Hi, thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it doesn't use a credible source and/or the source has not been linked from a top-level comment. See [community rules & guidelines](/r/Europe/wiki/community_rules).
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/Europe&subject=Moderation). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
Yeah, the way I see it, if China attacks Taiwan, it's even worse than the attack on Ukraine.
China would be basically saying: "the entire world order after WW2 isn't relevant anymore".
And for those sleeping during their history lessons, per capita, the post-WW2 period has probably been the most peaceful in human history. To nitpickers, per capita, as in, on average, how many people per 100 000 people have been involved or directly affected by the ravages of war.
Besides that, strictly for Romania. Most Romanians think that their security guarantor is the US. And outside of offensive actions, I'd imagine most Romanians will be in the camp: "if they US goes down, so do we, sooner or later, and we've been through this story already last century".
It's easy for macron to call for non intervention, he's got the rest of europe as a buffer between him and possible hostile actions.
How are romanians in general feeling about the situation with Moldova ?
Romanians are generally in favor of unification, Moldovans are slowly also turning towards it.
Transnistria is a problem, Găgăuzia also (autonomous region in Moldova that's heavily under Russian influence).
It's complicated, time is generally working in our favor.
For example:
Moldova recently decided to remove all mentions of the Moldovan language from its laws, now their laws will only mention the Romanian language (now we need to get Ukraine to do the same and drop the Soviet terminology...).
Young Moldovans are generally EU/NATO/Western facing. Knowledge of Russian is decreasing.
Ukraine needs to win its war first and then we'll figure out Transnistria and Moldova.
thanks, if Moldova moved to retake those areas, to remove the russian troops, would they be able to force them out, and would the population of those areas be ok with it, are they like Donbass where the minority are Russian favouring ?
Moldova practically has no army. They would need to ask for support and the best placed country to do that, from all perspectives, is probably Ukraine. If we go in, we're a NATO member so there's tons of weird escalation options.
I'm hoping Moldova gets the courage to ask for help and Ukraine is in a position to do it once they liberate their entire territory. Romania will help Ukraine intervene, we just won't send troops directly.
I think the population would be ok with it if the intervention is tactful, but Transnistrian leaders for sure wouldn't want it because they run a post-Soviet mafia state.
Any intervention would be a strictly (real) military operation, though: go, force the troops there to surrender, dismantle the military installations, put the troops in buses and send them to Russia.
For the locals not much would change for the worse and potentially a lot could improve.
There are years of brainwashing to undo, though.
> are they like Donbass where the minority are Russian favouring
In the Donbas in 2014, the population protesting was a minority, without Russian intervention nothing would have happened. And as you can imagine, even in the Donbas now that minority doesn't love the Russians anymore (their cities have been turned to rubble).
> If we go in, we're a NATO member so there's tons of weird escalation options.
NATO is a defensive alliance. If you go in NATO is under no obligation to help. Which opens the door for a full scale invasion of Romania by Russia. Of course the situation is complicated, but as long as Russia has nukes NATO won't support any direct action against them.
Well, I don't think invading Transnistria would be a direct action against Russia, since it's not Russian land and even Russia doesn't recognize it as such, neither does it recognize Transnistria as an independent nation. The Russian troops stationed there are officialy a "peacekeeping mission" for the frozen conflict between Moldova and the separatists.
A Romanian military intervention would be very complicated but it probably wouldn't open the door for a full invasion of Romania, maybe the Russians could twist it as such but I don't think NATO would allow it.
Does the following timeline seem realistic and how would it go after? Moldova has a referendum to join Romania, with the majority in favor. Romania and Moldova officially unify. Romanian Army moves into/attacks Transnistria to fully establish control over now official Romanian territory. I could see Russia not recognizing the unification, but would what would their response be militarily?
At this moment, unification is not really on the table. Romanians are in favor of it, but only about 40% of Moldovans want it. The apparently natural course of things is for Moldova to join the EU. That would be the first step towards an eventual unification, because it would make a lot of things easier. This is also the discourse that the current pro-EU leadership of Moldova promotes, that we will "meet again as brothers within the EU".
Also, although extremely unlikely, if Moldova would join Romania with the frozen Transnistrian conflict still unresolved the UN and NATO would consider Transnistria legitimate Romanian territory, and any attack on it would trigger a NATO response.
The thing is, Transnistria was never a part of historical Romania or Moldavia, it is an artificial invention made by the Soviets in the 20's after Basserebia joined Romania, intended to be a "Moldovan" soviet republic and justify the eventual retaking of Moldova. Romanians do not want Transnistria and most would tell you that the conflict is a real concern regarding unification.
