13 ms·
US permanently deploys training mission in Taiwan
- givemeethekeys 3y agoI don't understand. Is Taiwan or isn't Taiwan an independent country? If it isn't, then did we just declare war on China?
- pyuser583 3y agoThe US position is deliberately ambiguous.
- givemeethekeys 3y agoPermanently stationing our best and brightest looks anything but ambiguous though.
- icegreentea2 3y agoYes, the US' ambiguity has been slipping a little bit of late, but it still compatible with their long-term held position. The US has consistently (over decades) both not recognized PRC sovereignty over Taiwan, while also not recognizing Taiwanese independence. However, US actions have also been clear. In 1996, the US sailed a carrier battle group right down the straits when things get testy. The US has been selling weapons to Taiwan for decades. The US has enacted export limitations against one country, but not another. Functionally, this action did not declare war on China. Yes, China leadership could find a way to stretch this into "war", but they also could have stretched any of the other things the US has recently done (including Biden straight up saying that the US would intervene if China invaded).
- quartesixte 3y agoYeah diplomacy isn't a series of automatic actions based on flow-control or checklists. Just because you crossed some lines doesn't mean the other party will respond exactly how they will. That being said, credibility is important when making threats. And letting your lines in the proverbial sand get crossed, moved, erased, redrawn, etc. endlessly can make for some ... interesting geopolitical situations.
- sandspar 3y ago[flagged]
- wolverine876 3y agoIt's a very small force, no threat to China's military.
- whythre 3y agoThe troops stationed there are not meant to hold off a mainland invasion by themselves. The presence of US troops means that if China attacks, the USA is going to suffer military casualties, so there is almost certainly going to be war between the CCP and the US. Without US troop presence, things are more ambiguous.
- The_Colonel 3y agoIt's called "Tripwire force". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force
- wolverine876 3y agoThese are trainers (if that article is correct - I have no idea of their credibility), not a tripwire force.
- whythre 3y agoThe two are not mutually exclusive. If China invades and kills US soldiers in the process, training team or no, that’s still gonna be casus belli for the US.
- wolverine876 3y agoI don't think so. Iranian proxies and others have killed US soldiers recently without starting a war.
- pyuser583 3y agoThe US had a training team in Georgia when Russia invaded. The trainers turned themselves over to the Russians, and were interred (at the Ritz) as neutral soldiers. A training team can be a tripwire, or not. Again, ambiguity.
- noxs 3y agoTaiwan is not, but China is. Which China is ambiguous.
- Vecr 3y agoThe Republic of China is in control of the island formally known as Formosa. Taipei is a city on Formosa also under Republic of China control. Internationally, representatives of Taipei and the surrounding area are sometimes said to be representing "Chinese Taipei", because Taipei is on Formosa and Formosa is Chinese. There is only one China, and China is the rightful owner of Formosa, and one of its cities, Taipei.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoThere are also plenty of Taiwanese that don’t think Taiwan belongs to either the PRC or ROC. The DPP, who are in power right now, is much closer to that opinion. Obviously the CPC dislikes the DPP (compared to the KMT, who at least believe Taiwan is a part of a china), but whenever the CPC speaks out against the DPP, the CPC only helps the DPP win elections.
- math_dandy 3y agoWhen’s the Formosan independence referendum?
- Vecr 3y agoIndependent of China or China?
- throwaway2990 3y agoTaiwan is a country regardless of UN status or opinion. China just uses its weight to bully countries into submission on declaring their view on Taiwan.
- bfung 3y agoIf you ask people in Taiwan, they will say they’re independent. If you ask China, they’ll say Taiwan belongs to China. The short history version is basically like this: after the overthrowing of the last emperor and WW2, the Chinese civil war continued between the KMT political party and the Communist party. KMT basically lost and moved to which is Taiwan today and even the KMT now is no longer the controlling majority now (they have elections whereas mainland China does not).
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago[flagged]
- jack1243star 3y agoI guess it's not as easy to do polls in an authoritarian country.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago[flagged]
- samus 3y agoNone of these criteria qualify. Try again.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago[flagged]
- samus 3y agoThat's a better argument :) I'd also like to add that prisoners in the USA lose their voting rights. However, the argument was initially about Taiwan, not about the USA.
