The funniest thing is that the PLA could avoid all this logistical burden by relying on the amphibious landing theory east of
@MarKoz81
But... east of
@MarKoz81 is... Russia.
I have been following Taiwan's war exercises and all defense exercises against amphibious landings are held on the west coast.
Let me change the subject for a moment.
Are we certain they are preparation for defending against Chinese invasion of Taiwan? I think we're being misled by smoke and mirrors.
Think of Poland and Russia or more specifically how does Poland behave toward Russia. Just to give you an example in 2022, when Putin was making public threats using Russia's nuclear arsenal the Polish president in a public statement (not a formal address but one that was nevertheless widely circulated in the media) used the phrase "
nie strasz, nie strasz, bo się zesrasz" which loosely translates to "
don't scare me so much or you will sh*t yourself".
Can you remember the head of government in Taipei ever using such language aimed directly at the head of government in Beijing?
Think further. Poland is actively disrupting all economic relationship between Russia and Europe and aggressively cuts its own economic links with it, both strategic dependencies like energy, and potentially beneficial ones like agriculture. What does Taiwan do? If anything the economic cooperation between the mainland and the island is growing ever closer. The largest company on Taiwan - Foxconn - is probably more present in China than on Taiwan.
If a political entity wants to set itself apart from another entity it does what Poland does. Not what Taiwan does. So again:
what are the exercises for?
This is what brings me to this invasion scenario of mine. It's not a work of unfathomable genius. Quite the opposite:
it's the logical consequence of the fundamentals of military planning being applied directly to the problem. If I could come up with it, so could the PLA and so could the ROC military. And yet,
ROC has done nothing that could successfully prevent that scenario which arguably is not that hard. ROC only needs to slow down PLA sufficiently to make the scenario non-viable just like Blitzo views it. The success of the scenario hinges on speed: to capture the east faster than US can land on it. It can't be done if it takes more than 2 weeks.
Here I'm reminded of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 which took place between 20 July and 18 August 1974 and resulted in Turkey capturing ~35% of the island. When Turkey invaded the Turkish population of Cyprus was spread all over the island and constituted ~20%. Afterward it was resettled north and over 100 thousand settlers were brought over from Turkey to reinforce the claim. The situation is unresolved to this day.
The reasons for Turkish intervention were many, but the primary one was obvious - Turkey couldn't allow Greece to capture Cyprus in its entirety.
The islands of the Aegean surround the Turkish coast.
Greece EEZ
Cyprus EEZ
Cyprus as a Greek stronghold, located merely 600-700km east of Rodos, would effectively lock out Turkey out of the Aegean. With part of the island under Turkish control Greece can never use it in that manner. But all that Turkey needed for that was the northern strip, that allows for direct power projection into the island and secures supply lines to the mainland.
My scenario for Taiwan is the inverse of the logistical problem but all other principles remain the same. China has all that it really needs from Taiwan - locking US out of the island, and direct entry into the Pacific proper. Whatever remains is a political resolution that is best handled as softly and diplomatically as possible.
Taiwan preparing for an invasion of its western coast may as well be preparing for the defense of the cities which would be the
defense of the political regime (ROC) rather than territory or sovereignty. It is likely about the preserving of the status of ROC as a political sub-entity under PRC. An attempt to force "one country two systems" or else... which is a potentially very costly fight for the cities.
China doesn't need Taiwan which has three times the population of HongKong and less that twice its nominal GDP, a significant portion of which is locked in economic activity on the mainland. China only needs
what it can do with Taiwan. ROC knows this and plays for its own survival, not for the island which is lost one way or another.
----
And here is another suggestion: use politics of ROC and its legal system against itself instead of fighting.
After capturing of eastern coast PRC could press two issues as conditions for peaceful settlement under 一国两制:
1. indigenous rights (East Taiwan SAR)
Indigenous peoples tend to vote KMT despite recent DPP outreach, which they (correctly) perceive as cynical. As an external force PRC could offer greater guarantees of autonomy as SAR established over a captured region largely overlapping with traditional indigenous lands. This way PRC could directly intervene in Taiwan's internal affairs on the side of the Aborigines and by splitting Taiwan in two resolve half of the issue.
Indigenous areas (administrative)
Indigenous areas (cultural)
100k Paiwan, 200k Amis, 90k Atayal and 60k Bunun is 350k - sufficient for a SAR where PLA infrastructure would be located so that no dependence on ROC is necessary for strategic goals. Even if indigenous population was at just above 50% of SAR it is still more than currently because it would be
their SAR and not Taipei's. That obviously depends on how well the CPC can execute that process.
2. democratisation of government (West Taiwan SAR)
transition of collective government bodies to proportional representation and to a collective presiding council (e.g. Swiss Federal Council or EU's European Commission) instead of directly elected president. The changes from 2005 should be reverted as well as they weakened the democratic process significantly. Restore the upper chamber and return to 225 seats in Legislative Yuan. Fewer seats means smaller representation for the people.
In a fully proportional system not only neither KMT or DPP would win more than 25-30% vote but CPC could win 5-10%. It could even take the role of perennial opposition so as "not to intervene directly" which in turn would work in CPC's favour as all the problems would be not their fault.
Parallels to HongKong which never was a proper democracy to begin with (and even then became one only formally since 1984 when transfer to China began) are completely misplaced. All you need to do is look up who makes up the so called "functional constituency" in the Basic Law to realise what "democracy" in HongKong is like - a facade that makes Westminster FPTP look like the real thing.
Both 1 and 2 will not be challenged in courts in the US and EU because they will fulfill almost all legal requirements and legal action can be used to stop unwanted government action.
----
And that's how almost peaceful reunification can be achieved with minimal amount of shooting and both sides will be happy - China will get what it needs and all people of Taiwan will get what they want.