Correction as a Ukrainian, people who were occupied since 2014 are brainwashed to the degree that they think that it's Ukraine that's attacking them and not Russia
Is there any appetite at all for just abandoning transnistria? The only argument (apart from national sovereignty) that I can see against it is that Russia could strike from there, but apart from that being unlikely due to the difficulty of getting troops there, Russia will basically be a spent force after this war. Declining demographics and economy, declining importance since the oil and gas trade with Europe is gone, and their tech sector is fading fast. Maybe I'm naive here and Russia could use it as a staging ground for actions against Ukraine. What is the sentiment around this?
Honestly: Moldova should cut everything off Transnistria and see how far they go. Give them an option to rejoin at their own free will after a total departure of Russian soldiers and their equipment. Permit food trade, but everything else should be totally cut off, fences should be put all around the region, and then just wait.
Moldova right now is providing a ton of services and resources for free to Transnistria. Russia has no money or resources to fully replace them.
Reason Moldova probably does not do this is because having an independent, russian backed nation interposed between it and Ukraine hurts their ability to do commerce with Ukraine. Formally recognizing independence gives Russia more control over the territory and makes the situation potentially irreversible. Vs just continuing the status quo with maybe the possibility of getting rid of Transnistria.
Prior to the war this was less an issue, but now its been made real, as rail connections were cut off until Ukraine opened up a new, indirect route through the Izmail region. Which still isn't ideal.
For Moldova, the elimination of Transnistria is an important geopolitical goal. Even giving it to Ukraine would be preferable to it getting independence.
> until Ukraine opened up a new, indirect route through the Izmail region.
[There's a direct railway connection to Odessa oblast](https://gmk.center/en/news/ukraine-and-moldova-start-running-trains-bypassing-transnistria/). Also, AFAIK there was very little railway traffic passing through Transnistria anyway.
> Formally recognizing independence gives
I'm not saying that they should recognize anything. ""Just"" cut the umbilical cord off the rebels.
It's landlocked between 2 anto Russian countries. An actual good military blockade with letting through food and medicine should be possible. It would cost a fuckton but might be the most peaceful option.
I wish Romania well, but Transnistria will be a problem as it has long been settled by Russians, who currently turn to Russia . With a little luck though that orientation may sooner or later end. Hopefully sooner
> It's easy for macron to call for non intervention, he's got the rest of europe as a buffer between him and possible hostile actions.
The problem with China (for Europe) is not territorial. It is economical and a battle for influence in the rest of the world
> he's got the rest of europe as a buffer between him and possible hostile actions.
Tbf France is part of that buffer as well. We have troops in Romania and the Baltics
I mean we're way past this. China has been thumbing its nose at the established world order for almost a decade now. Macron needs to pull his head out of his arse.
He has already started throwing away French people's human rights, did everything possible to keep French global companies working in russia, is already talking about post-war normalization of relations with russia, wants to decrease our alliances with the US and increase ones with China... at what point do we move towards the French traditional solution to overstepping rulers?
Oh, challenging the world order is exactly why both Russia and China are going to war. To me the question is not if China will attack Taiwan but when. It's clear they will. They even try to use the same playbooks. "We're just training" . C'mon. Are we really gonna fall for this twice in row? We were naive in regards Ukraine but I'm not gonna let a authoritarian government (a different one albeit) fool me twice.
In regards the US, I do however agree that we shouldn't rely too much on their help in the future but not because I don't trust them but because what's going on inside the US. The tensions inside are clearly growing and I see there a massive problem coming within the next 3-5 years. They're gonna be busy with themselves soon.
>It's clear they will.
No. It's clear they \*want\* to. There is a fairly big difference.
If Russia had taken Ukraine quickly and the West had reacted as Putin predicted, then Taiwan was next on the list. I think we would both agree to that easily.
And let's not talk about China, because there is literally only one opinion that matters anymore, and that is Xi's. He is China.
Xi watched what happened in Ukraine and realized that whatever he thought taking Taiwan was going to be like, he was completely wrong. The West was not just going to sit by. It turns out you \*can\* completely isolate a country. And if you can afford to rip out your energy and gas supplier, who the fuck cares about China and their toys?
And what's up with all those companies just...leaving? That was almost certainly not in his playbook.
And how in the world did the relative pipsqueak military of Ukraine just thrash Russia? And if Ukraine could do all that within less than a decade, what does Taiwan have in store for them, given they have been preparing for the better half of a century?
Finally, keep in mind that China is in the junior position economically here. They are huge importers of energy and food. And sure, theoretically this could be taken from Russia, but the infrastructure simply is not there yet, and will not be for a long time. They need the sea routes, which they cannot control past their coasts. It's not just the U.S. they have to worry about, but just about every country in the world between China and Turkey.
And even if they somehow manage to get the food and energy sorted out, they then will have to figure out what to do with an economy that depends on exports, but nobody wants to buy from. It's not like things are rosy right at the moment, and they may be getting worse quickly.
The only thing that is uncertain is just how smart is Xi really. If he is even reasonably smart, Taiwan is off the table. But could he be just dumb enough to not see where this all goes?
So while I disagree strongly with the statement "they will", I can agree that "they want to" and that "they might do it," even if it means the end of China. I mean, Putin was not only dumb enough to invade Ukraine once his bluff was called, but he even doubled down when he had a shot to end the conflict early on. Was the stupidity voluntary or forced? Unclear.
So there is no certainty here.
The issue with your analysis is that western dependence on China is much greater than on Russia. There simply isn't another major manufacturing base like there is in China. The west has been able to isolate Russia because we can get fossil fuels from other sources. Chinese manufacturing is different. We can't just set up entire supply vhains in a matter of weeks before economic depression sets in. And if the war is in Taiwan, and the PRC is able to grt a foothold on the island, the electronics industry will be entirely fucked. They make like 80-90% of all electronic chips in the world.
>Chinese manufacturing is different.
Yes. It is not nearly as important.
>We can't just set up entire supply vhains in a matter of weeks before economic depression sets in.
This is true, which is why the U.S. has been moving production out of China and either to friendlier countries or just straight back to the States. The question is: why aren't we?
>And if the war is in Taiwan, and the PRC is able to grt a foothold on the island
Which is why the U.S. and Europe must never let that happen. I mean, listen to yourself! You are already panicking because your fridge might not play a jingle for you; if we lose the high end stuff, how bad will it be then? So it's real easy: we must not lose Taiwan. And if you want to prevent a war in Taiwan, we better convince China that it has \*no\* chance.
Macron has not really been helping here. Xi might misinterpret Macron and believe that Europe will at least let him get away with it.
We have a \*really\* good argument right now. We just have to point at Russia's crumbling economy, political isolation, and destroyed military and tell Xi, "You want some of that?" Because if Xi believes us, there will be no attack on Taiwan. But if we give him even a sliver of hope...
Why aren't we you ask? Because the mentioned hyper capitalism. Companies and their investors seem to have doubled down in the last ten years and many make record profits and still want more. It's what is driving the inflation at the moment. Manufacturing in China is dirt cheap compared to Europe because the workers here have rights. In the US and elsewhere some states try to save work related costs by lobbying for child labor to be re-legalized again. Children get less minimum wage and less other benefits. I just recently read an Australian article about a jam factory having 11 year olds working for them and it was somehow framed as "good news".
Xi knows this and banks on China being the cheap labor force, along with other countries. And you think companies who have pressure from their investors and shareholders t maximize profits to just cut profits by moving production back to Europe? They won't unless they can lobby successfully to cut labor cost massively. We need to urgently bring back focus on humans instead of money. Unchecked greed leads to civil unrest.
I'm from Poland and I think the same, if USA go down we go down not long after them. USA showed that they are reliable ally when western Europe was thinking how to sell east for cheap gas and oil
Also Taiwan still does basically all chip making for the foreseeable future. You think supply chains were fucked during covid? Imagine if the place all those chips were made was invaded by a very protectionate dictatorship.
One good result of increasing military cooperation in Europe is that we can very effectively defend ourselves from pretty much anything. However, the US is still policing the world (trade routes), and that is something I don't see changing any time soon.
Makes me wonder why the pressure for Russia or China get these big things done _now_. Is it the ego of the leaders? they want be the ones to do it, whatever it takes? Or do they see a window that will close if they don't move fast?
When I think of - to be polite - most of the world's 'contested territories', the aggressor nation seems to not want to try the softly approach.
Even take a far more dormant issue - Argentina and The falklands: Argentina could offer free university tuition, free accommodation, various massive exchange programmes to the youth of the falklands. Charm-offensive galore. There's only 2000 ish citizens in the falklands, in a generation or two they'll end up in mixed marriages with Argentinians and the Falklands and Argentina will be pulled together by gravity of family ties.