- 3y ago
- palmfacehn 3y agoI agree that the situation doesn't make sense at first glance. The contradictions are glaring. The US has both supported the one-China policy and supported Taiwanese independence. Even with these simple statements, someone here will probably find fault and offer a correction. This isn't something that can be understood outside of the "ends-justify-the-means", "but my pragmatism" and other sausage making slogans of the foreign policy establishment. We'd have to go through all of the historical machinations before we'd even begin to have a context. You're not wrong for looking for some semblance of logical consistency. If you prefer analysis from first principles, that's fine, I'd even agree with that perspective in many ways, but you'll have difficulty evaluating the status quo of geopolitics. Maybe a long way of saying that it doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to make sense under scrutiny, it probably never will make sense and the expectation is for knights-errant.
- temporalparts 3y agoGoing by the contrapositive: Since China doesn't perceive this as a declaration of war, then I guess by your binary logic Taiwan's an independent country.
- lmm 3y ago"Country" is an abstract concept and this is one of the cases where the abstraction breaks down. The map is not the territory etc.. Taiwan is a sovereign nation in most respects, at least to the extent that any non-superpower is. China insists stringently on the legal fiction that it is a part of China controlled by a different faction in a frozen-but-ongoing civil war, and other countries - not least Taiwan itself - go along with that legal fiction under the implicit or explicit threat of Chinese force; a threat that is less effective against the US than against many other countries. Is this an act of war by the US against the PRC? Eh, maybe, if you accept the PRC's territorial claims. A lot of technically-acts-of-war happen, especially in situations like this. Again this is a case where the abstraction breaks down and the realpolitik becomes paramount.
- sandspar 3y ago[flagged]
- hehhehaha 3y agoAll foreign relations are an expression of power. Taiwan is a country if enough powerful nations say so and are willing to defend the idea. Mainland China is part of the Republic of China if Taiwan has the military might. The one china policy holds as long as the KMT and PRC are in power. Etc etc etc.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 29athrowaway 3y agoIt depends who you ask. In practice, it is an independent country. But the People's Republic of China (PRC) has a "one China" policy where they claim Taiwan as theirs. PRC spends a large deal of their diplomatic efforts trying to enforce their policy.
- darthrupert 3y agoRepublic of China is an independent country, but for now its territory is limited to just the island of Taiwan instead of its legitimate territory of mainland China.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoIt's independent, but for historical reasons we have to pretend that it kind of isn't. But it is, obviously. Anyone who's not a moron can see that.
- sandspar 3y ago[flagged]
- waterheater 3y agoOther folks have highlighted the basics, so here's an analogous situation to think about: imagine that the US civil war saw the CSA taking over the territory of the USA, with the US federal government moving to a large hypothetical island off the East Coast. The CSA never completely eliminated all constituent US elements, so the USA still technically exists. Fast forward to sixty years after the fighting just stopped one day. How would you view those two political entities? Are they equal? Does the existence of the CSA mean the USA doesn't exist as a country? What if the CSA implements trade policies which dissuade you from recognizing the USA as an independent nation? Does the USA still exist in your eyes? Is the USA or the CSA the "true" country? The answer at this point in time is quite simple: the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) is clearly an independent country. However, the People's Republic of China (aka China) holds such economic power, they bully the rest of the world (though trade policies, etc.) into not recognizing Taiwan as an independent country. Also, the combination of geography and maritime law means that if Taiwan is an independent country, China has very little direct access to the open seas. They want freedom of navigation, so there's a geopolitical angle as well. Look into the construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea to advance the Nine Dashed Line policy. You also need to remember that Chinese civilization is extremely old. The PRC claims to hold something called the Mandate of Heaven, which is a fairly important concept in Chinese history, as it is divine authority to rule over the Chinese people. Frankly, based on how the PRC acts, the RC clearly holds the Mandate of Heaven these days.
