Strategic Ambiguity: The Bizarre Reason the U.S. Doesn't Have an Alliance with Taiwan against China
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- Check out my books on Amazon (paid link): amzn.to/2SiQjlp
The United States practices "strategic ambiguity" in its relationship with Taiwan. Unlike more standard alliances, there is only an informal understanding that the U.S. will support Taiwan in the event of a conflict. What exactly that means---and how much support the U.S. will provide---is ambiguous. If the goal here is to deter China, why doesn't the U.S. provide a stronger form of support?
To answer that question, this video explains how strategic ambiguity's aim is mitigate the perverse incentives a more explicit alliance might offer Taiwan. It also disincentivizes China to instigate a preventive war, similar to Russia's argument for its invasion of Ukraine.
0:00 The Puzzle of Strategic Ambiguity
1:29 Strategic Ambiguity's Recent History
3:04 Advantages of a Firmer Commitment
5:14 Emboldenment Problem
8:28 Moral Hazard
11:27 Statistical Evidence for Ambiguity
13:16 Preventive War Problem
14:19 Future of Strategic Ambiguity
Almost in F - Tranquillity by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Images licensed under CC BY 4.0:
From President.gov.ua:
www.president.gov.ua/photos/p...
From Kremlin.ru:
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
Images licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
From U.S. Secretary of Defense:
www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/...
From U.S. Navy:
www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/...
www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/...
www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/...
www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/...
www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/...
From U.S. Army:
www.flickr.com/photos/soldier...
From Taiwan Presidential Office:
www.flickr.com/photos/preside...
www.flickr.com/photos/preside...
www.flickr.com/photos/preside...
www.flickr.com/photos/preside...
From OSCE Special Monitoring Mission:
www.flickr.com/photos/osce_sm...
www.flickr.com/photos/osce_sm...
Image of diplomat Hsiao Bi-khim is from Legislative Yuan.
the us does a little trolling
Based
:tf: 🤏 just a bit
Yep
🤣 we invented trolling
No not me🤣🤣
There is another reason for US Strategic Ambiguity: Japan. With the USA being definitive, that there is less incentive for Japan to signal a commitment to support Taiwan.
Is that actually a serious concern though? Japan doesn't strike me as having the military capacity to do so.
@@SacredDaturana not yet, but in time expecially in this 2020s to 2040s period i think Japan will become more preponderant in Asian Pro-West affairs.
USA is entering an aislacionist period, the EU will become more independent in-time too, with the potential to start a three-way-system with China, USA and Europe as the main contestants. Russia is not a world leading nation anymore and with that there is little in common between mainland europe (France, Germany, Spain, the Nordic States, Austria) -im not including Britain- and USA.
@@SacredDaturana Japan has a very strong navy. It is stronger than Russia in the Pacific.
Rich Dobbs that’s not a high bar, especially considering their naval losses to a certain country that doesn’t even have a navy lol
@@fromthefire4176 Yeah but ask China how their last two wars with Japan went lol
After a brief break, we're back to LINES ON MAPS starting at 3:32!
So is Taiwan a country?
USA: Yessssn't.
Great videos, as someone who never officially studied game theory in school, watching your videos using game theory to analyze geopol is really fascinating and educational! Thank you.
The US might still believe in a one China policy, on the basis mainland China may eventually become a democracy too. Good video William, thumbs up.
May eventually, on what do you base that? As far as I'm aware, CCP is in firm control...
@@Goulmy86 he didn’t say he believes that he said the USA is following one China policy because they believe China will be a democracy
I love how you want the whole world follows single idea and policy that benefit only one country.
Not forgetting of course that ROC also believes in 'one China' (just a different China, based on their claim to the mainland). On a semantic basis, the US can fully commit to Taiwan's defence and STILL claim to support 'one China'. West Taiwan would naturally disagree....
In which case, would the USA not be placing too much faith in "democracy"? After all, I can think of no good reason to assume that a democratically elected replacement Xinese government would regard the historically-blamed West with any more benevolence than the current autocratic lot.
