The Chinese have 5,000 years of caring mostly about one thing - good fortune. It's sheer ignorance to believe they'd behave differently, let alone risk a war with America the unpredictable.
It's almost as if America is psychologically projecting its own mindset and tendencies onto the Chinese and then being very fearful of the mirror reflection. In reality though, Chinese culture is totally different from American culture.
With China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea and its enormous military buildup, it’s not a stretch to believe that they have an ultimate goal of something other than world peace.
- Economic: critical global trade route, 80% of energy imports go through it
- Military: only ocean off China's coast deep enough to hide its nuclear submarines, which means Beijing must constantly monitor it like a hawk to ensure its sea-based nuclear deterrent capability is never neutralized
By comparison, America is lucky with its geography, with deep oceans on three sides: Pacific, Atlantic, Gulf of America.
There's also no question that the proverbial Sword of Damocles they're hanging over Taipei will only get sharper and heavier over time.
"So, the possibility of invasion, the military drills, the missile tests, and the probing of Taiwan's Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) are less about an imminent D-Day and more about maintaining a proverbial Sword of Damocles over Taipei.
Beijing will undoubtedly continue to sharpen this sword to motivate a greater willingness for Taipei to come to the negotiating table. But Beijing is also acutely aware that if that sword were to actually fall, the consequences for the PRC itself could be catastrophic."
I’m not sure that applies here. The best way to prevent a war is to be strong. A weak U.S. invites adventurism. And while the American defense budget is grossly high, it’s a bargain when compared to the multi trillion-dollar cost of a shooting war.
It's hard to separate which aspects of the US defense budget are truly effective and which aspects are pork barrel spending / jobs program where the defense contractor puts a few jobs in every congressional district so that no one votes against it.
Gary: It’s might be true that China has made ‘aggressive moves’ in the South China Sea, but only if you believe in the ‘logic’ that has China ‘threatening’ US bases that surround it, in a region 6,000 miles from the western seaboard of the USA. That reality does kinda make ‘China bad’ rhetoric sound a bit silly, no?.
During my stay in China, I seldom hear anything negative from the Chinese people about Taiwan. Most of them profess an admiration and positivity that I at first found surprising. Even the provocations of the DPP is mostly viewed with annoyance than any passion or hatred. Now, it possible my circles are just not wide enough to be representative of the broader Chinese views and feelings about Taiwan. To this day they refer to Taiwanese as 同胞 — “Tong Bao” — roughly translated as “my kind, or someone with common filial ancestry. Neither side has a strong desire or historical baggage of hatred to destroy each other.
Don't worry about whether or not your experiences are "truly representative" of the public's views. As shown by the repeated failure of US election pollsters to accurately track the views of the American people, this is an impossible task.
What the world needs more of are fluent English speakers who understand China to share their perspectives and experiences and educate the rest of the world.
China's happy with the equilibrium but the US has been trying to goad it into war for years. Arming Taiwan to the teeth, interfering in elections despite acknowledging its One China status, US empire games endanger the whole world.
Dino: Do try and free your mind from western narrative management. Methinks you have marinated too long already. I’m 67, lived in The Empire all my life, and have been trying to do just that for 20+ years. I’m pretty much there now: it can be done! ✊
How can China ‘invade’ itself? Could the USA invade Texas? Lazy framing, which I guess is a reflection of wider western fraudulent narratives. I used to believe up till a few years ago, that Taiwan was a country….. it’s not.
I’m sure that powerful & influential elements within the US MIC/Permanent State have desperately tried, and are still trying very hard to turn Taiwan into Ukraine 2.0. Fortunately the Chinese people both sides of the strait are far to clever to let that happen. Obviously there are the usual Empire curated local compradors operating in Taiwan (like the present ‘Government’), but given the stakes, I don’t see the standard western ‘colour revolution’ playbook working here. On a fundamental strategic level, the US Empire has left it way too late….. they are now to weak, and China has just become way too powerful. I see virtually no scenario in which China would find itself needing to ‘invade’ its own province of Taiwan. The Chinese think long term (unlike the cretinous west), and to them, though it may take another 50 years to bring Taiwan peacefully back into the bosom of the motherland, that is merely a blink of the eye.