- samus 3y agoChina would have open access to the oceans even without controlling Taiwan. The same rules that deny China territorial rights to the South China Sea also grant it access to the oceans. The Nine Dash line is about territory. China wants the South China Sea to be considered its territorial waters where it can make stronger demands about who passes through and what they could do there. It's not the only country trying to do something like that, but international law generally only recognizes the sea up to 12 miles out to be territorial waters. The Mandate of Heaven is rather more like a justification of de-facto rule and claiming to have lost it is an argument against a failing dynasty. The dynasty managing to unite China would declare it, and as it eventually collapses, rebels would declare it to be forfeit. There would be messy civil war, one of the warring groups would dominate all the others, and the cycle starts anew.
- tehjoker 3y agoYep, that's how China will interpret it. It won't become hot, but it's such an aggressive move, and "trainers" rarely only do training, that it will ratchet up tensions.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoThey are there as a deadman’s switch, so if China invades Taiwan, America will have to get involved. They had the same play on the Korean border for a few decades. You are correct it isn’t just training, but to ensure the American people are committed because American troops would have been killed in the PLA’s initial missile volley.
- tehjoker 3y agoThat's an escalation. It also violates the sovereignty of China, which America recognizes officially under the "one china policy".
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoThat’s international politics. Yes, mainland Chinese will be face hurt, but face hurt is not against Geneva convention. The Taiwan situation has been escalating for awhile now that almost everyone expects an invasion before Xi’s lifetime term ends.
- AdamH12113 3y agoPractically? Yes, it’s an independent country and has been for many decades. They have their own government, military, currency, etc. Diplomatically? No, most countries officially recognize it as part of the PRC. Why the inconsistency? If you recognize Taiwan’s independence, the PRC won’t talk to you. If Taiwan declares independence, the PRC will invade (or at least has threatened to). Pretending that Taiwan is part of China while also making it very clear that we will defend Taiwan from China bit silly, but being silly is better than having a great power war.
- iforgotpassword 3y agoWell said. Make it look not worth it to China but at the same time play by their rules. Both sides know this is one of the biggest games of bullshit going on. The two risk factors now are China's economy tanking and Xi being a lifetime dictator. If the population suffers, having an external crisis at hand where you can easily paint the other side as the bad guy is an excellent distraction, and for the other point, absolute power corrupts absolutely. A we've seen with Putin, as you near the end of your life the less you care about the fallout of your actions, but at the same time your desire to leave a mark grows...
- za3faran 3y agoThe question is, how many countries is the US going to "defend" before things collapse? This does not seem like a sustainable situation.
- AdamH12113 3y agoThe US has been supporting Taiwan's de facto independence since the 1950s. I'm not sure what's supposed to be unsustainable about that, or what "things" are supposed to "collapse".
- sandspar 3y ago[flagged]
- juanani 3y ago[dead]
- echelon 3y ago[flagged]
- verticalscaler 3y agoHow many fighter jets does Russia have left? Have many well trained Ukrainian pilots are there now - mind you per which aircraft - and how many planes? Macron made one vague statement. How many French troops, where, doing what? Russia says... a lot of things. The US has been arming Taiwan for a long time. These are a few green berets on a training mission, not particularly new. WWIII might be in the cards. <- Congrats, the media got its clicks.
- nbzso 3y ago[flagged]
- palmfacehn 3y agoHas anyone else noticed that apocalypse is constantly around the corner? Regardless of the echo chamber, I can almost always find a doom-monger whispering the sweet sounds of imminent world ending disaster. Climate change? Imminent tyranny? New pandemic? Economic or currency collapse? WWIII? Aliens? AI? The list goes on until I'm totally desensitized and burnt out.
- viraptor 3y agoThat's doom mongering by definition. And you're only listing the current popular ones. What about electricity? Phones? Radio? GMO? Fluoride? etc. Yeah, there always were and always will be people saying the end is nigh.
- decremental 3y ago[dead]
- TulliusCicero 3y agoWould be nice if we could just recognize Taiwan as an independent country. I realize there are good reasons not to do so right now -- RoC itself still says on paper they own all of China, and the West is still too dependent on Chinese manufacturing -- but it would be good to move towards recognizing reality.