Fascinating stuff, William. Thanks for posting!
I love these presentations. Reminds me of military briefings or lectures.
Thoughtful, well prepared and presented not by a warmonger but, rather an unbiased assessment.
Another great video! 🤩
Just found your channel, and I think it's great addition to binging up on geopolitics along caspian report and good times bad times and perun. Also my job involves a fair deal of game theory (blockchain...) so cheers. Will check out your book.
The textbook is super basic, so be careful buying it if you already know a lot!
@@Gametheory101
Thanks for the tip, I'd say my knowledge is pretty decent for someone not involved academically, but could be a good intro for my younger brother.
Your street cred went up even more, it's nice but rare to see restraint in self-shilling.
@@Gametheory101 to be fair, the book gives us mere mortals easy language and references to explain these things that are sometimes intuitive once you accept that most people would rather not fight than fight because the cost of any action is never a sure thing.
I would say I love all the TH-camrs you mentioned but Good times bad times is just heavily biased in his videos! Especially anything that has to do with communism because he is from Poland so I tend to shut him out on certain topics because of well,His countries history but I love the geopolitical surge lately with TH-cam! I can’t get enough :)
@@CutieZalbu I'm from ex-commie country too, and to me their worst crime was inefficiency which theoretically could have been solved with technology eventually. Granted I didn't live through it, but whilst opinions are divided there is a consensus especially after ascension to the EU. Any governance model exported from Russia was bound to feature a lot of suppression of rights, spot executions, seizure of properties, deportations and centralisation of power. Its just how they like things, whether it is a theocracy or neo-liberal capitalism that's just a theme really.
As for Shirvan he's the OG in this space, but as he is from a police state he definitely needs to watch what he says and as such has a heavy bias towards Azerbaijan and to a lesser extent Turkey.
The problem I have with the "lines on maps" approach is that it seems to ignore the iterated nature of the interaction. If China says "I'm going to start a war, but if you give me this piece of Taiwan, it'll be better for both of us," then there's nothing preventing china from doing the same thing a week (or year or decade) later. As long as the marginal value of the land ceded is lower than the cost of fighting a war to its conclusion, then the "lines on maps" logic would advise always ceding land.
As we see in Ukraine, if Ukraine is able to defeat Russia, then Ukraine has a guarantee that Russia won't threaten to invade again: Russia's military will be too degraded to do so.
Regarding the third reason: if the USA abandon strategic ambiguity not by promising any formal military alliance treaty, but instead just unilaterally and unambiguously (without backpedaling, etc.) state their intention of intervening on Taiwan's behalf, this would not make war more likely under that mechanism, right? The shift would have occurred with those statements, and an attack would not prevent it. Or would you only consider unambiguous an aliance treaty?
Could unambiguous declarations create the fear that a treaty comes next, is that it? But wouldn't 95% of the shift come with the declarations themselves? I think I am missing something in this third part of the video.
By the way, thanks for the videos. I always enjoy them (and like them as well :) )
There's definitely some amount of power shift purely from the announcement. PRC wouldn't be able to undo it, so the preventive incentive is on whatever remains from actually coordinating forces. (That's what this video is about th-cam.com/video/UHNG-FKcALM/w-d-xo.html)
The flip side is that because some of it is irrevocable, the declining state has an incentive to jump the gun on the announcement. So signaling that something like that could happen in the future is itself dangerous under that mechanism.
In any relationship, if you know what the other wants and plans to do, then you can plan around it.
12:32 This is definitely interesting although the issue with it is that countries with a higher baseline risk of conflict are more likely to form defensive alliances of any kind. Doesn't invalidate comparisons between types (although I'm sure you could make a more complex argument that it's not an unbiased comparison) but does make the comparison to the "baseline rate" rather meaningless.
