5 ms·

Difference, at least with regard to China/Taiwan, is timeline. Russia could likely steamroll much of Ukraine in a short period of time, and the US/NATO has few

Difference, at least with regard to China/Taiwan, is timeline. Russia could likely steamroll much of Ukraine in a short period of time, and the US/NATO has few assets available for immediate response to hundreds of thousands of Russian troops. The conflict could potentially be over before any meaningful military response could be mounted outside of what Ukraine can muster (which compared to the Russians only goes so far). Taiwan on the other hand could likely hold out for some time, IIRC their entire defense strategy is "be a tough nut to crack until the US shows up", and amphibious assaults are a very different animal from land invasions. It would primarily be a naval/air battle, and the US has plentiful and superior naval and air assets within striking distance of Taiwan, and just by the numbers the US Navy would annihilate the Chinese Navy in an open conflict. Not that the US/Taiwan would take no casualties, it would be the bloodiest US conflict since Vietnam. But if it happened tomorrow it would end in a decisive US/Taiwan victory assuming things stay conventional. Also China's a special case, as thanks to their one child policy almost all of their soldiers/sailors/pilots/marines are only children, and arguably more importantly (in China) only sons. The officers/pilots in particular are often the only sons of party officials/the societal elite. So any war China starts could have major domestic ramifications as thousands of relatively important Chinese families see their family trees start to wither. We also have strategic interests in Taiwan thanks to semiconductors, the same can't be said for Ukraine. That said, just because it wouldn't make any rational sense doesn't mean it won't happen, or that the narrative you describe wouldn't exists. Let's hope Xi's relative pragmatism continues.