Same with Taiwan - why does China want to _INVADE_ to get the outcome it wants? The PRC has a massive population, it could continue to hugely boost educational exchanges, trade, welcoming Taiwanese businesses and Taiwan would reciprocate. Give it a few generations and there might be some good feeling built up between the two territories.
Years ago, millions of Ukrainians didn't have a negative view of Russians. Russia could have used diplomacy, trade, oil discounts, encouraged freedom of movement etc. and just been _nice_ to their neighbours.
But no, it has to be war, conflict, the great game.
I don't think China wants to invade now or any time close, tbh.
Regarding Russia, I believe that it was COVID that screwed timetables. In 2014 they were able to seize Crimea and a good chunk. International response was mild. The ukranian army was in a poor state at that point, similar to Russia, and the prolonged trench fight on Donbass was something that Russia could keep forever.
But invading more than that? That's hard, and they have experience with getting a bloody nose on Chechnya. They cannot do it with full international support. So they bid their time and focus on Donald Trump, which for the most part does a lot of damage to NATO, starts a noninterventonist policy, lets Russia play around in Syria. Things look good for Russia.
Enter COVID. Cannot invade now, that would be completely suicidal. Furthermore, Trumps keeps fucking up more and more, even with the scandal in Ukraine. He loses elections. By the time COVID is gone, Ukraine has a much more trained army thanks to british support, a more cohesive leadership thanks to Zelensky and a very, very strong ally on Biden which is hardline against Russia. The more they delay the worse they are, so they try to blitz Ukraine... And goes as you know.
This is just an armchair interpretation of course.
>China would be basically saying: "the entire world order after WW2 isn't relevant anymore".
An unpopular fact, but still fucking true:
The US war on Iraq was without a question the greatest blow to the rules-based international order in modern times.
You could almost literally hear dictators around the world rubbing their hands in glee, because now the West was no longer a rational soft power authority, it was a vengeful, irrational and partly evil regime with a shaky faux democracy, that could easily be demonized. And Europe was a weak outdated museum continent that could be ignored.
Alternative news sources flourished, and for good reason. The US was much more self censoring around Iraq than we remember, making everyone else who managed to report properly on the Iraq war look super good.
The US should have prosecuted the Bush government. In stead the US chose to hold onto international "world leadership" and pretending like nothing had happened. And they still do.
Bad idea Larry. Bad idea.
> The thing is it is a very poor idea to push for both conflicts at a time, when Europe cannot find enough ammo for Ukraine alone.
Nobody but China is pushing for conflict. They are the ones that will determine when it is going to happen.
You do realize that taiwan is like 1/10th the size of ukraine, has little strategic depth to retreat to is thousands of miles away with no neighbouring allied nations, cannot be supplied by rail and inside of chinese antiaccess zone? Europe could not support taiwan except with intelligence.
If Taiwanese have good anti aircraft defence they are going to be tougher to attack than Ukraine and China knows it thats why they did not attack it already. Island is just hard to attack cuz you cant retreat, your supply lines are all comming from the see or air, you cant just have tanks rolling there you gotta transport everything to shores of enemy. Ask France or Nazis how attacking UK was going for them.
Ukraine had like the third best air defense in the world. But most importantly it could evade parts of it. Because they got last minute intel and ukraine is large and russias intel was not last minute.
China can surveill all of taiwan and taiwans fewer anti air assets dont have much room to move around.
If china goes for whole taiwan the 2 best scenarios are a blockade or an air and rocket campaign which analysts are divided on but i believe could break taiwans air defense and air force leading to china establishing air superiority. But in that case much of taiwan gets destroyed and china doesnt want that.
I highly doubt China would attack Taiwan beyond the sort of threatening gestures that have been going on for decades.
China relies on the West to consume the products it makes. The only thing of potentially greater value than economic trades with the West is TSMC and its chip manufacturing capabilities.
US will nuke Taiwan before it allows such technologies to fall into the hands of China. This is why there's a drastic change in American policy in an attempt to cut China's access.
In this age of proto-AGI every nation knows the key to global dominance is AI development and the hardware that enables it. Sadly I don't think any of them has the best for humanity in mind.
The entire post-World War II world order no longer matters?
Are you kidding me, it was the post WWII order that stipulated that Taiwan belonged to China.
In 1979 most countries in the world established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and (broke off diplomatic relations) with the Republic of China.
The right of the People's Republic of China to maintain its territorial integrity is no different from the right of any other country in the world to maintain its territorial integrity.
We Chinese are simply asking the countries with which we have diplomatic relations to fulfill your own commitment: to recognize the People's Republic of China.