Immediately after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the USA made clear that US and NATO troops would not be deployed into Ukraine. This reluctance to commit US troops, along with our withdrawal from Afghanistan could potentially be seen by China as a reluctance to get involved in external military operations and therefore as a reduction in the ambiguity of the US commitment vis a vis Taiwan. I personally see Biden's statements along with the immediate clarifications as an effort to restore balance to the Strategic Ambiguity policy.
William, can I buy an epub version of your book instead of printed?
There is a Kindle version. Not sure if that is an epub.
@@Gametheory101 Thank you! I see now.
what would Taiwan hope to gain from provoking a war with the mainland? Even with US help it seems to me the best they could hope for is international recognition. There is nothing they could effectively do to in mainland China imo.
Policy was designed quite a few decades ago when the KMT still entertained the idea of retaking the mainland. Modern framing is US trying to dissuade Taiwan from unilaterally declaring independence as China already signaled that action would trigger war. If the US demonstrate unambiguous support, there is risk that Taiwanese leadership may be tempted to do so and gambling China won't declare war with the backing of US intervention. Political climate changes and we have no idea what future event may unfold. So the benefit of this ambiguous strategy cannot be dismissed lightly.
@@syjiang that makes a lot of sense, thanks.
That's exactly what they are doing. in 1969, China poked a border war with USSR. the result of that war was Mao regained control of CPC, completed washed out the pro soviets party members. cross strait trades accounted for 40% of Taiwan's economic activities, how do you get rid of all the pro mainland politician? poking the red line. Thats what dpp(party) does every single time when they are in power.
They knew that mainland does not want a war, at least not right now. The PRC had to show them, they are ready to take it anytime, then they would stop proviking.
This explains so much, thank you! Apparently I'm a recovering hawk on the issue.. 😅🇹🇼
isn't such ambiguity like trying to have a cake and eat it, at least in the long run? Democratically elected officials know, that they won't be in office forever. Therefore, ambiguity might seem attractive, as the successor probably will have to deal with the problem. This makes it a question of national, instead international politics. A way to escape this trap of avoidance, might be institutions. Can the West include Taiwan to its institutions, or would that also be problematic?
If the West include Taiwan in its institutions they are saying out loud that Taiwan is a sovereign country and that is a "no no" for the PRC.
@@diegonatan6301 That's true for sure. But my concern is, that the west will have to take a position at one point. Avoiding to make this decision will not work forever. The PRC isn't happy about how successful TWN is withstanding its grip and, at one point, they most probably will attack. I guess they haven't already attacked because of first Olympic Games and the rising number of Corona infections. But I'm afraid that Xi Jinping wants to defeat Taiwan before his rule ends to cement his legacy.
Part of the difficulties in the early days of the Covid outbreak was the fact that Taiwan is not a member of the World Heath Organization, in part because China won't let it join. This means the response in Taiwan was not coordinated with the rest of the world, including reporting cases and communicating treatment and management outcomes.
Just my opinion, the policy is simple.
The US supports the One China policy, but the US will not allow destabilization regionally and an invasion of Taiwan.
I like your Ukrainian line-on-a-map much better than previous ones!
As I was animating this one, I realized I strongly prefer vertical lines on maps to horizontal lines on maps. It’s such a shame that Taiwan just had to be oriented in the way it is. 😢
No to war!
Breaking News!
Bulgaria Declares WAR on Rwanda.
Reason: Want to retake lands with a majority ethnic Bulgarian population.
(One month later)
Bulgaria capitulates, Rwanda annexes the whole country.
One month? We're not THAT horrible...
The problem with departing from the policy of strategic ambiguity is that it would assist China's war planning. If China is sure that the US would respond militarily, they will be much more likely to unleash massive missile barrages on American military installations in the region. A pre-emptive attack like this would cripple the ability of America to intervene before Taiwan is overwhelmed. Strategic ambiguity potentially saves lives.
Yes, I understand what your saying.
But for it to be like that the attack will have had to occur without any warning.
And for China to achieve strategic and tactical surprise would require them to atack with a much smaller force than they theoretically could.