dirtyid 5y ago
US has 2x more troops forward deployed in East Europe for Russian contingency and decades worth of equipment stocked piled as result of cold war. There's also all of NATO. Versus TW where PRC concentration of forces overwhelm US air/naval assets and reinforcement is far away in time and logistics and there's no US allies in region willing to credibly contribute to TW defense. The entire current TW defense strategy is to line up on the beach to be blown up based off 90s PLA invasion plans not 2020 PLA plans based off US stomping Iraq with high tech weapons and complete air supremacy. The "tough nut to crack" / porcupine strategy are asymmetric doctrine US think tanks want TW to adopt so US can respond it time. It's not reality, currently PRC can stomp TW before US help arrives. And it's questionable US has any supremacy within 1st island chain for TW defense. Also PLA isn't filled elites, certainly not combat roles, and what few there are will have strings pulled not to be deployed anyway. The entire one-child will disincentivize TW war meme is also nonsensical, PLA wants martyrs after decades of relative peace and frankly having a dead hero is going to come with a golden parachute for the family. The real answer is PRC still prioritizes peaceful reunion because time is on their side. Where as time is not on side of Russia, simultaneously because force balance could shift away for Russian favor and Putin has actually managed to credibly modernize Russian military that it's at peak power to pursue/restore it's security environment that has been devolving for the last 20 years. Ultimately, Russia is currently powerful enough to fight for her interests, because on balance capability is in RU favor. US isn't going to intervene, EU underinvested in defense while Russia invested enough despite how poor they are.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  2x what? The total US deployments in Europe are < 70,000 personnel, let alone Eastern Europe in particular. The combat troops that are stationed in Eastern Europe are there as deterrents, intended to force the Russians to fire on US/NATO forced should they attempt to invade a NATO member. There are no such forces in Ukraine. As for the rest of NATO, it's questionable how much they could readily activate and deploy to Ukraine on short notice. If NATO goes to open war with Russia, that means mobilizing enough to deal with a full scale Russian invasion, which includes defending the Eastern European allies from Russian retaliation. Token forces trickling in won't do it. Air power alone won't do it. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili... As for Taiwan, barring immediate Taiwanese surrender China will have to suppress Taiwanese naval and air defenses and then put substantial boots on the ground. The Chinese airborne is not large enough to do the latter on its own, that means amphibious assaults and contested landings. Though they would ultimately succeed were Taiwan left to defend itself, it would take time. Realistically they'd have to do that while dealing with the immediately deployable US carrier groups and air/naval/marine forces from land bases in Guam/Japan/etc. I agree the whole "losing large amounts of only sons" bit is speculation in terms of what impact it would have. Golden parachutes might go a long way. I would say time isn't on China's side at all. It's making more enemies in the world while losing former would-be friends, and is in severe demographic decline, much like Russia. Plus dealing with China is the one thing that currently unites Americans politically, and has lead to the creation of and near universal support for AUKUS, as well as the current trade war. If China keeps upping the confrontation it will only provoke a more severe response from the rest of the world, and if it dials down the confrontation it will eventually be hobbled by demographic decline and other factors. Realistically there's no good option for China to take Taiwan, but the CCP can't admit that. So one way or another there's going to be a show.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    >2x what? Sorry hastily constructed reply. Typo for 1/2x and instead of "in" East Europe I meant "for" East Europe. Was trying to convey is Russia has built superior posture relative to NATO considering US and EU (lack) of commitment. >The Chinese airborne is not large enough to do the latter on its own, that means amphibious assaults and contested landings PLA war planners have assumed to be able to secure air supremacy and (relatively) uncontested landing within few days with current force balance. Air supremacy + PLA airborne + helicopter transports is assumed to be sufficient to establish mass uncontested landing using civilian transport ships built to military standards. Many US war games seems comport, but even excluding wargames = worst case scenario for show argument, most new western think tank reports have similar conclusions, hence hard press for TW to adopt asymmetric doctrine = currently TW can't buy enough time. Hard to say what actual US involvement will be, but IMO nothing substantial out of Japan (or within 1st island chain), and it takes time for other forces to break into SCS in detail considering SCS bases there to hinder. > making more enemies in the world while losing former would-be friends, I would say PRC has mostly successfully dismantled US political containment plans. Wolf warrior scared ASEAN, SK, perhaps JP into neutrality outside of military theater. AU too far to be relevant except for blockade. AUKUS is basically the weakest minilateral arrangement for PRC containment versus what think tanks thought possible. EU isn't commitmented to pick sides in TW contingency. They're not even pressing further sanctions after PRC counter sanctioned EU sanctions. PRC isn't making friends, but it's eliminating committed enemies. Which is more important for PRC goals. PRC has secured more impunity to pursue security goals than USSR at height of power. Of course USN remains the massive challenge. > is in severe demographic decline, much like Russia. Demographic decline works in PRC favor for security considerations. Less people = less resource = more security = more flexibility to actually pursue security objectives. And even with depressed >10M birth rate, Navy/Air war simply don't require much personnel, there's no shortage of bodies. Also consider PRC is currently only spending 2% on military, 6% is not uncustomary in times of extreme security competition. Even a demographically declining PRC can allocate resources to support military multiple times current size. > Realistically there's no good option for China to take Taiwan, but the CCP can't admit that. Military options for taking TW is largely forgone in PLA literature from last few years. The challenge is still aftermath with US, which CCP readily admits capability gap is large. But if/when PRC accumulates sufficient capabilities to deter US or establish PRC regional hegemony, taking TW is an afterthought. Last year was first time analysis from both US and PRC side is trending towards conclusion force balance will only favor PRC with time, unless tech develops can manifestly shift balance. Realistically no amount of US + co spending and acquisitions is going to match PRC concentrating force in one region. IMO, TW is a sideshow, setting for actual Sino-US security competition. PRC has options for taking TW at anytime, some for deterring US, and very little for defeating US.
tomjen3 5y ago
>Difference, at least with regard to China/Taiwan, is timeline. Russia could likely steamroll much of Ukraine in a short period of time, and the US/NATO has few assets available for immediate response to hundreds of thousands of Russian troops. The conflict could potentially be over before any meaningful military response could be mounted outside of what Ukraine can muster (which compared to the Russians only goes so far). It takes, what, 12-20 hours to get a bunch of planes in the air - at that point the Russian soldiers will be smashed unless they can keep control of the air. You can't win a air power immediately, but if it comes to a NATO fight Poland is right next to Ukraine and has some pretty nice equipment and no love for Russia.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  The Russians have a bunch of planes as well, not to mention sophisticated land based air defenses already in Eastern Ukraine. Poland recently ran a bunch of military exercises simulating a Russian invasion through Belarus, and in the words of one Polish general the results were "worse than 1939" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/11/09/pola-n09.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/11/09/pola-n09.html If NATO declares war on Russia, that also immediately expands the front line from Norway, down into the Baltics, all of which would have to be defended from Russian retaliation. Doing that and fighting a full scale invasion of Ukraine would be the largest European Conflict since WWII.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > If NATO declares war on Russia, that also immediately expands the front line from Norway, down into the Baltics, all of which would have to be defended from Russian retaliation. Doing that and fighting a full scale invasion of Ukraine would be the largest European Conflict since WWII. Well, that obviously goes both ways. Russia will also have to defend itself all the way from the north to the south.

dirtyid 5y ago

US has 2x more troops forward deployed in East Europe for Russian contingency and decades worth of equipment stocked piled as result of cold war. There's also all of NATO. Versus TW where PRC concentration of forces overwhelm US air/naval assets and reinforcement is far away in time and logistics and there's no US allies in region willing to credibly contribute to TW defense. The entire current TW defense strategy is to line up on the beach to be blown up based off 90s PLA invasion plans not 2020 PLA plans based off US stomping Iraq with high tech weapons and complete air supremacy. The "tough nut to crack" / porcupine strategy are asymmetric doctrine US think tanks want TW to adopt so US can respond it time. It's not reality, currently PRC can stomp TW before US help arrives. And it's questionable US has any supremacy within 1st island chain for TW defense. Also PLA isn't filled elites, certainly not combat roles, and what few there are will have strings pulled not to be deployed anyway. The entire one-child will disincentivize TW war meme is also nonsensical, PLA wants martyrs after decades of relative peace and frankly having a dead hero is going to come with a golden parachute for the family. The real answer is PRC still prioritizes peaceful reunion because time is on their side. Where as time is not on side of Russia, simultaneously because force balance could shift away for Russian favor and Putin has actually managed to credibly modernize Russian military that it's at peak power to pursue/restore it's security environment that has been devolving for the last 20 years. Ultimately, Russia is currently powerful enough to fight for her interests, because on balance capability is in RU favor. US isn't going to intervene, EU underinvested in defense while Russia invested enough despite how poor they are.

