8 ms·

China vs. Taiwan: The Geography of an Unfinished War

32 points by bryanrasmussen 5mo ago

jaspanglia 5mo ago
Geography shapes strategy more than headlines do. Taiwan isn’t just a political issue — it’s shipping lanes, semiconductor supply chains, military positioning, and global economics all concentrated in one place. That’s why the situation stays so sensitive even decades later.
nixon_why69 5mo ago
> This is why Taiwan cannot be understood only as a sovereignty dispute. It is a test of whether the Indo-Pacific remains a plural maritime system, or whether it becomes a China-centered security sphere. It was never a plural maritime system. The question is whether the oceans in question are US-dominated or Chinese-dominated.
- actionfromafar 5mo ago
  I think the unsaid part is that the US by and large upheld navigable seas for everyone up until recently but we can't expect this from China. (And regrettably from recent events, maybe not from the US either.)
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - csomar 5mo ago
    They didn’t upheld navigable seas for everyone. Sanctions are a thing. They upheld the seas for anyone that wanted to join and play by its rules.
    - nixon_why69 5mo ago
      Slightly separate issues. We didn't interdict Iranian tankers at sea until very recently, despite the sanctions. But we are doing it now, of course. That said, China has a long record of doing business with anyone and avoiding ideological conflict on all issues except for specifically Taiwan. They did business with Pinochet's Argentina in the 80s, while Argentina was throwing socialists out of helicopters and China was still fully communist. Unless you're a pure American forpol shill, there's no reason to suspect they'd restrict free passage in their area.
      - actionfromafar 5mo ago
        I expect China to do sanctions on anyone doing business with Taiwan.
        nixon_why69 5mo ago
        They've had 75 years to prove you right, and so far they haven't.
        big_youth 5mo ago
        They didn't really become a global power until recently. Even during my youth in the 2000's it was 'China is rising', 75 years ago they were extremely poor, mostly agrarian and recovering from decades of war and revolution. 2026 China is a completely different beast.
      - zbentley 5mo ago
        > China has a long record of doing business with anyone and avoiding ideological conflict on all issues except for specifically Taiwan ...and Tibet, North Korea, Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, Aksai Chin/Arunachal Pradesh, and others.
  - yogthos 5mo ago
    Why cant' we expect this from China which is the main trading partner for the vast majority of the world and relies on navigable seas exactly?
    - jlaternman 5mo ago
      Main trading partner for the vast majority of the world is not a trust signal. It is an effect of strategy. Relies on navigable seas means nothing in the context of seas becoming dominated by China. Then, they would have that, simply not in a cooperative way. We could expect China to be extremely aggressive in asserting control over waters they dominate, because that is what they have done for decades. As aggressive as they can be.
      - nixon_why69 5mo ago
        Aggressive as they can be? Can you list the wars they started over the last few decades? They have a particular thing with Taiwan and they also insist on having a clear path to Singapore, which is a reasonable ask if you look at a map. Other than that, their record for decades has been non-interventionism. They are way less aggressive than every other security council member.
        jlaternman 5mo ago
