While it's important to respond to these threats with a credible show of deterrence, realistically speaking not many people think China can or will even try to take Taiwan anytime soon, if ever. Invasion by sea was hard even before we had missiles, satellites, and radar - it now appears almost impossible and has not been attempted at scale since WWII. Never say never I suppose, but I don't personally believe China will ever try to invade Taiwan in the traditional sense, they're just not that stupid.

Of far greater concern is their increasing belligerence in their "sphere of influence" including the south china sea and surrounding island chains.

The problem is that everyone was saying the same sort of thing about Russia and Ukraine right up until the first tanks started to roll over the border.

I know the situations look superficially similar - big state rattling its sabres at smaller state, then actually going through with it - but when you dig deeper, they're not even remotely comparable.

There's 100km of sea between Taiwan and China. Not China (nor anyone else) has anything close to the blue water amphibious assault fleet it would take for an effective invasion force to cross it. It would take multiple years to build such a fleet, impossible to hide, and while they built it Taiwan and her allies would assemble the world's largest anti-shipping missile arsenal. I don't want to sound flippant, but I doubt a single ship would make it to within 10km of Taiwan.

Or forget amphibious assault, say China tries to go airborne. An even longer period unmistakably building an unprecedented heavy cargo aircraft fleet. An even longer period for Taiwan and her allies to build her already impressive air defences into an impregnable shield. Again, not a single aircraft makes it even over Taiwan's territorial waters.

The Russian experience has actually been eye-opening, but not in the direction you assumed. Developments in missile technology have totally changed the game. Even today, the vastly superior Russian air force cannot fly over ukrainian territory. The Black Sea Fleet has been driven away - and Ukraine does not even have a navy! And even given their massive advantages in size and military strength, it's far from clear that Russia will prevail - far from it.

No, you can't really compare the two. Russia could always have invaded any of their neighbours if they decided to. China literally can't invade Taiwan, not if you assume even the most basic preparation and competence of herself and her allies. The best they could do is a blockade, and hope for capitulation.

All of this in my own non-professional opinion of course, but I'm not completely uneducated on the topic. There's more - far more - information laying things out much better than I ever could, I encourage anyone overly concerned about an imminent war over Taiwan to seek it out.

I was going to say the same thing.

It seems missiles don’t solve all the things else there would be an “invasion” on going for 600+ days.

I guess war is harder than Internet comments.

Even if they had no designs on Taiwan, China would still be in U.S. crosshairs.

Nope. The US gave China most favored nation status and free trade for 40 something years. Instead of pushing China away, the US locked arms with them and reintroduced them to the world economy on favorable terms. Then ignored decades of malfeasance by China. (Exchange rate fixing by Chinas central bank. Unfair trade practices moving production from the US to China. And now, propaganda on US soil.)

The crosshairs are up because China has made threats and become a threat to world peace.

Yes, 'just walk away' from international policy and leave the United States to control global affairs, what a totally reasonable position for China, one of the most populous and powerful nations on earth.

The United States turns the weak into allies, and it's allies into enemies. We gave Russia $180 billion in today's currency after WWII. After the collapse of the USSR, the US was the one to welcome Russia into the World bank and IMF. After 2001, Russia was widely considered our closest strategic partner in the war on terror. [1] Now our reckless expansion of NATO has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Russians.

We practically created the Taliban and ISIS, or at least gave them the tools and circumstance to be lethally effective. We created the circumstance for the Iranian revolution, the Cuban revolution, countless others that have hurt us since.

Of course we embraced China, we're a python looking to smother them.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/85962.htm

I agree on the Isis point, but the 'reckless expansion of Nato' talking point ought to die. NATO wasn't expanding at all before Russians invasion of Ukraine. The last 'expansion' was France rejoining the integrated commandment in 2008. It was even shrinking, with a lot of tension concerning financing and boots on the ground. Also, it wasn't really clear if Turkiye wanted to stay in long-term (pre-covid at least), because of the tensions with Greece and France. There were movements to leave at least part of NATO in at least France and Germany. Who were becoming close Russia allies within NATO.

Ukraine couldn't have joined NATO as long as it was in a civil war anyway. I'm pretty sure most non Ex-Varsovie-pact NATO nations would've voted against anyway (sweet Russian gas).

This was a war decided by Putin because he could do it.

The war was decided because Putin had no choice. America was openly and brazenly interfering in Ukrainian politics.[1] What possible point could that have? Why groom an Ukrainian government unless it is going to be leveraged? The expansion of U.S. influence directly against Russia's weak underbelly is the expansion of NATO I reference, because it portends Ukraine's adoption into NATO.

See Washington Post 2004 [2], and leaks of the Nuland transcript in 2014 [3]. They tell the same story. The U.S. has potentially always intended to renege on our stance at the end (pause?) of the Cold War.[4] Even if agree that the U.S. never promised to enlarge NATO, Putin's repeated warnings that he views U.S. adventurism in Ukraine as a provocation were clear. Personally I see the rationality of his stance. [5]

Putin is reacting the the same way Biden would if China moved nukes to Cuba. Those are the stakes our interference in Ukraine threatens in his view. No wonder Russia is spending hundreds of thousands of lives to forestall it.

This statement from Yanukovych upon his resignation is telling:

On 14 February, Yanukovych had said: "I want to say that I was incited, and I'm incited to use various methods and ways how to settle the situation, but I want to say I don't want to be at war. I don't want any decisions made using such a radical way." He called on all politicians to refrain from radicalism and to understand that "there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and this line is law".[6] A statement made in regard to his circumstances but I wonder if his government hadn't fallen, would Ukraine would be at war now.

Ultimately I do not justify or condone Putin's invasion. Neither do I justify or condone the U.S.'s involvement in Ukraine post USSR. Insofar as we are arguing about root causes to the war, the 2021 international environment seems to rival the national entanglements that precipitated WWI. Blaming Putin or NATO totally is both too much and too little.

[1] https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/russia-s-ukraine...

[2] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/meddling-in-ukraine...

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[4] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...

[5] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity