That is not clear.. at all. Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand -- the non-US western allies -- have all known exactly what China's end goal is and have down jack diddly squat to put pressure on them.
The only thing preventing China from taking out Taiwan is the United States. Europe and the rest of the world is too cowardly to even do anything, which is really unfortunate.
The EU couldn't even put pressure on Erdogan let alone on Xi.
China has been buying influence here for years, especially through the poorer countries that were alienated by the strict austerity measures imposed by the bigger powers.
The nature of the EU politics where a single country has the power to veto the rest is a massive loophole that China is happily exploiting.
The fact that every EU country has different interests and agendas is a huge problem that results to the union never aligning on anything critical.
Just look how the refugee crisis was handled. Affected countries were crying for help and the others were like "sucks for you bro".
and German universities: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/china-influence-sc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
The problem is that Europe depends on (cheap) Russian gas for heating.
If we EU member states didn't get involved when we saw a fight right in front of us, the threat of us getting involved in a fight thousands of miles away isn't very credible as a deterrent.
More broadly, when I look at Taiwan I don't see the EU or US recognising Taiwan as a nation - let alone any tripwire forces or foreign airbases or nuclear sharing or NATO membership or joint training exercises which signal the fully fledged protection of a great power.
So it's no further from US bases than EU bases.
> Both Ukraine and Russia share borders with EU member states.
And Russia is a two mile walkable ice bridge from the US in winter.
> If we EU member states didn't get involved when we saw a fight right in front of us, the threat of us getting involved in a fight thousands of miles away isn't very credible as a deterrent.
Distance isn't the issue. EU countries/NATO will bomb any puny country armed with obsolete weapons, wherever it is.
What the US and EU will never do is get into a fight with a nuclear armed superpower.
There are some that are pro-unification in Taiwan, but it's a minority. Most people are pro status quo, and the number that are for declaring independence is growing. The ruling party is very pro-independence (ideologically speaking, in practice they have to move slowly and maintain status quo to some degree), meaning releasing their claim over mainland China, changing name from "Republic of China" or "China" to Taiwan, seeking UN membership etc.
The other big difference is that Taiwan is quite capable of defending itself to some extent. China will win eventually, but not without devastating the island. This will affect everyone economically. China and the world. If TSMCs factories in Taiwan are destroyed, it'd have an enormous impact on world economy. The production of high-tech electronics would be stunted for years. Russia annexing crimea had absolutely no practical effect on the world.
The fact is that everyone, China included, is relatively happy with the status quo. The CCP has to make a scene now and then to appease the fragile ego of a large portion of the mainland chinese. But I really don't think they actually care that much about invading Taiwan.
Man, are saying this in your right mind? Where do you read this stuff?
People there abandoned their property, and ran! This is what they did.
Nobody openly welcomed it in their sane minds, besides few thousands elderly ex-party members, and alt-right weirdos.
The fact that I hear sentiments like this in the West is the direct proof that Russian psyops truly work.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. The historical and relatively recent mass starvation, persecution, mass murder and forcing into gulags is likely relevant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars
While I will not deny that a certain amount of bad blood still exists due to the deportation, I think most Tatars more concerned about their current livelihood (though I have talked only with 2 tatars, so my sample size is quite small).
You have 2 more personal sources than I do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_T...
Seemed like successful psyops by Putin to me. I guess if Ukraine had blocked VK sooner, not many people had been particularly much pro Putin.
Of course now Putin continues with psyops via Facebook but that's harder for him than via VK.
Ask any Russian abroad if he wants to come back to his "free" fatherland
For example there were opinion polls done by western polling orgs in Crimea where the vast majority supported unification with Russia. It's not hard to understand. Salaries in Russia are ~10x what they are in Ukraine for the same job. Economically they're not comparable, and that's before you get to the whole conflict in Ukraine starting because the government was overthrown by rebels supporting a new government that amongst its first acts, banned the Russian language.
Remember that Ukraine's response to the peaceful annexation was to cut off Crimea's entire electricity supply. That's hardly the work of a friendly government trying to help its loved citizens. Russia had to send in generator ships, if I recall correctly.
Not sure how accurate it is though.