Speaking of elements of the US military industrial complex desperately trying very hard to turn Taiwan into Ukraine 2.0, they are alive and well on Substack: https://substack.com/@inverteum/note/c-158307345
Well, it's complicated. The important part is that Taiwan does basically have full autonomy to run its own internal governance and will continue to for a long time.
Great article! I only found it now. Those “touching” paragraphs from Noah Smith caught my attention too and I thought about writing a response but never has the time and energy. After reading yours, I probably will never!
If I ever get to write, there are just a few things I will emphasise more. Your argument leans heavily on the economic, although they are true, I doubt people who already buy into Noah Smith kind of narrative will agree. If I were to write a follow up piece, I would try to explain how the necessity to reunify and the necessity to reunify peacefully, in the sense of “peace through strength” are equally important tasks for Beijing and Xi, and I will seriously question the urgency to reunify in Xi’s lifetime that so many commentators are arguing (in short, it’s definitely his preferred objective, but not something he will burn the world for)
1) "Your argument leans heavily on the economic, although they are true, I doubt people who already buy into Noah Smith kind of narrative will agree."
It's futile to try to convince someone whose mind is already made up and is wholly unreceptive to evidence that contradicts their existing point of view, but publishing this post has made it clear that for a lot of people around the world, their minds are NOT made up. They're willing to hear out well-reasoned arguments that differ from the mainstream media, and that's who this article is for.
2) "If I were to write a follow up piece, I would try to explain how the necessity to reunify and the necessity to reunify peacefully, in the sense of “peace through strength” are equally important tasks for Beijing and Xi"
This is worth writing, and as editor-in-chief of Baiguan and China Translated, you would be the right person to write it.
3) "I will seriously question the urgency to reunify in Xi’s lifetime that so many commentators are arguing"
For Beijing and Xi, it seems like any sort of progress that brings the two sides closer is worth celebrating, whether trade agreements or the 2015 meeting between the leaders on both sides. President Xi has met with Ma Ying-jeou multiple times, and he would probably be happy to meet with current leaders from the TPP and KMT.
The main obstacle here is on the Taiwan side. Politicians are afraid to appear chummy with Beijing, as they will be attacked by the pan-green media in Taiwan (so they usually communicate with CCP officials behind closed doors).
These politicians need to communicate to voters that their purpose in keeping communication open is to avoid misunderstandings, ensure peace, and guarantee that Taiwan's current system and autonomy continue as it is. They then need to turn around and attack the DPP's anti-China stance and provocative actions and rhetoric, which unnecessarily inflames cross-strait tensions and endangers Taiwan.
There does not seem to be a credible pan-blue politician in Taiwanese politics today who can both win votes and present themselves as a strong negotiator for Taiwan's interests. The closest is Ko Wen-je, which is probably why President Lai has prosecuted him.
I can only speculate that the people if Taiwan get used to a certian level of risk, you can't indefinetly live like you are about to be invaded for decades on end.
I do believe China will use military action as a last resort. The west won't be willing to really confront them either so when it happens it may be quick and hopefully with minimul death and destruction. I hope the best for the people if Taiwan.
You're right that the Taiwanese do not want to have an antagonistic relationship with Mainland China.
Once Taiwan's president switches to a different political party, there will likely be official government-to-government relations between Beijing and Taipei, just like there was under President Ma Ying-jeou (2008-16). That will fully eliminate the risk.
In his book The 48 Laws of Power, for Law 48: Assume Formlessness, Robert Greene states that Western military strategy has been influenced most by chess while Chinese military strategy has been influenced most by go (圍棋 - weiqi).
"Chess is linear, position oriented, and aggressive; go is nonlinear and fluid. Aggression is indirect until the end of the game, when the winner can surround the opponent’s stones at an accelerated pace."
