There are no domestic voices opposing a US intervention. Once it begins, everyone will clamor for blood.
TBH, it's not in US's best interests to go all in. The risk of losing, and the humiliations that will accompany it, would collapse US's superpower status. Instead the US could use a Taiwan AR as an excuse to bind SK and Japan to US interests for the next 100 years, similar to how US used Ukraine as an excuse to chain the EU. SK and Japan combined make up ~6T GDP, a non-insignificant number.
But due to various reasons, US will go all in. The question is how China should be prepared, both for a win and a loss.
Students of history would tell you that the political and societal environment today is quite similar to pre-WW1
The US can't ramp up their production overnight, because nowadays they are industrially weak, service and consumption based country and economy. The 80% of their GDP is consumption. Their industry is 20% of their GDP, but for example, China's is 40%. They are not manufacturing and export oriented nation. They don't have nearly enough millitary capacity as in the Cold War.
That is showing their whole economic model, of recent decades, for "growth", which is printing money out of thin air, debt creation, importing, and then reselling mostly Chinese goods to their citizens im Walmarts, Home Depots, etc. That's what "services" are to them.
Other than that, they have the most bullshit positions on the planet, the most lawyers per capita, bankers per capita, hedge fund managers, instagram influencers, youtubers, etc... Nothing of real value that can actually produce you something once a war-time economy starts. Even those 20% that is counted as industry is mostly general assembly relying on mostly Chinese imported parts. Meaning, they are industrial weakling.
It is nothing strange that the Russia, which has the nominal GDP size of Italy, 30 times smaller GDP than NATO, is out producing and embarrassing them so easily. Russia already entered full wartime production mode, now producing 7 times more millitary equipment, than before, where is the West?
They already did practically empty all of their and their vassals' millitary stockpiles of some specific types of weapons to give to Ukraine. First they stole Soviet origin millitary equipment from their Eastern European vassals to give to Ukraine, then they emptied Western European vassal stockpiles, but nothing seems to work. Because Russia is simply producing more.
They basically DO already keep Ukrainians afloat. The original Ukrainian millitary was already destroyed by Russia in those first few months of war. They are now fighitng against Western equipment's, instructors, ISR capabilities, and in many cases directly Western soldiers, especially the Poles.
Ukrainian economy is already destroyed, the US is giving billions of dollars each week if we divided the total amount given recently and the number of weeks. Ukraine would have folded 10 times until now if not the West. Ukrainian original economy and millitary are already destroyed, this is now Western stuff.
So, what I'm trying to say, it's not like the US did pull any punches against Russia, not even close. For example stealing Russian foreign reserves was such a crazy and self-destructive move that didn't even happen during Cold War.
It is just that you think that the US could provide them more weapons, when I say that they can't. The only thing the US could do is to provide more dangerous types of weapon systems, like fighter jets and longer range precise missiles, but guess what, they are already doing it!
As to why the US doesn't send it's own forces directly against Russian forces in Ukraine, like they prepare to send against Chinese for Taiwan, it's because Ukraine is objectively strategically irrelevant shithole which was the poorest country in Europe per capita even before the war, while Taiwan is global overlord of high end chips, the most advanced and precious technology that currently exists.
Why should they send their forces for Ukraine then? Also, even if Russia gets Ukraine, they are still stuck encompassed by NATO everywhere they turn, meanwhile if China gets Taiwan, it is free to roam Pacific. Not to mention China is a real superpower peer rival, meanwhile Russia is nowhere near that status as a peer existential threat like that. That's why they will go directly after China and not directly after Russia. Because Ukrainians are irrelevant fascist pawns while Taiwan is the real deal and the most significant territory in the world for this century.
Last edited:
Just my IMO but I don’t think the shipyards itself (not the ships) will be in a priority target for the West. Like the other guy mentioned that China has a strong air defence network which leads back to the risk to reward calculation. Is it worth lobbing a finite quantity of missiles against a strong air defence network to blow up some shipyard cranes and buildings. It’s more likely they will try hitting the ships instead due to military industrial limitations.
Hmmm, why are we comparing China's air defense capability with that of Ukraine and not Russia
I'm with Manqiangrexue on this. China could communicate through back door channels that she is prepared to fire on the US mainland with Hypersonic weapons if the U.S. fires on the Chinese mainland.
Of more immediate concern, what are the chances of the US trying something if they think the KMT are going to win next years elections?
Last edited:
I'm comparing to Ukraine because Russia has had a very hard time to penetrate and attack the Ukrainian air and missile defenses.
And I'm saying that the US would end up having a far harder time attacking China With missiles and bombs, compared to what Russia experienced in like the first yearish.
- Status