Because those who have not welcomed Russians have disappeared.
Random link from google search: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/disappear...
It's very easy to attribute such disappearances to the evil KGB to promote political agenda, while there are far more probable explanations. It brings to mind the "Heavenly Hundred", a significant number of those people haven't even died on Maidan, but to promote the political agenda they have been promoted to national heroes, even though their "heroism" is dubious at best.
I've personally met with people in Crimea who kept Ukranian citizenship and I haven't heard about any significant oppression from them. If you don't trust me, just read this article: https://tsn.ua/ukrayina/zhiteli-aneksovanogo-sevastopolya-pr...
Have the evil KGB killed and tortured those people? No, they have been simply ignored.
Now compare it with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atm0W5wA2y4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMKraUk0BSQ
And don't tell me that's organic that suddenly bunch of big guy "civilians" appear and start using force. We have heard about green little men. So there are gray little civilians also.
And Crimea does not need to loose 50% population that does not agree. It's enough to "disappear" few more prominent activists to scare the rest.
US has treaties with South Korea and Japan that make it it clear that the US will defend them if they are under attack. The Taiwan treaty is worded in a way that US may provide assistance or limited support in a war.
A quadrilateral nuclear disarmament treaty with Ukraine the US has signed has even more explicit wording, yet...
It is only since Xi became president, that China feels confident to have a more assertive foreign policy.
How so? There hasn't been a sharp rise in military spending, they haven't invaded anywhere, and they've largely maintained their same course on most of the disputed territories.
In comparison with China of the 90s and 00s, China of the 10s has definitely been more aggressive. In 1990s when the Philippines grounded an old navy ship on Scarborough Shoal in the south China sea to reinforce their claims, there was barely a peep from China. By the 2010s though, Chinese coast guard ships were harassing Filipino resupply ships to their outposts and China was making it's own island bases.
People think China's being more aggressive since their point of reference is the 90s and 00s, when China was frankly a pushover on the world stage. Chinese freighter gets accused of smuggling chemical weapons to Iran in 1993 and gets held hostage in the Indian ocean before nothing was found? Not even an apology from the US. Chinese embassy gets bombed by NATO forces in 1999? Nothing but words. A Chinese fighter pilot dies in a mid air collision with an American spy plane off of Hainan in 2001? No reparations for the loss of life and expensive military hardware. Anyone would think China was being more aggressive today if their baseline was that.
They engaged in combat with both Vietnam and the Philippines over islands in the 80-90's, and effectively took over Mischief Reef in 94 by building bases on an island. Not to mention what was a huge victory for them in the return of Hong Kong. That was their primary aim for much of those decades.
There probably is some growth in aggression, but nothing like "Xi's waiting for an election before invasion."
edit may have misread your post, unsure if you're comparing or detailing two steps. China has invaded uninhabited islands and built buildings to stake claims for some time. Building the uninhabited island isn't some drastic change.
And, as others have pointed out, they weren't trying to conquer all of Ukraine, just the parts with a "warm" water port, which also happened to have a lot of ethnic Russians. Limited scope, for a tactical gain (a seaport). The CCP, however, is trying to take all of Taiwan, and enforce their will on people who absolutely do not want it.
With a Nuclear India next door (and Nuclear Pakistan next to them), plus Japan, Vietnam, and a host of other countries that have a reason to be weary of China, it's a risky gambit. It is a good way to kickoff WWIII, for an island that is already, effectively, in the Chinese cultural and economic sphere.
Moreover, the US is closer to Asia than Ukraine. I mean that honestly. The West Coast -- and the greater US in general -- has a lot of Taiwanese and Asians who would be upset if China took over Taiwan. Much more Asians than Russians or Ukrainians. It doesn't hit as close to home frankly.
I give it between 1-5 years before they move in some way on Taiwan.
One thing I would not bet on is a direct military incursion - that would cause too many foreign headaches. Something messy that's hard to pull apart is better. The current events with social unrest in HK are a good example of creating ambiguity.
The one interesting thing to me is that China normally has a very long time horizon, but now they don't. Trump has effectively made sure that Cold War 2.0 has started, and China is the enemy. The problem for the Chinese in this situation is that a substantial amount of manufacturing will move out of China, weakening their economy. And a weak economy is usually not a good thing for leadership.