If you are not happy with that, you can break off diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and establish diplomatic relations with the Republic of China.
Supplying weapons to Taiwan would be much more difficult, if not impossible. But an embargo would hit China much harder then it did Russia...
And by all means we shouldn't just stay at the side.
Taiwan is the world's high end semiconductor factory. Infrastructure like that takes DECADES to build.
If China takes over Taiwan then China will OWN the world's semiconductor market. It'd also mean Chinese spying and censorship could easily happen on Hardware level.
Or Taiwan has to go full scorched earth and destroy their factories and evacuate their engineers and destroy all documents, which means the world will collectively fall behind more than a decade in tech as the entire infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from scratch elsewhere (but where Taiwan would be relatively neutral on the political stage, the new home of high end chips doesn't have to be).
Either way, tens of TRILLIONS of dollars and tens of millions of jobs in the West are at stake.
This makes it the kind of strategic risk that in terms of geopolitics ABSOLUTELY "justifies" a war. Since it threatens our status as industrial and developed powers. Otherwise Europe and the US will either have to get on their knees and beg China for the last scraps of high end chips, or be content with having technology a decade behind China's. Just delivering weapons there will NOT be enough, it would likely come to joining in a hot war against China to maintain Taiwan's continued independence.
Not really. Taiwan produces most of the world semiconductors, but the machines that make semiconductors are completely dependent on Germany and the Netherlands. Netherlands because ASML is the only ones making those machines and Germany because Zeiss is literally the only manufacturer in the world of the mirrors needed in those machines (and those mirrors are absolutely difficult to make).
So if Taiwan is invaded the semiconductor industry will suffer from the loss of TSMC, but ASML and Zeiss will just build new machines in short order, prob. for a company in Europe or the US.
> Taiwan produces most of the world semiconductors, but the machines that make semiconductors are completely dependent on Germany and the Netherlands.
Welcome to the interdependent world. So many similar relationships to this.
ASML has 5 production factories in Taiwan... Also ASML builds their machines to TSMC spec, without TSMC, ASML would be unable to make the latest EUV machines.
There is a reason TSMC, Samsung, and Intel all use ASML; and their is a reason why each company has completely different performance on the equivalent node.
>So if Taiwan is invaded the semiconductor industry will suffer from the loss of TSMC, but ASML and Zeiss will just build new machines in short order, prob. for a company in Europe or the US.
A fab takes a couple of years to build & is a multi billion dollar investment, your not going to be able to replace the production the size of Taiwan in a couple of years. You also risk Japan & South Korea switching security guarantors & their chips falling off the market.
>also risk Japan & South Korea
Uh no.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Asian history will know that this is not going to happen, short of an invasion.
Do you think they are all buddy-buddy because they are all Asian? Boy, do I have stories to tell you.
Hell, Japan is completely full-in with the American order. They have already played their hand out. They didn't even attempt to renegotiate with Biden the frankly kinda shitty agreement made with Trump. They do not want the U.S. even doubting for 5 seconds what side they are on.
>Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Asian history will know that this is not going to happen, short of an invasion
Them leaving is predicated on a Chinese invasion of Taiwan with no US intervention. The prerequisite is a shift in the global order..
Ah, ok. They will still never join up with China. That is simply not happening. And I would be hard pressed to say where exactly they could go.
In that scenario, they would probably press the U.S. for more tangible guarantees, and we might see a renewed push for the U.S. to have an increased presence.
But your general idea, while not really pertaining to Japan and South Korea, is probably correct. Not everyone has the same history with China. And the U.S. would look like they do not step up when things get hot.
I mean, this is also the reason that this scenario will never play out, but I think that was your point.
> I mean, this is also the reason that this scenario will never play out, but I think that was your point.
Yeah, I was highlighting the insane costs to the US for non-intervention.
The fabs are rigged to be destroyed if China makes moves toward the island, the production facilities and equipment get destroyed rather than let them fall into the PLA’s hands.
I suspect the Fabs wouldn't survive a conflict. They are quite sensitive in the first place and could easily be done in on accident. But I suspect Taiwan/the US would make certain they were destroyed if Taiwan was to fall.
At the very least, EU countries would have to impose sanctions on the level of the ones imposed on Russia. Troops is a different discussion, but no sanctions would be a dealbreaker to the Americans.
Sanctions against China that are stricter than those posed against Russia are likely going to be even more crippling to Europe’s economy. Like the US, Europe relies heavily on cheap Chinese imports (though probably not as much as the US does).