        A more accurate formulation would be their strategy for decades has been asserting commercial influence on their political opponents. Going back further, this chimes with their overall strategy. From the center, expand out. Hard when safest, but soft and covert when more effective. Always a form of aggression. South China Sea aggression lists (I didn't say anything about a list of wars with names): - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-resolution-sought-in-south-china-sea-standoff.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-res... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-sea-navy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-se... - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/15/world/asia/south-china-sea-philippines.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/15/world/asia/so... Starting conventional wars in the style of Putin isn't necessarily the sign of good will or peace you appear to accept it as. And aggression can be defined in different ways. Aggression to hold their own order inside their current territories is another aspect of this. Suppression of their own populace is an aggression that exists around the clock, and has notably expanded in Hong Kong to disgusting levels in the last few years. Threats to world powers who dare to speak up are another one, such as the one during Covid that threatened bluntly to pluck out one of the five eyes if they're not careful with their words to protect freedoms in HK. – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227 Aggression within their own ranks is also visible, such as removing major military leaders recently under suspicion of not being "all in" in terms of loyalty to the CCP's wider project (whatever that is). Chinese companies thrive in an entrepreneurial framework, then their leaders are routinely kidnapped if they speak out against the party's aims. Minority communities are sent to camps and sterilised. Tibet is under intense surveillance and constant dictates to move ancient towns somewhere else if it's in the way of say a new dam they want to build. This deeply internal and covertly outwards aggression cannot stand. It's evil incarnate. Sneaky and covered over just-enough, but visible enough to see the nature clearly.
- tim333 5mo ago
  There are quite a lot of other countries that use that bit of ocean. India, Vietnam, Japan, Australia etc. By not plural you mean China/US are more aggressive?
  - nixon_why69 5mo ago
    I mean the seas around china are dominated by the US Navy, we effectively have a ring of allied bases around them. Use of those seas is because the US allows it. I don't know why the authors said "indo-pacific" in a scare piece about China, I think the Indian Ocean would be a lot less relevant to the topic.
throw2331 5mo ago
China is gonna rip apart Taiwan unless it stops trusting America and starts believe that war is inevitable sooner or later.
puelocesar 5mo ago
That was a surprisingly good read. Brief enough that I can finish while in-between tickets, but long and deep enough that it can beautifully explain the whole crisis without oversimplifying it, and at the same time carefully presenting the two conflicting narratives. edit: although I probably wouldn't trust the source when reading about Middle East conflicts...
dclavijo 5mo ago
I found this video about the topic on internet: https://youtu.be/UWBrzzd1_yg https://youtu.be/UWBrzzd1_yg informational and entertaining
- baud147258 5mo ago
  Funny, I watched it just last Friday (randomly, as I don't follow that channel). But while its author makes a compelling point, I'm not sure sure how much of the basing of the semi-conductor industry in Taiwan was a conscious decision vs a post-facto rationalization.
  - thenthenthen 5mo ago
    This has not much to do with semi conductors (i think). China and USA have strong diplomatic relations, that seemingly have been turned upside down a couple of time, which way the coin landed this time? Not sure, but with Trumps recent visit and statements, he seem to recite the 1980’s playbook. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/06/25/intelligence-ties-endure-despite-us-china-strain/f8b2789d-0f0c-4ea7-932b-9f4267a994a3/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/06/25/i...
MSFT_Edging 5mo ago