- samus 3y agoThe RoC releasing its claim on the rest of China would be a de-facto declaration of independence as well since it wound cease to be the rump state of the country founded in 1912 and become something else.
- sfmike 3y agodo they still claim this? is this official? or old KMT rhetoric
- throwaway2990 3y agoIt’s written into their Constitution. Taiwan doesn’t care for China at all. Just wants to be left alone to live and continue to prosper.
- sandspar 3y ago[flagged]
- throwaway2990 3y agoWhich is why they voted for the party that doesn’t want to merge with China. They saw what happened with Hong Kong. They don’t want that to happen to them.
- samus 3y agoThe constitution says so. However, it was amended in the early 90ties to acknowledge that the scope of the ROC government is presently limited to Taiwan and the outlying islands.
- slim 3y ago[flagged]
- OfficeChad 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rdtsc 3y agoI get the impression that somehow China had started fearing US and NATO a bit less in the last few years. While the war is going on Ukraine, I think this might be the golden opportunity for China to step up and try to take Taiwan. I think the US and Taiwan understand this perception as well, so that's why the permanent "training mission". At the same time, there is a danger Putin will try to call NATO's bluff and start something with one of the East European members: attack one of the Baltic states or Poland and see how willing US and West European countries will to be take a step closer to WWIII. If NATO hesitates just a moment, it would be its effective end, the alliance won't be worth the paper it was signed on.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoIf a Russia attacked a NATO country the USA and NATO allies would strike back the same afternoon.
- rdtsc 3y agoI am not sure about that. They could start firing a few drones at some border villages. I bet NATO will pretend to look the other way or say it was just a mistake. There is increased fatigue about the war, and the initial sympathy is turning to apathy in the West. I don’t see France and Germany being prepared to send their soldiers to fight Russians over a Lithuanian or Polish village. I’d like to believe they would, but I don’t see it realistically.
- gls2ro 3y agoThe moment NATO does not respond there is no NATO. And the moment there is no NATO world western peace is done. I am not saying something will immediately happen but an arming race in western world couple with distrusting your neighbors: we kinda saw that multiple times in the history.
- rdtsc 3y agoI agree, and I think currently, even though emotionally NATO is "stronger" and more "united", after the war has been going on for a while, there is paradoxically a lot less appetite do anything. So the chance that it would respond is lower and so the chance for world western peace is lower as well. The scarier thing is I think Russia and China can smell that as well and may act on it. Obviously if Russia launches a nuke, NATO would respond. But what if it sends one drone to blow up a rail yard or sends a sabotage team to blow a power substation? What if it hacks and manages to paralyze all banking all communication in some East European NATO member country. Notice it wouldn't even need to accomplish any military objective, it just needs to show that NATO is bluffing.
- OfficeChad 3y ago[dead]
- Log_out_ 3y agoSo until elections? Sorry, but to be a US ally, what is that exactly good for?
- matthewfelgate 3y agoNo being invaded by Russia or China mostly.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago[flagged]
- somedude895 3y agoIf the secessionists in Texas gained a majority as strong the Anti-CCP sentiment is in Taiwan, the feds brutally repressed it, and then Texans asked a foreign power for help, then you can start making that argument. It's a silly comparison.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago[flagged]
- The_Colonel 3y agoChina did repress Hong Kong, in contrast to their promise to keep its own system for 50 years. Taiwan does not want to end just like Hong Kong. It was just so stupid own goal, China could have shown Taiwan how a peaceful reunification could look like without having much of an effect on Taiwan but Xi just couldn't hold his authoritarian urges.
- derelicta 3y agoUS on its way to balkanise an another chunk of the world.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoNot sure USA is the problem here.
- derelicta 3y agoPlease remember that the US is responsible for the fragmentation of Korea, Vietnam and Yugoslavia. It's only fair to suspect americans also want the end of proletarian rule in the PRC through military interventions and the support of anti-democratic movements.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoThe USA helped South Korea become a free liberal democracy. Much better living standards than North Korea. Yugoslavia broke up because of ethnic fighting, not an US invasion. Most former Yugoslavian countries are now heading towards, or members of the EU. Yes the USA is in favour of democracy, liberalism and free-trade. That's something to be proud of not ashamed of.
