Violence is always implied when it comes to redline separatism concerns. Beijing has consistently stated that all options are on the table for HK. The question

Violence is always implied when it comes to redline separatism concerns. Beijing has consistently stated that all options are on the table for HK. The question is whether the idiom should be interpreted as an alarmist "warning" for the possibility of immediate action on the ground. It shouldn't, otherwise hundreds of millions of Chinese nationalist on Weibo eager for HK to burn would be creaming their pants. >more than happy to employ actual violence against its own citizens before Implying China is "happy" to employ violence is the kind of absurd, sensationalist characterization seen in this BBC article. As if 6/4 didn't literally put the country on the brink of a civil war. No one was happy at what was done. Also I think it should be recognized that the imagery of Chinese violence in western audience mind is going to be tied to Tianamen, especially with the crushing idiom. This is an outdated heuristic, China spends more money on (non-lethal) domestic security than (lethal) military, no small part due to reverberations from 6/4. There are thousands of Chinese protests every week, the state is very good containing public disorder non-lethally now. There won't be tanks on the ground but sometimes it feels like many western observers perversely hope it would happen to validate their biases. Compare 1967 Detriot Riot where the National Guard was called with modern riot protocols or the Dakota Pipeline Protests. China is either going to wait this out, or contain the problem with non-lethal methods.