Lets play "Spot the thinktank cretins"! jstribune.com about page: > The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune is a journal representing Israeli and American views about international affairs. Hm interesting. Lets see who runs it. Editorial Board -Ahmed Charai, Chair -- Owner of the site, on multiple thinktank boards such as the atlantic council -Jacob Heilbrunn, Co-Chair -- Another fellow of the atlantic council -Dr. Daniel Samet -- Daniel J. Samet is a Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute -Melinda Haring -- a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center -Dr. Eran Lerman -- former IDF colonel and a lecturer at Shalem College Board of Directors -Gen. James Jones -- 21st national security advisor under Obama. -Ahmed Charai -- owner of the site again -Admiral James Foggo III -- former US navy Admiral. Nice retirement spot, James Board of Advisors -Hon. Dov Zakheim, Chairman -- Various positions under Reagan -Hon. John Hamre -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hamre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hamre -Gen. Yaakov Amidror -- former major general and National Security Advisor of Israel -- got tired of the bit around here -- -Ambassador Anne W. Patterson -Ambassador Eric Edelman -Ambassador Bilahari Kausikan -Ambassador Atul Keshap -Gen. Ruth Yaron -Dan Meridor Anyway, the goal here was to point out articles like this don't come from journalistic backgrounds, but thinktank policy makers. The intention of pieces like this is to launder official government opinion as a semi-legitimate news source. Think "Radio Free Asia".
- __patchbit__ 5mo ago
  Paul Craig Roberts points to Israel and the powerful American lobby are writing new laws to be passed forbidding words and ideas, which is against the spirit and the letter of established laws and gets no or not enough journalistic attention.
- notavalleyman 5mo ago
  Sometimes an essay is just an essay, and not an elaborate conspiracy by multiple governments to trick you into thinking about geography
  - MSFT_Edging 5mo ago
    This one was just an essay, but remember when you couldn't go a day without an article about Uyghur's in Xiajiang? I'd play this game with those articles, where every article would cite a little essay like this on a similar thinktank site or the actual Zenz study. No new journalism, just rehashing reports like this. This isn't a conspiracy, it's an industry made up of ex-insiders who maintain relationships and pedal the talking points.
regularization 5mo ago
> Taiwan is not simply an island claimed by Beijing Yes, China claims Taiwan and China are the same country. Not mentioned is that US policy also says that Taiwan and China are the same country. In fact Taiwan policy is that China and Taiwan are the same country. You would think reading this that Taiwan had declared independence from China as a separate country. Also on the topic of "simply an island" - Taiwan is not just the island of Taiwan, they are on Kinmen island in the harbor of Xiamen on the mainland PRC. This would be like Manhattan receiving imperial proclamations about its "sovereignty" from China. The fact is Taiwan was Chinese long before the United States even existed, just like the Russian Navy has been in Crimea since before the US existed. The US funded and armed separatist forces - but in 1900 the US was raising its flag in Beijing's imperial city. The historical development is these imperial intrusions have been pushed back by China. Taiwan is important to China and the US is too occupied blockading Cuba, slaughtering Venezuelan and Iranian leadership, aiding the genocide of Gaza and the invasions of Syria and Lebanon etc., while its health secretary fights against vaccines.
- kirab 5mo ago
  > Taiwan policy is that China and Taiwan are the same country This is as useful as saying both South Korea and North Korea have the policy that South Korea and North Korea are the same country. Which was actually true until a few years ago.
  - yogthos 5mo ago
    And just like in the case of Taiwan, they would be the same country if not for US invasion and continued occupation of the south. That's not hyperbole by the way, the military in the south is literally under US command.
    - bulbar 5mo ago
      It's still a misleading characterization of the situation.
      - 5mo ago
stefantalpalaru 5mo ago
[dead]
thenthenthen 5mo ago
From 1989: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/06/25/intelligence-ties-endure-despite-us-china-strain/f8b2789d-0f0c-4ea7-932b-9f4267a994a3/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/06/25/i...

Geography shapes strategy more than headlines do. Taiwan isn’t just a political issue — it’s shipping lanes, semiconductor supply chains, military positioning, and global economics all concentrated in one place. That’s why the situation stays so sensitive even decades later.

nixon_why69 5mo ago

> This is why Taiwan cannot be understood only as a sovereignty dispute. It is a test of whether the Indo-Pacific remains a plural maritime system, or whether it becomes a China-centered security sphere. It was never a plural maritime system. The question is whether the oceans in question are US-dominated or Chinese-dominated.

actionfromafar 5mo ago
I think the unsaid part is that the US by and large upheld navigable seas for everyone up until recently but we can't expect this from China. (And regrettably from recent events, maybe not from the US either.)
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- csomar 5mo ago
  They didn’t upheld navigable seas for everyone. Sanctions are a thing. They upheld the seas for anyone that wanted to join and play by its rules.
  - nixon_why69 5mo ago
    Slightly separate issues. We didn't interdict Iranian tankers at sea until very recently, despite the sanctions. But we are doing it now, of course. That said, China has a long record of doing business with anyone and avoiding ideological conflict on all issues except for specifically Taiwan. They did business with Pinochet's Argentina in the 80s, while Argentina was throwing socialists out of helicopters and China was still fully communist. Unless you're a pure American forpol shill, there's no reason to suspect they'd restrict free passage in their area.
    - actionfromafar 5mo ago
      I expect China to do sanctions on anyone doing business with Taiwan.
      - nixon_why69 5mo ago
        They've had 75 years to prove you right, and so far they haven't.
        big_youth 5mo ago
        They didn't really become a global power until recently. Even during my youth in the 2000's it was 'China is rising', 75 years ago they were extremely poor, mostly agrarian and recovering from decades of war and revolution. 2026 China is a completely different beast.
    - zbentley 5mo ago
      > China has a long record of doing business with anyone and avoiding ideological conflict on all issues except for specifically Taiwan ...and Tibet, North Korea, Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, Aksai Chin/Arunachal Pradesh, and others.
- yogthos 5mo ago
  Why cant' we expect this from China which is the main trading partner for the vast majority of the world and relies on navigable seas exactly?
  - jlaternman 5mo ago
    Main trading partner for the vast majority of the world is not a trust signal. It is an effect of strategy. Relies on navigable seas means nothing in the context of seas becoming dominated by China. Then, they would have that, simply not in a cooperative way. We could expect China to be extremely aggressive in asserting control over waters they dominate, because that is what they have done for decades. As aggressive as they can be.
    - nixon_why69 5mo ago
      Aggressive as they can be? Can you list the wars they started over the last few decades? They have a particular thing with Taiwan and they also insist on having a clear path to Singapore, which is a reasonable ask if you look at a map. Other than that, their record for decades has been non-interventionism. They are way less aggressive than every other security council member.
      - jlaternman 5mo ago
        A more accurate formulation would be their strategy for decades has been asserting commercial influence on their political opponents. Going back further, this chimes with their overall strategy. From the center, expand out. Hard when safest, but soft and covert when more effective. Always a form of aggression. South China Sea aggression lists (I didn't say anything about a list of wars with names): - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-resolution-sought-in-south-china-sea-standoff.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-res... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-sea-navy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-se... - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/15/world/asia/south-china-sea-philippines.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/15/world/asia/so... Starting conventional wars in the style of Putin isn't necessarily the sign of good will or peace you appear to accept it as. And aggression can be defined in different ways. Aggression to hold their own order inside their current territories is another aspect of this. Suppression of their own populace is an aggression that exists around the clock, and has notably expanded in Hong Kong to disgusting levels in the last few years. Threats to world powers who dare to speak up are another one, such as the one during Covid that threatened bluntly to pluck out one of the five eyes if they're not careful with their words to protect freedoms in HK. – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227 Aggression within their own ranks is also visible, such as removing major military leaders recently under suspicion of not being "all in" in terms of loyalty to the CCP's wider project (whatever that is). Chinese companies thrive in an entrepreneurial framework, then their leaders are routinely kidnapped if they speak out against the party's aims. Minority communities are sent to camps and sterilised. Tibet is under intense surveillance and constant dictates to move ancient towns somewhere else if it's in the way of say a new dam they want to build. This deeply internal and covertly outwards aggression cannot stand. It's evil incarnate. Sneaky and covered over just-enough, but visible enough to see the nature clearly.
tim333 5mo ago
There are quite a lot of other countries that use that bit of ocean. India, Vietnam, Japan, Australia etc. By not plural you mean China/US are more aggressive?
- nixon_why69 5mo ago
  I mean the seas around china are dominated by the US Navy, we effectively have a ring of allied bases around them. Use of those seas is because the US allows it. I don't know why the authors said "indo-pacific" in a scare piece about China, I think the Indian Ocean would be a lot less relevant to the topic.

throw2331 5mo ago

China is gonna rip apart Taiwan unless it stops trusting America and starts believe that war is inevitable sooner or later.

puelocesar 5mo ago

That was a surprisingly good read. Brief enough that I can finish while in-between tickets, but long and deep enough that it can beautifully explain the whole crisis without oversimplifying it, and at the same time carefully presenting the two conflicting narratives. edit: although I probably wouldn't trust the source when reading about Middle East conflicts...

dclavijo 5mo ago

I found this video about the topic on internet: https://youtu.be/UWBrzzd1_yg https://youtu.be/UWBrzzd1_yg informational and entertaining

baud147258 5mo ago
Funny, I watched it just last Friday (randomly, as I don't follow that channel). But while its author makes a compelling point, I'm not sure sure how much of the basing of the semi-conductor industry in Taiwan was a conscious decision vs a post-facto rationalization.
- thenthenthen 5mo ago
  This has not much to do with semi conductors (i think). China and USA have strong diplomatic relations, that seemingly have been turned upside down a couple of time, which way the coin landed this time? Not sure, but with Trumps recent visit and statements, he seem to recite the 1980’s playbook. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/06/25/intelligence-ties-endure-despite-us-china-strain/f8b2789d-0f0c-4ea7-932b-9f4267a994a3/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/06/25/i...