Go is played on a much larger grid than chess, with 6x as many positions as in chess. Go's "strategy is more subtle and fluid than chess, developing slowly; the more complex the pattern your stones initially create on the board, the harder it is for your opponent to understand your strategy."
"A key weiqi concept, for example, is to use the size of the board to your advantage, spreading out in every direction so that your opponent cannot fathom your movements in a simple linear way."
The chess players in the global geopolitical game (West) naturally assume the go players (China) share their aggressive, impulsive style, but the latter is actually playing a totally different, much longer term game.
Case in point as far as the contrasting approaches inspired by chess (West) vs. go (China):
Let’s compare the cost of the primary foreign policy initiatives of the US and China over the past 20 years.
- US wars in the Middle East after 9/11: $8 trillion
- China’s Belt and Road Initiative: $1 trillion
Forget bang for the buck; in absolute terms, the BRI has created far more goodwill and fostered far more cooperation with Beijing around the world than wars in the Middle East have for Washington.
This is the difference between a long term strategy influenced by go and a short term strategy influenced by chess.
The Chinese have 5,000 years of caring mostly about one thing - good fortune. It's sheer ignorance to believe they'd behave differently, let alone risk a war with America the unpredictable.
It's almost as if America is psychologically projecting its own mindset and tendencies onto the Chinese and then being very fearful of the mirror reflection. In reality though, Chinese culture is totally different from American culture.
With China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea and its enormous military buildup, it’s not a stretch to believe that they have an ultimate goal of something other than world peace.
The South China Sea is literally a separate post.
China primarily needs the SCS on two dimensions:
- Economic: critical global trade route, 80% of energy imports go through it
- Military: only ocean off China's coast deep enough to hide its nuclear submarines, which means Beijing must constantly monitor it like a hawk to ensure its sea-based nuclear deterrent capability is never neutralized
By comparison, America is lucky with its geography, with deep oceans on three sides: Pacific, Atlantic, Gulf of America.
There's also no question that the proverbial Sword of Damocles they're hanging over Taipei will only get sharper and heavier over time.
"So, the possibility of invasion, the military drills, the missile tests, and the probing of Taiwan's Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) are less about an imminent D-Day and more about maintaining a proverbial Sword of Damocles over Taipei.
Beijing will undoubtedly continue to sharpen this sword to motivate a greater willingness for Taipei to come to the negotiating table. But Beijing is also acutely aware that if that sword were to actually fall, the consequences for the PRC itself could be catastrophic."
I shared the same viewpoint from a militaristic perspective: https://kainesianmacro.substack.com/p/how-china-will-struggle-to-invade
Interesting read. You're right that "for all its saber-rattling, perhaps China has no true plans to attack at all."
An excellent article... sound and basic common sense that nevertheless will not be accepted by western media and government.
"You can’t convince a man when his salary depends on him not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
The US military industrial complex has a strong incentive to promote absurd claims of a potential invasion.
Agree... I've noted that in all the hoopla about US budget cuts, the military/war budget hasn't been mentioned at all.
I’m not sure that applies here. The best way to prevent a war is to be strong. A weak U.S. invites adventurism. And while the American defense budget is grossly high, it’s a bargain when compared to the multi trillion-dollar cost of a shooting war.
It's hard to separate which aspects of the US defense budget are truly effective and which aspects are pork barrel spending / jobs program where the defense contractor puts a few jobs in every congressional district so that no one votes against it.
As far as deterrence, "a majority (66%) of Taiwanese are unwilling to pay higher taxes to strengthen the island's military."
It's not fair to ask American taxpayers to foot the bill when Taiwan's taxpayers are not willing to pay more for their own defense.
Obvious to anyone with a brain. Meaning nobody in the US.
Yes. Unfortunately, ignorance about international relations is common in the US.
Example: US Senator can't tell the difference between China and Singapore: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sAkInjju3ww
Gary: It’s might be true that China has made ‘aggressive moves’ in the South China Sea, but only if you believe in the ‘logic’ that has China ‘threatening’ US bases that surround it, in a region 6,000 miles from the western seaboard of the USA. That reality does kinda make ‘China bad’ rhetoric sound a bit silly, no?.
During my stay in China, I seldom hear anything negative from the Chinese people about Taiwan. Most of them profess an admiration and positivity that I at first found surprising. Even the provocations of the DPP is mostly viewed with annoyance than any passion or hatred. Now, it possible my circles are just not wide enough to be representative of the broader Chinese views and feelings about Taiwan. To this day they refer to Taiwanese as 同胞 — “Tong Bao” — roughly translated as “my kind, or someone with common filial ancestry. Neither side has a strong desire or historical baggage of hatred to destroy each other.
💯 You're precisely right.
Don't worry about whether or not your experiences are "truly representative" of the public's views. As shown by the repeated failure of US election pollsters to accurately track the views of the American people, this is an impossible task.
What the world needs more of are fluent English speakers who understand China to share their perspectives and experiences and educate the rest of the world.
China's happy with the equilibrium but the US has been trying to goad it into war for years. Arming Taiwan to the teeth, interfering in elections despite acknowledging its One China status, US empire games endanger the whole world.
Luckily, China is well aware that any war would be self-destructive and will refuse to play into America's hands.
Great article. I agree. I’ve always had the though that if Xi wanted to invade Taiwan, he would’ve already. But he knows the cost.
💯
Hey man. Really great work. Would you be interested in guest posting on my newsletter. I think more people need to see stuff like this
Agreed. Cross posting has been enabled, so you may go ahead and do so: https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/10522003894932-How-can-I-share-another-publication-s-post-with-my-subscribers
China’s ‘demographic catastrophe’? A solution?…… stop reading Peter Zeihan. 😂
This comment was left in response to Gary: https://blog.inverteum.com/p/china-wont-invade-taiwan/comment/134783271
Dino: Do try and free your mind from western narrative management. Methinks you have marinated too long already. I’m 67, lived in The Empire all my life, and have been trying to do just that for 20+ years. I’m pretty much there now: it can be done! ✊
How can China ‘invade’ itself? Could the USA invade Texas? Lazy framing, which I guess is a reflection of wider western fraudulent narratives. I used to believe up till a few years ago, that Taiwan was a country….. it’s not.
I’m sure that powerful & influential elements within the US MIC/Permanent State have desperately tried, and are still trying very hard to turn Taiwan into Ukraine 2.0. Fortunately the Chinese people both sides of the strait are far to clever to let that happen. Obviously there are the usual Empire curated local compradors operating in Taiwan (like the present ‘Government’), but given the stakes, I don’t see the standard western ‘colour revolution’ playbook working here. On a fundamental strategic level, the US Empire has left it way too late….. they are now to weak, and China has just become way too powerful. I see virtually no scenario in which China would find itself needing to ‘invade’ its own province of Taiwan. The Chinese think long term (unlike the cretinous west), and to them, though it may take another 50 years to bring Taiwan peacefully back into the bosom of the motherland, that is merely a blink of the eye.
Speaking of elements of the US military industrial complex desperately trying very hard to turn Taiwan into Ukraine 2.0, they are alive and well on Substack: https://substack.com/@inverteum/note/c-158307345
💯 Phenomenally written
Well, it's complicated. The important part is that Taiwan does basically have full autonomy to run its own internal governance and will continue to for a long time.
Great article! I only found it now. Those “touching” paragraphs from Noah Smith caught my attention too and I thought about writing a response but never has the time and energy. After reading yours, I probably will never!
If I ever get to write, there are just a few things I will emphasise more. Your argument leans heavily on the economic, although they are true, I doubt people who already buy into Noah Smith kind of narrative will agree. If I were to write a follow up piece, I would try to explain how the necessity to reunify and the necessity to reunify peacefully, in the sense of “peace through strength” are equally important tasks for Beijing and Xi, and I will seriously question the urgency to reunify in Xi’s lifetime that so many commentators are arguing (in short, it’s definitely his preferred objective, but not something he will burn the world for)
Thank you, Robert!
1) "Your argument leans heavily on the economic, although they are true, I doubt people who already buy into Noah Smith kind of narrative will agree."