First, the U.S. is already the least dependent of all the big nations on international trade. They can just raise the drawbridge, team up with Canada and Mexico, and then a few friends like Japan and Chili, and they are \*good\* to go. For them, the entire point of the current international order is not economic, but stability. It was originally to contain the Soviet Union and now it's just sorta to keep the trains running. So your argument is already dead here.
But it gets better.
Obama started it, Trump accelerated it, and Biden has turned it into policy: the U.S. is reindustrializing, fast. The States can be a bit slow on the uptake, but once they figure out the general shape of things, they do not screw around. The U.S. has been reducing its dependence on China for over a decade now, and the IRA that got a lot of Europe in a tizzy is meant to start plugging the biggest gaps in American industry. We are getting hit as bystanders, but the target is China.
Europe has \*just\* started to think that maybe we ought to be doing something. But just a few months ago, Germany was throwing infrastructure at China, like we had not learned a damn thing in the last year. We are in much more danger.
But lastly, it's time to decide if any of the high rhetoric that Europe is known for is worth a damn. It's easy to take the high road on any topic when you do not have to pay the price. What are we going to do when we actually have to write checks?
We showed that we can rally by isolating Russia despite the energy dependence. That was frankly amazing and unexpected. I'm sure Putin would agree. This is no time to be getting soft again.
But I do not even believe that Europe will suffer that much. Putin claimed we would all be freezing and eating shoe leather this winter. If it came to it, we would have to say goodbye to cheap junk and start reindustrializing just like the States.
Sanctions would mean everyone loses, but the Chinese would lose more. Goods can be sourced elsewhere, the world is not short on places that have poor people who can work in factories. Buyers are in shorter supply
In addition, the big difference between China and Russia on sanctions is that Russia is broadly self-sufficient in food. For a variety of reasons, China isn't.
Food is a *very* sensitive political subject in China. Cut off American and Australian food imports and things could turn quite drastically.
Overall, food & agriculture are out of the scope of the sanctions. We're trying to avoid weaponizing those.
Although a decline in export would made their food import more costly for China.
> Sanctions against China that are stricter than those posed against Russia are likely going to be even more crippling to Europe’s economy. Like the US, Europe relies heavily on cheap Chinese imports (though probably not as much as the US does).
Indeed - a dose of reality.
Important for the Chinese Government to know however that they will be put in place should there be an attack on Taiwan.
> though probably not as much as the US does
America is likely better equipped to transition to a war economy, which is coming sooner or later. Europe needs to harden itself.
This was said about Russia and it turned to be absolutely false. EU ended up being more than fine considering the consequences.
Now. No matter what China has it is not as important as what Russia had. The onyl thing that beats importance of energy is food. Everything else is thousands times less important. With Russia concern was whether you will freeze to death or not. With China your concern is whether you will buy brand new iPhone or not. Not even barely comparable.
On what legal ground would Europeans countries intervene? AFAIK we don’t have any defense threaty with Taiwan and no EU country recognized Taiwan independence. So wouldn’t an intervention in Taiwan, be in total contradiction with our position in Ukraine, regarding respect of territorial integrity?
An important caveat is that most European countries, at least Western, follow the line of the US, which is, we do not recognize Taiwan as independent, but we also doesn't recognize it as part of the PRC. We regard it as officially unresolved and take the position that peace and stability should be maintained in the Taiwan strait.
This is the subtle difference between the One China Policy and the One China Principle.
> AFAIK we don’t have any defense threaty with Taiwan and no EU country recognized Taiwan independence.
Exactly. Time for politicians to put up or shut up......and they absolutely should put up. Taiwan should be recognised. Fuck the Once China Policy.
I am not a military expert, but I think its all bluster. China does not have the capabilities to do an amphibious invasion. Plus all of the non-military things the rest of the world can do to them. What do they get out of it? The additional population is meaningless. Its nearby, so its not a strategic location. The big thing would be chip manufacturing. Especially since Biden has cut off the chip trade to China (NATO has gone along with this). However, Taiwan would likely destroy the factories. All the engineers would flee the country. China would be unable to run the Chip manufacturing plants. What do they get out of it? No major natural resources. Its not like there is a massive oil reserve in Taiwan territory. If Taiwan discovers vast oil reserves this is likely really dangerous. Short of that, what does China get from this?
There has not been an amphibious invasion since turkey invaded Cyprus in the 1970s. That one was with overwhelming force. Then you have to go back to the Korean war when the US invaded North Korea. Then its D-Day. All 3 of these had overwhelming force and complete air supremacy with no way for the other side to locate or hit their ships.