MSFT_Edging 5mo ago

Lets play "Spot the thinktank cretins"! jstribune.com about page: > The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune is a journal representing Israeli and American views about international affairs. Hm interesting. Lets see who runs it. Editorial Board -Ahmed Charai, Chair -- Owner of the site, on multiple thinktank boards such as the atlantic council -Jacob Heilbrunn, Co-Chair -- Another fellow of the atlantic council -Dr. Daniel Samet -- Daniel J. Samet is a Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute -Melinda Haring -- a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center -Dr. Eran Lerman -- former IDF colonel and a lecturer at Shalem College Board of Directors -Gen. James Jones -- 21st national security advisor under Obama. -Ahmed Charai -- owner of the site again -Admiral James Foggo III -- former US navy Admiral. Nice retirement spot, James Board of Advisors -Hon. Dov Zakheim, Chairman -- Various positions under Reagan -Hon. John Hamre -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hamre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hamre -Gen. Yaakov Amidror -- former major general and National Security Advisor of Israel -- got tired of the bit around here -- -Ambassador Anne W. Patterson -Ambassador Eric Edelman -Ambassador Bilahari Kausikan -Ambassador Atul Keshap -Gen. Ruth Yaron -Dan Meridor Anyway, the goal here was to point out articles like this don't come from journalistic backgrounds, but thinktank policy makers. The intention of pieces like this is to launder official government opinion as a semi-legitimate news source. Think "Radio Free Asia".

__patchbit__ 5mo ago
Paul Craig Roberts points to Israel and the powerful American lobby are writing new laws to be passed forbidding words and ideas, which is against the spirit and the letter of established laws and gets no or not enough journalistic attention.
notavalleyman 5mo ago
Sometimes an essay is just an essay, and not an elaborate conspiracy by multiple governments to trick you into thinking about geography
- MSFT_Edging 5mo ago
  This one was just an essay, but remember when you couldn't go a day without an article about Uyghur's in Xiajiang? I'd play this game with those articles, where every article would cite a little essay like this on a similar thinktank site or the actual Zenz study. No new journalism, just rehashing reports like this. This isn't a conspiracy, it's an industry made up of ex-insiders who maintain relationships and pedal the talking points.

regularization 5mo ago

> Taiwan is not simply an island claimed by Beijing Yes, China claims Taiwan and China are the same country. Not mentioned is that US policy also says that Taiwan and China are the same country. In fact Taiwan policy is that China and Taiwan are the same country. You would think reading this that Taiwan had declared independence from China as a separate country. Also on the topic of "simply an island" - Taiwan is not just the island of Taiwan, they are on Kinmen island in the harbor of Xiamen on the mainland PRC. This would be like Manhattan receiving imperial proclamations about its "sovereignty" from China. The fact is Taiwan was Chinese long before the United States even existed, just like the Russian Navy has been in Crimea since before the US existed. The US funded and armed separatist forces - but in 1900 the US was raising its flag in Beijing's imperial city. The historical development is these imperial intrusions have been pushed back by China. Taiwan is important to China and the US is too occupied blockading Cuba, slaughtering Venezuelan and Iranian leadership, aiding the genocide of Gaza and the invasions of Syria and Lebanon etc., while its health secretary fights against vaccines.

kirab 5mo ago
> Taiwan policy is that China and Taiwan are the same country This is as useful as saying both South Korea and North Korea have the policy that South Korea and North Korea are the same country. Which was actually true until a few years ago.
- yogthos 5mo ago
  And just like in the case of Taiwan, they would be the same country if not for US invasion and continued occupation of the south. That's not hyperbole by the way, the military in the south is literally under US command.
  - bulbar 5mo ago
    It's still a misleading characterization of the situation.
    - 5mo ago

stefantalpalaru 5mo ago

[dead]

thenthenthen 5mo ago

From 1989: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/06/25/intelligence-ties-endure-despite-us-china-strain/f8b2789d-0f0c-4ea7-932b-9f4267a994a3/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/06/25/i...