China and Taiwan
-
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 11:15 last edited by
@jolly said in China and Taiwan:
Taiwan is toast.
What will the US response be?
My prediction: a strongly-worded letter and little more.
-
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 11:30 last edited by
-
@jolly said in China and Taiwan:
Taiwan is toast.
What will the US response be?
My prediction: a strongly-worded letter and little more.
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 11:49 last edited by@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@jolly said in China and Taiwan:
Taiwan is toast.
What will the US response be?
My prediction: a strongly-worded letter and little more.
Joe is bought and paid for.
And even if he isn't, could you see The Senile Patient commanding that type of situation? C'mon, man!
-
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@jolly said in China and Taiwan:
Taiwan is toast.
What will the US response be?
My prediction: a strongly-worded letter and little more.
Joe is bought and paid for.
And even if he isn't, could you see The Senile Patient commanding that type of situation? C'mon, man!
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 16:24 last edited by@jolly said in China and Taiwan:
Joe is bought and paid for.
Yes.
The US ability to stop China is always either growing or shrinking.
At the moment I think shrinking.
-
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 17:36 last edited by
It's a matter of backbone. I think the Chinese perceive he doesn't have one.
-
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 22:08 last edited by xenon 4 Sept 2021, 22:09
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden doesn't hav?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
-
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden doesn't hav?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 22:09 last edited by@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 22:12 last edited by xenon 4 Sept 2021, 22:13@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
And NK has had a gun pointed at SK for decades now - we don't do much about that.
I just don't see any way out of the overwhelming risk of engaging in conventional war with nuclear powers.
In the vast majority of situations it is almost never going to be worth it.
Belligerent nuclear powers sort of have carte blanche to be belligerent (as long as they're not stepping directly on nuclear powers' toes).
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
-
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 22:15 last edited by xenon 4 Sept 2021, 22:18
It seems like it would be much more reasonable to cut off economic ties with China (as a response to a belligerent action) - and plunge the world into an economic depression - than to respond with conventional weapons.
-
@xenon, I agree. All of your comments are, basically "a strongly worded letter to follow."
I'm not sure (and by "not sure" I mean "I don't know") what effects economic or other sanctions' effectiveness are.
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 22:19 last edited by xenon 4 Sept 2021, 22:23@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon, I agree. All of your comments are, basically "a strongly worded letter to follow."
I'm not sure (and by "not sure" I mean "I don't know") what effects economic or other sanctions' effectiveness are.
I mean - I think we have an economic "nuclear" option with China. "You're cut off, we won't buy anything from you anymore."
That plunges us into the shitter as well though.
I guess my overall point is - it doesn't matter that the U.S. is a hulking body builder judo champion and China is a skinny dude if they both have assault rifles in their hands.
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 22:25 last edited by xenon 4 Sept 2021, 22:25@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
At least neither invaded Poland.
I think that's another issue.
We look at future wars with the lens of what came before.
In WW1 - I remember reading something about France having to essentially jettison most senior military leaders and promote the ones with success on the battlefield, early on in the war. The old guard just didn't know how to fight according to the new realities.
-
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
At least neither invaded Poland.
I think that's another issue.
We look at future wars with the lens of what came before.
In WW1 - I remember reading something about France having to essentially jettison most senior military leaders and promote the ones with success on the battlefield, early on in the war. The old guard just didn't know how to fight according to the new realities.
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 22:30 last edited by@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
At least neither invaded Poland.
I think that's another issue.
We look at future wars with the lens of what came before.
In WW1 - I remember reading something about France having to essentially jettison most senior military leaders and promote the ones with success on the battlefield, early on in the war. The old guard just didn't know how to fight according to the new realities.
They noticed that the old guard surrendered on the first day, and then they noticed that the new guard surrendered on the first day. Then they noticed they were French.
-
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden doesn't hav?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
wrote on 9 Apr 2021, 23:28 last edited by@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden doesn't hav?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
That's not really the issue. Perception is the issue. The Chinese knew that Trump is not one to back down from a fight. I think they perceive exactly the opposite about the current occupant.