Right now, 1 country 2 systems means that PRC can't just dismantle HK's education system and institute their own until 2047. But the comments HK's education system indicate that the PRC thinks if they could just put HK's children through a state-approved education system, in 1-2 generations all the unrest in HK would be over. This is a worldview that people are ultimately malleable, or at least their children are, and that with the right childhood education you can get people to believe anything. Brainwashing, after all, is originally a word from Chinese that became an English loanword. In this worldview, everyone who's gone through schooling is brainwashed in some way to support the state that created the education system. And this worldview applies to any state-sponsored education system in the world. Take a Chinese immigrant family in America, put their 2nd gen kids through the American education system, by the 3rd gen you have Americans that can't imagine themselves as anything other than Americans.
This worldview that people can be molded is probably why China is in no rush to exercise full control over HK and Taiwan. After all, if people's national identities are so easily changed, any discontent in HK and Taiwan today can be brainwashed away in few generations. It's far more important to focus on the physical and economic levers that would allow China to exercise long-term control over those regions than social levers that determine whether people in those regions actually like the prospect. If they don't like it, their children will.
You mean other than the crippling sanctions that were actually working until Trump took office? I think you fail to realize how close Putin was to the precipice on that one - when the oligarchs lose faith, it's tough to keep your hold on power.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-falklands-referendum/falk...
Not being tied to the economic basketcase of Argentina is a good thing, it seems.
It's kind of like how Spain will occasionally bluster about Gibraltar, despite the overwhelming majority of Gibraltar supporting British rule.
Pretty much the same situation, completely different reaction from the same people.
I believe both of these to be correct (Falklands pro-UK, Crimea pro-Russian), fwiw.
Well, I guess that’s what happens when you replace the population of Gibraltar by British settlers. They will probably be pretty happy to be under British rule. Are you going to apply this logic to the areas colonized by Israel too?
The only thing preventing China from taking out Taiwan is their mutual economic annihilation in case hostilities intensify.
Taiwan's relationship with the US has been at best ambivalent. Do not forget US was close to waving a hand on the island just a decade ago.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_glob...
It seems like the US has been more willing to sell Taiwan better military equipment recently?
As a European, I have to agree. Here in Germany, I am sure the government would do nothing (other than symbolic protest), because it would be bad for German companies (short term).
The hostile rhetoric towards Taiwan is a CCP relic, it is Mao's legacy to close off civil war, not anything else.
It is like Abortion to GOP, which is all about identity, other than actual purpose of pursuing such ideal.
If occupying Taiwan is worthy of losing global trade and business and tens of millions of Chinese' livelihood, CCP would already act on it. The only reason it hasn't done anything is because it doesn't want/care to.
It is probably true that both China/Taiwan to stay in the status quo, with ever so often mainly symbolic bickering.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/world/asia/taiwan-arms-sa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...
I don't know, I guess the entire field of diplomacy and international relations can be characterized as "symbolic bickering" - as opposed to "non-symbolic bickering" - which would involve dropping bombs over the other party's territory.
Under what timeline a regime won't need to arm itself? Even China and Russia are armed near the border, or China/North Korea.
2050 Indo-pacific naval war is my prediction.
It's already inadequate against today's (~mach 5) supersonic missiles. And china has literally tens of thousands with thousands of kilometers range stationed along their coast. A navy that pokes its head out is not going to last long.
China's missile superiority in the (western pacific) region has long been a thorn in the US side, but there's little that can be done given that their territory is there, and the US can at best station some in allied territories nearby or put it on ships, which are easy targets.
So you pretty much have to keep your ships hidden at all times, but being hidden they are going to be pretty much useless except as missile platforms.
I don't think the PRC is in a position to finish off the ROC, and I don't think it would be in their interests, either.
But equally I don't think that the US want to intervene directly should the PRC take over Taiwan. This would be madness. The problem is thus to imagine how the US would manage to politically 'sell' their inaction. But at the same time, would the PRC dare to take the bet that the US wouldn't intervene?