It's futile to try to convince someone whose mind is already made up and is wholly unreceptive to evidence that contradicts their existing point of view, but publishing this post has made it clear that for a lot of people around the world, their minds are NOT made up. They're willing to hear out well-reasoned arguments that differ from the mainstream media, and that's who this article is for.
2) "If I were to write a follow up piece, I would try to explain how the necessity to reunify and the necessity to reunify peacefully, in the sense of “peace through strength” are equally important tasks for Beijing and Xi"
This is worth writing, and as editor-in-chief of Baiguan and China Translated, you would be the right person to write it.
3) "I will seriously question the urgency to reunify in Xi’s lifetime that so many commentators are arguing"
For Beijing and Xi, it seems like any sort of progress that brings the two sides closer is worth celebrating, whether trade agreements or the 2015 meeting between the leaders on both sides. President Xi has met with Ma Ying-jeou multiple times, and he would probably be happy to meet with current leaders from the TPP and KMT.
The main obstacle here is on the Taiwan side. Politicians are afraid to appear chummy with Beijing, as they will be attacked by the pan-green media in Taiwan (so they usually communicate with CCP officials behind closed doors).
These politicians need to communicate to voters that their purpose in keeping communication open is to avoid misunderstandings, ensure peace, and guarantee that Taiwan's current system and autonomy continue as it is. They then need to turn around and attack the DPP's anti-China stance and provocative actions and rhetoric, which unnecessarily inflames cross-strait tensions and endangers Taiwan.
There does not seem to be a credible pan-blue politician in Taiwanese politics today who can both win votes and present themselves as a strong negotiator for Taiwan's interests. The closest is Ko Wen-je, which is probably why President Lai has prosecuted him.
I can only speculate that the people if Taiwan get used to a certian level of risk, you can't indefinetly live like you are about to be invaded for decades on end.
I do believe China will use military action as a last resort. The west won't be willing to really confront them either so when it happens it may be quick and hopefully with minimul death and destruction. I hope the best for the people if Taiwan.
You're right that the Taiwanese do not want to have an antagonistic relationship with Mainland China.
Once Taiwan's president switches to a different political party, there will likely be official government-to-government relations between Beijing and Taipei, just like there was under President Ma Ying-jeou (2008-16). That will fully eliminate the risk.
There's a proverb in weiqi (what the English speaking world calls *go*, from Japanese), "盘角曲四，劫尽棋亡".
In his book The 48 Laws of Power, for Law 48: Assume Formlessness, Robert Greene states that Western military strategy has been influenced most by chess while Chinese military strategy has been influenced most by go (圍棋 - weiqi).
"Chess is linear, position oriented, and aggressive; go is nonlinear and fluid. Aggression is indirect until the end of the game, when the winner can surround the opponent’s stones at an accelerated pace."
Go is played on a much larger grid than chess, with 6x as many positions as in chess. Go's "strategy is more subtle and fluid than chess, developing slowly; the more complex the pattern your stones initially create on the board, the harder it is for your opponent to understand your strategy."
"A key weiqi concept, for example, is to use the size of the board to your advantage, spreading out in every direction so that your opponent cannot fathom your movements in a simple linear way."
The chess players in the global geopolitical game (West) naturally assume the go players (China) share their aggressive, impulsive style, but the latter is actually playing a totally different, much longer term game.
Case in point as far as the contrasting approaches inspired by chess (West) vs. go (China):
Let’s compare the cost of the primary foreign policy initiatives of the US and China over the past 20 years.
- US wars in the Middle East after 9/11: $8 trillion
- China’s Belt and Road Initiative: $1 trillion
Forget bang for the buck; in absolute terms, the BRI has created far more goodwill and fostered far more cooperation with Beijing around the world than wars in the Middle East have for Washington.
This is the difference between a long term strategy influenced by go and a short term strategy influenced by chess.
This post is now a guest post on AI Made Simple: https://www.artificialintelligencemadesimple.com/p/the-real-question-around-china-and
Thank you, Devansh!