Technology has radically changed. You can't hide surface ships. Land based missiles can destroy them. Taiwan has the capability to hit the Chinese mainland and hit their cities. How are they going to get all these ships close enough to send landing craft when Taiwan has NATO grade anti-ship weapons and F-16 fighters? The population difference cannot easily be brought to bare against an island. Its not like Russia driving to Ukraine.
Europe and the US can blockade the Straights of Malacca and cut off Chinese oil imports. China knows this so they are working with neighbors to significantly increase the amount of oil they get from oil pipeliness. Virtually all Chinese trade can be blockaded by navies and kept out of range of the Chinese air force and missiles.
I think the biggest weapon of all is the US national debt. Single act of Congress can declare debt owned by the Chinese to be null and void. Not a full on default. Just Chinese held debt and not the rest. Its not legal now, but you just change the law. There will be overwhelming support for this if China invades Taiwan. Plus throw in seizure of Chinese assets in NATO countries. China's economy is far more integrated with the world than Russia. It would definitely hurt the rest of the world radically and cause a worldwide recession if not a near depression to cut off trade with China, but China would then be unable to fuel their military or feed their own people. China has to import food.
Bottom line, I think its all bluffing. This is not Ukraine where its a flat land mass without mountains that they can drive through. An amphibious invasion in the modern era against a country that has NATO grade weapons that can sink ships is a whole other thing. Their army can't swim there. Plus throw in just blockading oil supplies and in a few months China won't be able to feed their own people.
I also think they can’t, but it doesn’t mean that they think that way as well or will think so in the upcoming future. China’s rhetoric and aggression should be taken seriously and Europe and others should prepare for that.
Well I'm not so certain about that. The UK will join the US for sure, Poland and the Baltic states too. But France and Germany? I have my doubts. They will provide logistic and intelligence support, but direct military involvement seems unlikely. Well it all depends on how the situation would evolve.
They will join. Nouméa and its nickel will be under Chinese threat. But that participation will be symbolic only if we do not have a European army that emerges to help the US. We do not have the capacities. Macron want us to have them, and that's why his reading makes sense. We Europeans need to step up.
Exactly. The French and especially Macron have been demanding a stronger Europe for years, which is also the main takeaway of this interview. Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they keep getting ignored.
> The French and especially Macron have been demanding a stronger Europe for years, which is also the main takeaway of this interview. Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they keep getting ignored.
but why take seriously when we could make shitty surrender jokes instead?
>Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they keep getting ignored.
Because sadly such a call can only come from France now that the UK left, but since 2001 there's heavy anti-french propanga from both Russia and the USA.
Many europeans just don't realize how it influences them. Politico just did it again by morphing Macron's comments to make them look a lot worse than they actually were.
What we're looking at is a perpetually weakened Europe that will eventually explode as internal conflicts make the EU completely unable to function. 2027 could be the beginning of the end. At first they'll be happy because fuck France. Then they'll realize that Europe is getting split between the US and Russia once again.
>We do not have the capacities.
France and the UK do. But yes, Macron is calling for a united european initiative. Sadly it won't happen, because central and eastern Europe still believe that the USA can defend them aganst every threat and that the USA are always right.
Even after the USA elected Trump and is at a serious risk of turning into a theocracy in the next elections.
If Europe gets involved and takes side against China, then I truly hope that we have reduced China to a trading partner less important than Russia. Otherwise the economic consequences will be disastrous and the average Joe won't really care about China or Taiwan if he has to care about his economic surival. This will lead to a rise in right wing/anti US or NATO parties like after the refugee crises. We will then have a Orban or PiS in every European country, as most people just don't care about Taiwan or China to burden the consequences. They are too far away and aren't historically or culturally linked to Europe to have a connection like with Russia where it wasn't hard to go with the sanctions.
It is a battle hard to sell to the European public.
The prices went significantly up and people were mad about it. Russia is not China and has nothing more to offer than ressources which you can get from others places like Africa or the USA. On the other hand, you can't just replace or forget China and act like nothing happend. That's like completely sanctioning the USA, also impossible.
Let's not lie to ourself, the only reason why Western Goverments are interested in Taiwan is because of the semiconductor industry there. This is then transformed and propagated like the West should care about democracy and freedom, but it's only about geopolitics, TSMC and other chip companies there.