Such a force would only be good for invading the islands that Taiwan owns near the Chinese coast. Such an action would be a propaganda win as it would allow China to declare victory, but in doing so would allow American allies and other foriegn nations to recongize Taiwan.
This is of course under the assumption that Taiwan, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would just sit down and accept they lost. Not like the US has a history of reacting timidly to Surprise Attacks.
Plus any war between the US and China will almost certainly reignite the Korean War.
How would strategic ambiguity save lives, though? Are you saying that firing missiles at US bases would be guaranteed to bring the US into a war against China, so ambiguity would make them less likely to use a pre-emptive strike?
If China read American history, they know that the US has a pretty strong reaction to pre emptive attacks. (Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.)
@@compassroses if there was a definitive defensive pact then the chinese would have a reason to fire on US bases in the pacific. By being ambiguous the chinese have to consider the fact that they have no technical reason to fire on US bases preemptively as the US might not even enter the war (we might do something similar to what is happening in Ukraine). Thus a preemptive attack would guarantee a US entry and higher cost for the PRC, dissuading that choice of action and giving the US time to prepare.
Yesssssss, my fix has been fulfilled.
*lines on maps*
:D
The One China Policy basically is saying Taiwan doesn't belong to the PRC. The People's Republic of China doesn't understand this.
they understand it damn well. its "One country, two systems" for a reason. they dont want taiwan to secede from china.
I think the least the US could do to increase the unlikelihood of an invasion is by recognizing Taiwan as an independent country, and setting up an embassy. Along with that the US should do what they have done with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines to ensure they are safe as well by putting US bases in country. That should at least scare China in fear that a stray missile or mortar could start a conflict with the US and other pacific US Allies
lol, you don't understand the mentality of the communist government, their entire political legitimacy is based on their promise to the Chinese people that they can re-unit China. The moment US recognizing Taiwan is the moment China will break all diplomatic relations with US, followed by preparations to invade Taiwan. Should China fail to invade Taiwan, then nuclear missiles will start flying.
The chinese government would rather end the human civilization in a nuclear hell-flame than letting the possibility of Taiwan re-uniting with the mainland slipping away forever, since in both cases CCP will lose their grips on power. The Chinese people will never allow a political entity to stay in power if it can't deliver the single most important thing they are promised on: that is a unified, prosperous and strong China.
If the CCP would lose power, trust me, they would bring the whole world down with them. They are a nuclear power after all.
this is the best...
What you’re suggesting would highly likely lead to an invasion.
That's a terrible idea. That is a serious provocation. Taiwan is incredibly important to China. As we have witnessed recently, autocrats will not just slink away from their most serious interests. The US should be de escalating tensions in Taiwan not escalating them.
You first
LOL can yall imagine what Article 5 would have looked like if the US played strategic ambiguity.
An attack on one member state is or is maybe not an attack on all member states
Great Video! Just to add - Within ambiguity, the United States varied its support to Taiwan as a part of balancing its relationship with the PRC, from varying the type and quantity of arms sales in response to PRC actions, to allowing more interaction between American and Taiwanese officials.
What does game theory say about people who kick the can down the road and let people in the future deal with the problem later?
I feel like a lot of these countries have loud barks but no bite
In nuclear war scenario, the expected cost of war is infinite. By stay strategic ambiguity, the us can make Taiwan to take less risk as possible. By confirm to assist Taiwan independence also have benefit because it increase China cost of war to infinite(in case of nuclear war). If China internalize cost of war equal infinity, China will make no move at all to initiate war. The best move is to make China internalize cost of war by making china think the us will assist and make taiwan think the us will not assist them, so taiwan will be more willing to accept China bargian. So the bargaining line for both nation will be as far as possible making it eassiest to settle an agreement for both nations.
even without considering the interests of taiwanese people, i think you'd be insane if you think TSMC being under CCP control is something americans are willing to accept as a "china bargain" XD
@@sebastian192 Unless the alternative is nuclear war...
I cannot get your point. Very absurd.
I like your analysis, but your sliding line graphic is painful to watch.
