Firstly "In April 2001, George W. Bush publicly announced the American defense of Taiwan"..."This framework was approved by President Donald Trump in 2018" (wikipedia)
Secondly there's a sea in between China and Taiwan meaning it could largely be defended by a no fly zone. In Ukraine once Russia troops have crossed the border it isn't easy to get rid of them without a lot of messy ground warfare.
The only real difference here is that the U.S. has even fewer advantages in this hypothetical conflict. China, like Russia, has hypersonic missiles and drone swarms both of which are aircraft carrier killers and carriers are still the U.S.’s main way to project power so far from home. According to Pentagon estimates, in a war with China, the U.S. would only have about a month’s worth of ammunition. The supply chain situation would be a disaster, and Japan and South Korea likely wouldn’t risk directly supporting the U.S. because they’d be stuck right within China’s range, not thousands of kilometers from home.
Whatever’s written on paper is meaningless if the country guaranteeing your security has too much to lose, it’s just paper. Ukraine had guarantees, Poland had guarantees in 1939, and plenty of other countries in history had guarantees that didn’t hold up. What really matters are actual capabilities, war scenarios and costs.
Colby knows that[1], because he has all the data and understands the political reality. And the reality is that the U.S. could lose the war, and all the economic and political consequences of losing its hegemony would follow.
All of America’s enemies in history were weaker than the U.S. In the last 100 years, the U.S. hasn’t fought an opponent anywhere near its level of strength. Even in WWII, three quarters of Nazi Germany’s forces were destroyed by the Soviet Union, that’s a fact you won’t see in Hollywood movies about brave heroes. Now the U.S. would be facing the world’s factory, a country with the resources, political system and industrial capacity to actually win that war.
1. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/09/pentagon-...
The US would only need to bring an aircraft carrier to the general area and then could base aircraft in Taiwan. Even if the Chinese military was stronger than the US it'd be a difficult task for them.
"Any person who, being a Canadian national, within or outside Canada, voluntarily accepts or agrees to accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state at war with any friendly foreign state or, whether a Canadian national or not, within Canada, induces any other person to accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in any such armed forces is guilty of an offence."[0]
There are questions on whether it applies (from 2022):
"Gordon Campbell, a military and criminal lawyer at Aubry Campbell MacLean, told CTVNews.ca that the Foreign Enlistment Act only applies to Canadians who formally enlist with a foreign military, and is not convinced it applies at all in this situation. He says it is not clear whether Russia is considered “friendly” or not to Canada in this situation, in the legal sense.
“I know others have speculated that Russia might not fall into that category,” he said in a phone interview. “I certainly would not be that certain on the point… We're not at war with Russia, but the word ‘friendly,’ is never defined in the act, so who knows.”
Campbell said those volunteering in Ukraine have to understand that they could be charged in Canada under Canada’s Criminal Code or under the Ukrainian legal system, depending on the circumstances.
“If you're a Canadian and you've travelled abroad and you engage in certain acts, then you can -- in theory -- be prosecuted inside Canada for those acts,” he said.
“Just because you're in the middle of a conflict doesn't exempt you from Canada's criminal laws.”[1]
[0] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-28/FullText.html
[1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/legal-questions-abound...
Most long wars in the last century become trench wars; maneuver warfare is too expensive (in terms of materiel) to sustain between adversaries who are at all balanced; the Iran-Iraq War is a good example of this. Additionally, most small/proxy wars are used as testing grounds for either validating new weapons, or checking the viability of old/expired munitions; Ukraine is being used this way, but so was Libya.
It seems that any decisive action is too risky for Western leaders to contemplate. Western leaders seem willing to 'stir the pot' in places like Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, but never want to commit decisive resources. The threat of nuclear escalation seems to be too high for the minuscule popularity that one might win as a victor in Ukraine. Non-nuclear countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Canada, etc.) could commit ground and air forces to Ukraine's aid with little to no risk of any consequences, but even they are unwilling to do so. The sad part is that the lesson being taught here is that China will be able to conquer Taiwan with almost no risk of foreign intervention, no matter how long it takes them.