-
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
And NK has had a gun pointed at SK for decades now - we don't do much about that.
I just don't see any way out of the overwhelming risk of engaging in conventional war with nuclear powers.
In the vast majority of situations it is almost never going to be worth it.
Belligerent nuclear powers sort of have carte blanche to be belligerent (as long as they're not stepping directly on nuclear powers' toes).
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
wrote on 10 Apr 2021, 12:03 last edited by@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
And NK has had a gun pointed at SK for decades now - we don't do much about that.
I just don't see any way out of the overwhelming risk of engaging in conventional war with nuclear powers.
In the vast majority of situations it is almost never going to be worth it.
Belligerent nuclear powers sort of have carte blanche to be belligerent (as long as they're not stepping directly on nuclear powers' toes).
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
The Korean Situation is a bit different. We still have a lot of troops in harm's way, number one. Number two, that's still an active war (technically, of course).
-
wrote on 10 Apr 2021, 21:39 last edited by
Another reason Taiwan should be nervous.
What will Kerry give away this time? His obsession with climate change plays right in China’s world economic plans.
We need to be clear eyed about China’s plans and patience. Unfortunately our time horizons and feel good accomplishments are perfectly designed to help China.
-
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
And NK has had a gun pointed at SK for decades now - we don't do much about that.
I just don't see any way out of the overwhelming risk of engaging in conventional war with nuclear powers.
In the vast majority of situations it is almost never going to be worth it.
Belligerent nuclear powers sort of have carte blanche to be belligerent (as long as they're not stepping directly on nuclear powers' toes).
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
wrote on 10 Apr 2021, 22:08 last edited by Renauda 4 Oct 2021, 22:17@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
No and why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
The Crimean question had been the unacknowledged but festering elephant in the room between Russia and Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR. The only reason it was not dealt with earlier was because the US, Britain, France and Russia wanted Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons on its territory left behind by the Soviet military. In return for the nukes, Ukraine wanted money from the West and a pledge that its borders would remain intact. The Western allies agreed to both the money and the territorial integrity. Russia was willingly on board to take possession of the weapons and destroy them - which it did - but insisted on and agreed to lease the existing naval base in Sevastopol from Ukraine until such time that a decision would be made as to which country, Ukraine or Russia, the territory the Crimean peninsula belonged. The issue was then put on the back burner between Kyiv and Moscow.
Right or wrong, Putin obviously decided that since Crimea had belonged to Russia or following 1917 the Russian Soviet Federative Republic until Khrushchev's time, he saw an immediate opportunity to annex it from Ukraine. While unpalatable to the West, Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas. Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
No and why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
The Crimean question had been the unacknowledged but festering elephant in the room between Russia and Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR. The only reason it was not dealt with earlier was because the US, Britain, France and Russia wanted Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons on its territory left behind by the Soviet military. In return for the nukes, Ukraine wanted money from the West and a pledge that its borders would remain intact. The Western allies agreed to both the money and the territorial integrity. Russia was willingly on board to take possession of the weapons and destroy them - which it did - but insisted on and agreed to lease the existing naval base in Sevastopol from Ukraine until such time that a decision would be made as to which country, Ukraine or Russia, the territory the Crimean peninsula belonged. The issue was then put on the back burner between Kyiv and Moscow.
Right or wrong, Putin obviously decided that since Crimea had belonged to Russia or following 1917 the Russian Soviet Federative Republic until Khrushchev's time, he saw an immediate opportunity to annex it from Ukraine. While unpalatable to the West, Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas. Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
wrote on 10 Apr 2021, 22:43 last edited by@renauda said in China and Taiwan:
why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
And then, why did Russia move to take over Crimea? If it's of no value, why bother?
Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas.
If you want to be historical, you could say the same thing about Spain's influence on Mexico, or England's claim onto Canada.
Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
And China is doing exactly the same thing.