- derelicta 3y ago> The USA helped South Korea become a free liberal democracy. Much better living standards than North Korea. Ahah yes the "free" korea where you are "allowed" to work up to 21 hours per day. Also I wonder what (or who?) keeps the north poor. Probably nothing to do with US sanctions, right guys? > Yugoslavia broke up because of ethnic fighting, not an US invasion. > Yes the USA is in favour of democracy, liberalism and free-trade. And who supported ethnonationalists in Yugoslavia? Totally not uncle Sam again, it's not like he was known for providing fundings to right wing para military groups by selling cracks in America cities. Really a shining beacon of Freedom those USA, a city upon a hill.
- ein0p 3y ago[flagged]
- mateo1 3y agoHey, now that we proved that permanent attrition wars are a "viable" option that won't kick in a full scale war, we can start more! Think of all the profits! In fact under the threat of a full blown nuclear war, we can bring back full scale conventional armed conflict on the table, like the good old times.
- ein0p 3y agoMethinks several parties can play this game and military interventions are about to become extremely difficult and bloody for the US worldwide. Think Vietnam but with far deadlier weapons, and this time not from one country, but from 3-4, about 1.7 billion people in total. They either aren’t thinking this through or don’t believe the US will last much longer.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yread 3y agoGood. There would have been no war in Ukraine if there were a few "permanent training missions" in Ukraine in 2021
- vasac 3y agoIt would, only it would start earlier.
- The_Colonel 3y agoThere was a window of opportunity in the 90s and 00s when Russia was weak. All the other post-Soviet/Warsaw pact countries like Baltics were not invaded despite having Russian minorities. But Ukraine was not "ready" back then.
- rightbyte 3y agoThere were such training there before 2022 ...
- whatindaheck 3y agoThe US has been in war my entire life. I'm over this crap. Feels so dystopian to me. War is peace.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoThere are lots of problems in the world. They wouldn't go away if the USA did nothing. They would get worse in most cases.
- piva00 3y agoWe can't know though, since there are no "ifs" in history to try out the hypothesis. I do believe the USA has maintained a tense pseudostability in the post-WW2 world, at the same time it's the USA who destabilised a lot of Latin America through covert operations, who has spread its economical and social ideology around the world for its own benefits (and detrimental to a lot of countries being shackled to US's economic policies), and who has fostered an unstable Middle East after the French and Brits created the whole mess. America's thirst for oil has its own set of extreme damage to the world, including the climate. Problems would be different, probably some of it could be much worse but there are a lot of countries in the world who got shackled by America's interests and haven't had true sovereignty for decades (e.g.: look at Latin America as a whole). Nonetheless, the world would be very different, we can't know how much better or worse in some areas. So it is what it is, we won't ever know what we could be without USA's imperialism.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoThe USA hasn't been involved in South American politics since the 60s/70s. The political problems there now are all of their own making. The Middle East is an unstable place. Not due to the USA. Countries that have become liberal free market democracies have benefitted tremendously in living standards. I wouldn't describe Sweden, Singapore or Poland "shackled" to the USA. We can absolutely see the positive impact on the USA around the world: - North Korea (not US aligned) vs South Korea. - Ukraine (invaded by Russia) vs Baltic countries. - Venezuela (Socialist) Vs Chile (a liberal democracy). Lots of idiots have this juvenile "blame everything on the USA" mentality. I suppose because it's easier than doing any critical thinking.
- euroderf 3y agoUS troops on Kinmen (alias Quemoy) ? That is interesting. Maybe US frogmen can join Taiwanese frogmen in going ashore on the mainland and going to the movies. At least that's what Taiwanese frogmen were doing some decades ago.
- throwaway2990 3y agoSome decades ago China wasn’t throwing a hissy fit any time someone said “Taiwan”. All of todays issues with Taiwan stem from Xi Pooh.