Taiwan is not much different from Crimea on many aspects, but it is different in one key aspect: It's been given much more international prominence, mostly because it is a pawn to annoy the PRC. But the downside is that it makes non-intervention (which is the reasonable course of action, like in Crimea) more difficult to sell.
Then, should the PRC invade (which is unlikely) while I'm sure that the Taiwanese would put up a good fight they would lose anyway. There would be plenty of grand speeches and maybe sanctions, but the reality is that everyone would just be looking for the right time to recognise the situation and move on (that's what happened with the existence of the PRC itself, and I'm sure is what will happen with Crimea).
But even if you were contemplating a direct war the issue would be that direct wars against Russia or China are not realistic because they are nuclear powers and, in any case, too big to invade. Any direct war would certainly require a major aggression from these countries against the US themselves, which they obviously won't do in the same way as the US won't directly attack them.
It's all boils down to relative strengths and outcome of a war. There are wars that are never worth starting.
The question is, do we want to end this idea of "taking back" things that were "ours" in the past? What even is "ours" and when do you get to call the cutoff time? What is it, 1800 AD, 1200 AD, or 2000 BC?
China itself was made up of smaller civilizations many ages ago... so if I'm a present day decendant of one of them, do I get to claim that part of China as my own?
Also, when did the CCP ever control Taiwan? Never. So how can they take it back?
Again, this has been played to annoy the PRC, standard divide-and-conquer tactic, but the reality remains that no country is going to go to war against China over this, or in general.
It's ridiculous. The whole point is we don't want to have a strength-based order in the world. If so, it will become winner take all and lots of people will die.
If China wants to "finish" a civil war and start the attack then fine, they have the blood of innocents on their hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26 - range of 2500 miles
The Exocet was made way back in the early 70's yet carriers and surface fleets in general still aren't obsolete.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4810853/china-railgun-warship-wea...
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/22/i...
https://news.usni.org/2019/03/05/report-u-s-carriers-need-ne...
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-a...
Of course a lot of this is self-serving stuff designed to drum up more money to spend, but defence against missiles is fundamentally asymmetric. The defender need to get lucky every time, while the attacker only needs to be lucky once or twice. And MIRV is a big multiplier in favour of the attacker.
Carriers are great against countries or factions without anti-ship missile capability.
If you use a nuclear warhead, you don't have to hit the ship directly.
They're converted ICBMs, and require some kind of terminal guidance. Something traveling Mach 10+ can't use radar or infrared guidance. How does it hit a maneuvering ship?
Current thinking is drones or some other local surveillance would be used, radio linked to the DF-21. I wonder how well that will work alongside US electronic warfare capabilities?
Interesting stuff...
(This is why I am a fan of nuclear weapons, but it still negates the idea of a naval battle.)
Real war starts when one party is unhappy about the outcome and unilaterally decides to no longer cooperate.
Once China has "acquired" the technology, it doesn't need an export market anymore for economies of scale. China's internal market is more than large enough for that.
Just a detail to keep in mind.
However, China is not quite there yet when it comes to technology (hence the many Chinese students in Western universities), but they are well on the way.
1) Does the US have a base-of-operations off of China's coast? If it independent? Is it Chinese?
2) who gets Taiwan's manufacturing and technology? Does it supply the US military or the Chinese military? War is mostly about supply chains and manufacturing capacity. It's how the US won WWII.
These are big questions. They're not necessarily urgent, but they are big.
The real disaster is the loss of untold lives defending an independent nation and full-fledged democracy.
Strong parallels to Europe in the 1930s. Looking back, no one cares much about the technology giants of that era being shut down, but rather the lives that were lost in the invasions, and the mass murder of civilians that followed.
Since 1949, you mean?
Indeed, hearing this was a shock to me.
$12B would be a double digit of their capex plan for the decade.
Them committing even to basic operation in the Arizona plant would mean to take double digit percentage off their existing 5nm, 3nm plant plans, or having this money come from the outside.
Also take this, their CapEx plan for the decade is entirety committed to the sprint towards 2nm. And even with all those money raised, and after going to bond market, they were already signalling that they have to raise even more money, or the 2nm may not happen.