You can't deduce every one of your videos to a land map analysis of three lines. Half of the time the exercise if irrelevant and unhelpful such as in this case. It feels like a cop out and you do it in every video meaning that people will stop watching because they're getting the same information half-'helpful' over and over again.
So sleepy joe had a purpose in saying the US would defend Taiwan. Haha, raising the bar for ambiguity to maintain parity with Chinese military capability
Like video
The issue for ambiguity is that it was just proven not to work thanks to Ukraine and Russia
I believe UA doesn't have an ambiguous agreement with US or it didn't have until the conflict had begun.
We have seen how China granted Hong Kong independence
Actually it was the Portuguese that found Formosa. And the Dutch were the first to colonize Taiwan. During the times of the Dutch colonizing Taiwan there were aboriginals there. They were not people of Chinese descent. Chinese people were brought in by the Dutch and British to work. They brought so many over that they actually kicked the British out. So therefore China doesn't have any claim towards Taiwan, Historically speaking. If anything the Aboriginals should be given back some of their territory, and Those who have survived, or not completely insimilated into other Dutch colonies.
So true …. Please add United States , Australia , New Zealand ,Hawaii & many more into your lists.
@@el3732 Facts, a must add.
@@el3732 I find it hilarious how whenever I watch a documentary on a former colony country it goes like this we came to this land, made friendship with aboriginals, then something snapped, the bloody war began, technology won the battles, then the land belongs to Europeans exclusively and they use aboriginals as labour.
They don’t all speak Mandarin though. A sizable amount mixed with other SE Asian speak Taiwanese Hokkien and I think they would take offense to being called Chinese and not Taiwanese lol
Thanks for making this nice video . However , president of Taiwan already officially proclaimed ROC(Taiwan) being a independence sovereign state for many times(at least every national day 10/10), and did everything like a full sovereignty state. Historical, ROC established much earlier than PRC, so Taiwan won't turn back and say: " we want to be independent “. The strategy of Taiwan government is declaring “we already be independent “.
On the other hand, “Taiwan want to depart from China” is an important diplomatic propaganda of PRC, cuz they realize Taiwan won’t say “want to be independent from PRC”. In this situation, PRC won’t be forced to attack Taiwan for the “red line”. The premise that “Taiwan may proclaim to be independent from PRC” in western academia is something should be doubt.
This may be true, but Taiwan still lacks recognized independence and that is what matters.
2:15 implies the policy has always been what joe stated.
The now is like Lord Of The Rings.
Whoever controls Taiwan controls the world's semi conductor chips AKA 90% of computers in the world right now.
Another Zeihan fan!
Why should we?🤷🏻♂️
A state cannot have an official alliance with a non state. Also the U.S. in their efforts to improve relations with China agreed not to officially recognize Taiwan as it's own state. In World War II Chang Kai Shek was a U.S. ally in the fight against Japan. When the communist took over after World War II Chang needed a safe place to go and the U.S. agreed to give it to them in Taiwan. Back in the late 1940's and 1950"s communist were like snakes in the grass. All free market countries banded together against them. The U.S. provided Chang that safety net against a weak Communist government of China.
My two saxophones (alto & tenore) were made by Taiwaniese craphsmen. Both of them are just as good as overprised and ove-restimatedOn both of them it is engraved: *Made in Taiwan* (not in China). All my guitars &.keyboards were made in Japan, USA or Canada. It is clear, *Made in Taiwan* engraved on the two of my favourite instruments, it can’t be changed. To make it clear: *Not Made in China !!!*. I’ll give them to whoever wants to take them, so I am not connected to this aggresive regime. SKoch.
P.S. There are some spelling mistakes, in my scribbles. Sorry about that !!! You Tube still doesn’t want to correct *Edit/Delite* option or perhaps they don’t know how to do it Lol ...