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
No and why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
The Crimean question had been the unacknowledged but festering elephant in the room between Russia and Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR. The only reason it was not dealt with earlier was because the US, Britain, France and Russia wanted Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons on its territory left behind by the Soviet military. In return for the nukes, Ukraine wanted money from the West and a pledge that its borders would remain intact. The Western allies agreed to both the money and the territorial integrity. Russia was willingly on board to take possession of the weapons and destroy them - which it did - but insisted on and agreed to lease the existing naval base in Sevastopol from Ukraine until such time that a decision would be made as to which country, Ukraine or Russia, the territory the Crimean peninsula belonged. The issue was then put on the back burner between Kyiv and Moscow.
Right or wrong, Putin obviously decided that since Crimea had belonged to Russia or following 1917 the Russian Soviet Federative Republic until Khrushchev's time, he saw an immediate opportunity to annex it from Ukraine. While unpalatable to the West, Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas. Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
wrote on 10 Apr 2021, 22:57 last edited by@renauda said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
No and why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
The Crimean question had been the unacknowledged but festering elephant in the room between Russia and Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR. The only reason it was not dealt with earlier was because the US, Britain, France and Russia wanted Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons on its territory left behind by the Soviet military. In return for the nukes, Ukraine wanted money from the West and a pledge that its borders would remain intact. The Western allies agreed to both the money and the territorial integrity. Russia was willingly on board to take possession of the weapons and destroy them - which it did - but insisted on and agreed to lease the existing naval base in Sevastopol from Ukraine until such time that a decision would be made as to which country, Ukraine or Russia, the territory the Crimean peninsula belonged. The issue was then put on the back burner between Kyiv and Moscow.
Right or wrong, Putin obviously decided that since Crimea had belonged to Russia or following 1917 the Russian Soviet Federative Republic until Khrushchev's time, he saw an immediate opportunity to annex it from Ukraine. While unpalatable to the West, Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas. Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
Texas was an independent republic, having won its independence from Mexico. Why wouldn't the Crimean Peninsula belong to Ukraine after the breakup of the U.S.S.R.?
-
@renauda said in China and Taiwan:
why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
And then, why did Russia move to take over Crimea? If it's of no value, why bother?
Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas.
If you want to be historical, you could say the same thing about Spain's influence on Mexico, or England's claim onto Canada.
Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
And China is doing exactly the same thing.
wrote on 11 Apr 2021, 13:12 last edited by Renauda 4 Nov 2021, 13:53@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@renauda said in China and Taiwan:
why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
And then, why did Russia move to take over Crimea? If it's of no value, why bother?
Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas.
If you want to be historical, you could say the same thing about Spain's influence on Mexico, or England's claim onto Canada.
Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
And China is doing exactly the same thing.
Russia annexed the peninsula from the Crimean Khanate in 1783 following fighting between the Christian Russian and Muslim Tatar inhabitants. It was of strategic importance against the Ottomans Empire at the time and remained such until the mid twentieth century. Nuclear weapons and the missile age downgraded its strategic status completely.
England relinquished all its claims to Canada, Australia and New Zealand through a series of Acts of Parliament. There is really no comparison with Russia and Crimea.
Crimea was ceded to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by the USSR in 1954. Even now the reasons remain unclear and the actual legal and constitutional processes then under Soviet law are also contentious. At the time it was generally considered an inconsequential symbolic gesture by the Russian Soviet Socialist Federative Republic towards the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav. It was likewise inconceivable to Soviet leaders in 1954 that the USSR would dissolve in forty years time and that Russian and Ukraine would become independent states. The question of Crimea did arise between Yelstin and then President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, when the USSR dissolved. Russia stated that it wanted Crimea returned. Both parties however decided to shelve the issue until such time that the two countries were more politically and economically established and integrated within the C.I.S.. As you are aware though the C.I.S. was a non starter as a successor entity to the USSR.
You are correct, China is claiming what it believes is its territory. It certainly has never recognized Taiwan as a sovereign state. Does this make the case similar to Crimea? I do not know.
Elbows up!