China marching into Taiwan could trigger a global war. They'd have to get Russia on-board. Hong Kong is reasonable as a first target. This would also frighten its SEA neighboring countries. Don't forget that China has lots of enemies (ie: Japan/South Korea).
What does the acronym MAC stand for please?
Sometimes it's also called FMA, for Fused Multiply and Add.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiply%E2%80%93accumulate_op...
Can you explain this? If China takes over Taiwan, couldn't the US just take over whatever TSMC plants exist in America?
If TSMC was concerned about the US taking over their factory, they could design lots of elements of the process to require a connection to HQ in Taiwan, and to stop working when that connection is broken.
When every piece of equipment has no working firmware, the factory is pretty much useless, and would probably take years to get running again.
Wouldn't a TSMC plant in US be good? Since US would have the factory on its own soil? What am I missing?
Meanwhile, TSMC's 7nm process has been shipping since Q3 2018, and their EUV-based N7+ process is now in mass production. There's no question that TSMC is currently ahead of Intel both nominally and in all the important technical metrics. It's still entirely possible that Intel could re-take the lead if/when they get something post-10nm out the door, but that isn't going to happen this year. Intel's own CFO says it might take two more generations for them to regain the lead: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-process-tech-lag-com...
Intel's current form of 10nm is roughly equivalent to TSMC's 7nm. What that basically means is TSMC is about a generation ahead.
> Meanwhile, TSMC's 7nm process has been shipping since Q3 2018, and their EUV-based N7+ process is now in mass production
So, to make this an apples-to-apples comparison: when did TSMC stop shipping new products on prior nodes? ;)
You can still go out and buy a new-production Ryzen 1600 AF chip right now, you know. AMD did not even finish releasing their 7nm lineup until basically a few weeks ago, Renoir products just started shipping last month.
Ice Lake actually beat the comparable AMD/TSMC chips to market by like, 8 months or something. They've been around in volume since like, november. I went to Costco before last thanksgiving and almost half the laptops had Ice Lake.
AMD can ship desktop processors sooner because they've architecturally managed to reduce the chiplet to smaller than the size of a phone SOC. Comparing apples to apples, or more specifically monolithic mobile processor vs monolithic mobile processor, TSMC isn't that far ahead.
Or for another data point, TSMC's big-chip 7nm yields are so bad that NVIDIA is disabling 15% of the processor on the Ampere GA100 even for the datacenter market that will be paying $25k a chip or something stupid.
TSMC is ahead, sure, but not as much as people want them to be. The ability to make phone SOCs and 70mm2 chiplets successfully doesn't mean they've got 7nm completely nailed.
Depends on which Intel 10nm you're talking about, and which TSMC 7nm. Comparing Intel's failed initial 10nm from Cannonlake against something that is in mass production on the TSMC side isn't exactly fair. With respect to the 10nm Intel product that you can actually buy, TechInsights has this to say: "Produced in Intel's new 10 nm 2nd Gen process that should offer comparable performance to TSMC’s 7 nm process"— and that's coming from the pros with electron microscopes who teardown these chips to reverse engineer process tech. Numbers reported elsewhere (eg. WikiChip) indicate that TSMC's 7nm allows for about a 15% smaller SRAM cell, and AMD's Renoir notebook processors seem to have about the same overall transistor density advantage over Intel's Ice Lake notebook processors.
And as far as I can tell, AMD's not even using the EUV 7nm process from TSMC yet.
For the U.S., this is a potential disaster. If China marches into Taiwan, the U.S. will be left with no advanced-node manufacturing and it will have lost the technology race. It would take at least four to six years to recover, and by that time China would own the market. This is very scary for the U.S., which needs to develop AI chips at the most advanced nodes because density equals more accelerators and other types of processing elements. Even that isn't enough, which is why companies developing AI chips are stitching together chips that are larger than a single reticle. (https://semiengineering.com/the-risk-of-two-supply-chains/)
It goes further than that, too. The DoD needs AI chips, too. In the past, the DoD relied on older nodes. That's changed because it needs transistor density for AI. More MACs equals more performance. On top of all of this, TSMC owns the bulk of the fabless market. So this will happen. The big question is who's funding this move.