scottLobster 5y ago
2x what? The total US deployments in Europe are < 70,000 personnel, let alone Eastern Europe in particular. The combat troops that are stationed in Eastern Europe are there as deterrents, intended to force the Russians to fire on US/NATO forced should they attempt to invade a NATO member. There are no such forces in Ukraine. As for the rest of NATO, it's questionable how much they could readily activate and deploy to Ukraine on short notice. If NATO goes to open war with Russia, that means mobilizing enough to deal with a full scale Russian invasion, which includes defending the Eastern European allies from Russian retaliation. Token forces trickling in won't do it. Air power alone won't do it. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili... As for Taiwan, barring immediate Taiwanese surrender China will have to suppress Taiwanese naval and air defenses and then put substantial boots on the ground. The Chinese airborne is not large enough to do the latter on its own, that means amphibious assaults and contested landings. Though they would ultimately succeed were Taiwan left to defend itself, it would take time. Realistically they'd have to do that while dealing with the immediately deployable US carrier groups and air/naval/marine forces from land bases in Guam/Japan/etc. I agree the whole "losing large amounts of only sons" bit is speculation in terms of what impact it would have. Golden parachutes might go a long way. I would say time isn't on China's side at all. It's making more enemies in the world while losing former would-be friends, and is in severe demographic decline, much like Russia. Plus dealing with China is the one thing that currently unites Americans politically, and has lead to the creation of and near universal support for AUKUS, as well as the current trade war. If China keeps upping the confrontation it will only provoke a more severe response from the rest of the world, and if it dials down the confrontation it will eventually be hobbled by demographic decline and other factors. Realistically there's no good option for China to take Taiwan, but the CCP can't admit that. So one way or another there's going to be a show.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  >2x what? Sorry hastily constructed reply. Typo for 1/2x and instead of "in" East Europe I meant "for" East Europe. Was trying to convey is Russia has built superior posture relative to NATO considering US and EU (lack) of commitment. >The Chinese airborne is not large enough to do the latter on its own, that means amphibious assaults and contested landings PLA war planners have assumed to be able to secure air supremacy and (relatively) uncontested landing within few days with current force balance. Air supremacy + PLA airborne + helicopter transports is assumed to be sufficient to establish mass uncontested landing using civilian transport ships built to military standards. Many US war games seems comport, but even excluding wargames = worst case scenario for show argument, most new western think tank reports have similar conclusions, hence hard press for TW to adopt asymmetric doctrine = currently TW can't buy enough time. Hard to say what actual US involvement will be, but IMO nothing substantial out of Japan (or within 1st island chain), and it takes time for other forces to break into SCS in detail considering SCS bases there to hinder. > making more enemies in the world while losing former would-be friends, I would say PRC has mostly successfully dismantled US political containment plans. Wolf warrior scared ASEAN, SK, perhaps JP into neutrality outside of military theater. AU too far to be relevant except for blockade. AUKUS is basically the weakest minilateral arrangement for PRC containment versus what think tanks thought possible. EU isn't commitmented to pick sides in TW contingency. They're not even pressing further sanctions after PRC counter sanctioned EU sanctions. PRC isn't making friends, but it's eliminating committed enemies. Which is more important for PRC goals. PRC has secured more impunity to pursue security goals than USSR at height of power. Of course USN remains the massive challenge. > is in severe demographic decline, much like Russia. Demographic decline works in PRC favor for security considerations. Less people = less resource = more security = more flexibility to actually pursue security objectives. And even with depressed >10M birth rate, Navy/Air war simply don't require much personnel, there's no shortage of bodies. Also consider PRC is currently only spending 2% on military, 6% is not uncustomary in times of extreme security competition. Even a demographically declining PRC can allocate resources to support military multiple times current size. > Realistically there's no good option for China to take Taiwan, but the CCP can't admit that. Military options for taking TW is largely forgone in PLA literature from last few years. The challenge is still aftermath with US, which CCP readily admits capability gap is large. But if/when PRC accumulates sufficient capabilities to deter US or establish PRC regional hegemony, taking TW is an afterthought. Last year was first time analysis from both US and PRC side is trending towards conclusion force balance will only favor PRC with time, unless tech develops can manifestly shift balance. Realistically no amount of US + co spending and acquisitions is going to match PRC concentrating force in one region. IMO, TW is a sideshow, setting for actual Sino-US security competition. PRC has options for taking TW at anytime, some for deterring US, and very little for defeating US.

tomjen3 5y ago

>Difference, at least with regard to China/Taiwan, is timeline. Russia could likely steamroll much of Ukraine in a short period of time, and the US/NATO has few assets available for immediate response to hundreds of thousands of Russian troops. The conflict could potentially be over before any meaningful military response could be mounted outside of what Ukraine can muster (which compared to the Russians only goes so far). It takes, what, 12-20 hours to get a bunch of planes in the air - at that point the Russian soldiers will be smashed unless they can keep control of the air. You can't win a air power immediately, but if it comes to a NATO fight Poland is right next to Ukraine and has some pretty nice equipment and no love for Russia.

scottLobster 5y ago
The Russians have a bunch of planes as well, not to mention sophisticated land based air defenses already in Eastern Ukraine. Poland recently ran a bunch of military exercises simulating a Russian invasion through Belarus, and in the words of one Polish general the results were "worse than 1939" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/11/09/pola-n09.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/11/09/pola-n09.html If NATO declares war on Russia, that also immediately expands the front line from Norway, down into the Baltics, all of which would have to be defended from Russian retaliation. Doing that and fighting a full scale invasion of Ukraine would be the largest European Conflict since WWII.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  > If NATO declares war on Russia, that also immediately expands the front line from Norway, down into the Baltics, all of which would have to be defended from Russian retaliation. Doing that and fighting a full scale invasion of Ukraine would be the largest European Conflict since WWII. Well, that obviously goes both ways. Russia will also have to defend itself all the way from the north to the south.