It's not really about collective security per se that pisses China off, but the fact that collective security only triggers in limited specific circumstances, (e.g. only when there is any existential threat to Japan as a result of attack on close partner) It's a huge leap (lie) to conclude Taiwan attack is anywhere an existential threat to Japan, so Sanae saying this is provocative to say the least. It's say "theoretically, we can interpret send JSDF into Taiwan contingency as it threatens the survival of Japan" which is remilitarization mindset that does need to be put in its place.
I do hope that nothing will come of this diplomatic kerfuffle with a disposable cucked-vassal like Japan......but perhaps this "chicken"needs to be killed in order to scare the "TACO-monkey" if it actually attacks China/kills Chinese but certainly lots of diplomatic angry words and national Chinese rage along with economic boycott-(the usual stuff) but no over /wrong reaction.
And I want to note that Japan is a very serious power in general, but in the context of facing China, especially in a Taiwan contingency they're inconsequential.
Things may be much more pessimistic than imagined.
In the live broadcast of former military officer "TomCat regimental commander"(TomCat团座), he talked about the complex conflict between China and Japan over the cross-strait issue that has lasted for nearly 70 years. It can be said that Japan began to demonstrate its intention of military and political intervention in 1955. Without a doubt, Japan has been the most proactive in its performance.
But the most dangerous thing is still now(the video starts at 27:10). He thinks that from a geopolitical perspective, Japan cannot tolerate losing its dominant position in East Asia. The only hope for Japan is China to fail, lose its reputation, and fall into endless chaos.
Japan is not a role of hiding behind to provide support, it demonstrates extremely radical intervention intentions. Providing offensive weapons (Tomahawk missiles) to Japan by the United States is a wrong and dangerous action. Although these missiles may have limited practical use in warfare, but Japan has turned "self-defense" into a de facto offensive behavior through clever word games.
The Japanese must do everything possible to involve the United States in the war, so it is highly likely that it chooses to actively provoke conflict. This power is given to the cabinet rather than parliament to make decisions, so they can easily simplify the war decision-making process.
We should understand that opportunities can be created. Regardless of whether there is a real "crisis" as perceived by the Japanese, launching an active strike under this pretext can be interpreted as "self-defense". Once the conflict broke out, it didn't matter whether Japan's behavior was "self-defense", the Japanese "self-defense" is counterattack or preventive attack or active attack? It was impossible for Americans to prove that in times of crisis. Maybe only after the war will know the truth.
Then both China and the United States fell into decline, and Japan rise again. What a perfect script, isn't it?
So the recent diplomatic conflict will not be easily resolved. Now we are actually sending a message to neighboring countries(such like South Korea): do not intervene in this conflict at will, the possibility of Sanae Takaichi initiating the conflict is extremely high.
If we can crack down on Takaishi's ambition, we can curb Japan's internal adventurism. If Japan loses the ability to restrict this radicals, then we need to implement plan B