The percentages about conflict likelihood and baselines at the end are bogus -- what's the time frame of measurement, what counts as a "grievance," what counts as "war" or "conflict"? Are economic sactions a grievance?, are stategic surgical bombings short of war a conflict?, are threats of coopting an important ally a grievance? Are non violent political reformations in a de-facto satrapy that threaten the grip of the mothership a grievance? The only relevant determinant - the relative power between two assailants - is not even considered. All of the US wars after the Civil war have been the equivalent of Bosnia invading Rwanda, to borrow from the presenter's silly example, with the distinction that the US has held a vast power advantage to its targets, whereas Bosnia's advantage would be only moderate over Rwanda. Also, "ambiguousness" is not a word.
One china policy..mainland PRC should merge into Taiwan over next 25 years not visa versa
Maybe when the USA say they support the one China policy they mean that they want Taiwan to unite China
The last 70 years or so of history disagrees with you. If America wanted Taiwan to be part of China, all they have to do is to make public statements that Taiwan is part of China and that America will not come to Taiwan's aid when China invades.
Because the US doesn’t even regard Taiwan as an independent country
China was choke up in The Malacca and needs Taiwan to access to the Pacific straight to Solomon island in the pacific.wow...
I love the fact that the United States enjoys subtly poking at China now and then. It's quite clever really, "would we, wouldn't we, should we, shouldn't we." It keeps China guessing......
Best way to explain why Taiwan is so weird politically is because technically Taiwans never been conquered. Parts have been taken or the islend lost but but the land never controlled, so all invading factions have always been pushed off or left. While the so called right that China has to Taiwan is flimsy at best as the ones to ‘take’ (they moved their not conquered) the country were refugees and enemies of China. Thus Taiwan has still technically never been conquered by anyone meaning our arguments of their not part of your country but their own is a valid argument because they never took the land nor baught it out.
Hell dowinger sisy technically sold it to a pirate and that was the last truly official deal involving taiwans sovereignty. All the modern ones are China just being China and clamming things they probably do not own or have the rights to
Hey we said the same thing that Russia versus Ukraine that they would have more of a chance but who knows maybe Taiwan is stronger than China
As far as I understand it, China has chosen a solution with one China, two gouverment. This solution been working for many years. With the size prc China want to delete trc
I'm starting to think Joe, while still senile, is very based.
semiconductors!!!!!
We're gonna do an entire video on that later!
@@Gametheory101 excellent! A little more detail than Zeihan please!
@@Gametheory101 morals are a lie we need to protect geoeconomics and the supply chain.
north korea has the rare earth minerals taiwan provides the semiconductors but apple provides the finished products.
we need to control all of the supply chain.
13:57 you liked your own video
lol, yep
The US should maybe station troops in Taiwan.
I feel like you really don't understand a lot of the nuance and details behind many of the topics you cover..
oh shit,I didn't know that the kinmen islamds were THAT close to mainland china! they're 10km away from the closest mainland city! and 130.000 people live on the islands.
yeah, I think china is going to invade those in the next two years. :(
🇺🇸🇹🇼🇺🇸🇹🇼🇺🇸
Chess not checkers when dealing with China.👍🏻🎯
About embodiment, it is important to understand that more than any party involved w/ this unsettle conflict, Taiwan is the most invested in protecting the Status Quo. Taiwan needs its established relationship w/ both China & US (preferably w/o all the threats). Whenever Beijing oversteps its show of force, either through PLA Navy or PLA Air Force, it's always Washington and America who panic. Instead, Taiwan remains cautious, making sure to always respond (if CCP attacks it will look like a show of force -- until it doesn't), but it also always presents a relaxed posture after being used to the mainland shenanigans. And of course, if these shenanigans end up begetting real aggression, Taiwan will snap to the defense before the Pentagon even reacts.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Can we (China) ally with Texas? Against the federal government? Can we ally with Scotland and help them to get away from the unfairness coming from London? Can we ally with Wales to split against England so the Welsh people can become independent?
Taiwan is literally the real gov't. It's not the same b/c texas isn't the Republican Party and the Texas GOP isn't claiming to be or hold all of America. the Republic of China actually *was* China, held a seat on the UN and everything.
Your fantasy of Britain falling-apart is funny, though.
I mean they can but i doubt Texas would accept that not sure of Scotland and Wales. But you will only end up with "something" similar to Ukraine, what i mean by that is they could easily turn around and say nevermind and attack or condemn China for that altogether. Hence why US is being ambiguous with Taiwan as they also arent 100% clear on if they just want to be left alone and independant or try to retake former glory from Mainland China with revenge.
Yes.
Terrible comparison. You’re talking about territories that have been under control of the nation’s central governments for over a century
The CCP on the other hand has never in history controlled Taiwan, and it never will. Seriously, since 1949 when the communist party took over (and even prior) they never controlled the island of Taiwan, so explain to me how this compares to Texas which has been a state in the current US government system since the 1800’s
Not to mention a majority of these populations WANT to stay part of the US and UK at this point, meanwhile over 60% of Taiwanese citizens see themselves not as Chinese but Taiwanese. China taking over would be akin to foreign occupation for the vast majority of the country
The One China policy that American lawmakers adhere to includes the U.S. Betcha didn’t know that.
Newsflash, Bulgaria nukes Rwanda, billions feared dead and/or slightly upset. Will this lead to the Eskimo wars of the Apocalypse?
-Schizo News Network
Taiwan being part of China like Hong Kong in 2000 isn't such a bad deal. I think it is mutually beneficial not only to war, but mutually beneficial compared to what would happen in 30 years if the status quo remained. There is some wariness of the general Taiwanese population to the PRC after the last decade. On the other hand, the business elites of Taiwan actually often has good relations with China, but don't want the onerous restrictions that mainland Chinese businessmen have to deal with. I believe this minority actually would want to be part of China in the Hong Kong in 2000 style way, if they could get any guarantee that China would actually keep its end of the bargain, something that isn't to be taken for granted if we use the example of... Hong Kong. A Taiwan with Hong Kong in 2000 status would gain some economic prosperity, keep personal liberties, not have to spent money on an air force, and the cost is a bit of pride and the possibility that the next General Secretary of the Communist Party in the central government changes his mind.
If you're interested in how China has been tying up Taiwan economically check out
Geoeconomics: A war by other means
Written from American Point of view, but much of the recent bonding with and dependence on China economically has been part of the policy.
Also can't stay as Hing Kong 2000, because eventually Taiwaneese troops would need to be replaced with PLA ones and afterwards can't be having a special province that democratically elects it's Politburo members and gets to access Westernet or maintain free press.
The problem is that China has proven over and over again it's incapable of letting the principles that amde Taiwan successful stand. See Hong Kong?
China is a ruthless mercantilist gang with nuclear weapons. It's willing to crush and kill anything if it means it gets richer or solidifies it's power.
The idea that people want to be a part of that? It's laughable. People will treat it like they do Russia: to the extens they can make money they'll deal with it... But always looking over their shoulder. None is friends with China, noone is friends with Russia.
China killed the one country two systems model and therefore the only way we'll see a totally unified china... Is if there is a war or three government collapses in Beijing.
Imagine thinking that Taiwan becoming a second Hong Kong is great after what China did to it in the last three years
Yeah no where you been the last years
We don’t have strategic ambiguity anymore. Biden gaffed that one.
Even with Biden's gaffe, there have been enough Presidents consistency being inconsistent on the position. That is ambiguous.
@Aditya Chavarkar
More chances now that Pelosi had to go and check on her insider trading at Nvidia based in Taiwan. She almost guaranteed WWIII. Almost.
That dude probably thinks Taiwan is a part of NATO man.
Three words… LET TWIAN FALL!
North Korea!
Learn from Ukraine don't destroy ur country
How did Ukraine destroy their country?
🤣🤣the USA has so many internal problems but focuses on interfering in other country's issues, so typical of the Western countries and their weird fear of others
FREE FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
USA,UK,NATO,Taiwan DREE FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!KEEP ARE GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!ps. WAR IS NEVER GOOD!!!!!!!!!