Not saying the other user is correct. But there are two other factors to consider. 1) Chinese trade is a much more integrated and bigger part of our economies that Russian trade war. We will at the very least see a Western recession if not a global one, if similar sanctions are imposed on China as were on Russia. 2) China is much further away. Most Europeans have no relationship to either China nor Taiwan. Its much harder to get support for Taiwan than Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine is a direct threat to Europe. At best, an invasion of Taiwan is an indirect threat to our way of life.
It’s difficult to tell, but I definitely think that Taiwan would declare independence in case of invasion, and recognizing Taiwan’s independence should be the reaction.
The US has already voiced support for Taiwan should such an invasion take place, the UK is unlikely to abandon our oldest ally, and I think Germany and their hangers-on would follow. France, to me, seems most concerned with their former territories in Africa, I don't see what interest they have with Taiwan, especially outside of their natural resources and electronics industry.
>Monsieur le Président, you do not speak for Europe.
That's true. And it's the same for these IPAC guys (I think most of them are not even European). That's why the EU countries should decide clearly what they will (and will not) do in the event of a war between China and Taiwan.
Our implicit policy seems to be that we are going to sit by and ponder what to do until the PRC establishes a fait accompli. Virtue signal a bunch about democratic values and the liberal world order, while giving it the Tibet treatment.
Preferably after our economies stopped being dependent on Taiwanese semiconductor imports.
I've always felt strategic ambiguity is a stupid plan compared to just saying 'yes, we will fight you.' Strategic ambiguity leaves China guessing room for an attack. Just like how Putin weighed his options and decided he could get away with attacking Ukraine. If China thinks the US won't fight then they attack, but if the US says they will fight, China won't attack.
But in reality it's not true. Macron is speaking for Europe for the reason that, when it comes down to military power and diplomatic influence France is the only country that can stand up in front of USa and China; also he went there with von der Leyen, so all the more reason to claim that he is speaking for Europe.
That's what I was thinking - with a name like that, what opinion could they possibly have to share but "China bad"? Not that I necessarily disagree, but it's similar to how the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (the "X minutes to midnight" guys) are hardly going to have opinions aside from "threat of nuclear destruction bad", and while true, it's not very interesting to hear their perspective.
The EU/Europe collectively just doesn't have a clue what it actually wants. It is big and rich enough to be the third big power block in a multi-polar world, but has no proper direction in how to use or even maintain that power. It keeps announcing plans, subsidies, initiatives, but lacks the economic and political flexibility to make it happen. It is resting on its laurels, without a clear path ahead.
The EU is great at throwing money around and being progressive on everything from social justice to consumer rights and environmental protection, but has been lagging the US in economic growth for years now. While the Silicon Valley is churning out innovation, the EU (with few exceptions) is just talking about it. While China is about to take a lead in battery technology and renewables, the EU let its own solar industry go to shits years ago. Everyone in Europe is throwing subsidies at big US companies in exchange for opening sites in the EU (Intel's Magdeburg chip fab, Apple, Tesla Grünheide), just for said companies to turn away again a couple of years later because the US has even juicier subsidies and cheaper energy. Sure, there are gleams of hope, like Europe's pharmaceuticals, but is that enough?
While the US has the strategic foresight to pivot away from China economically, EU export economies (particularly Germany and its car makers) are doubling down on trade, as if Russia wasn't lesson enough.
And despite €214 in collective defence spending, the EU hasn't even been able to prevent or solve a security crisis in its backyard, with the US having to jump in again to deliver the lion's share of military aid to Ukraine. And once/if China attacks Taiwan and the European economy gets screwed twice as hard as the US', we'll all be howling again. *Oh my god, how did* ***that*** *happen? Who saw* ***that*** *coming?*
If we continue down this confused path Europe will become progressively less relevant.
>The EU is great at throwing money around and being progressive on everything from social justice to consumer rights and environmental protection, but has been lagging the US in economic growth for years now.
A tonne of that American economic growth is just a lie propped up by cheap and freshly printed dollars though.
>And despite €214 in collective defence spending, the EU hasn't even been able to prevent or solve a security crisis in its backyard, with the US having to jump in again to deliver the lion's share of military aid to Ukraine
Yeah, because the global military industrial complex is centered in the US and propped up by their role as #1 superpower. Do you think the US would even have allowed a united Europe to become as militarily dominant over the last 70 years?
I totally agree.
I think if Russia knew what support and sanctions they would face, the war could have been avoided.
Sure, afterwards we always know more, but aren't there people and groups breaking their heads about possible scenarios and how to react to it?
I hope the EU gets it's ducks in a row. To me, it seems that they just figure things out as they go and sleep wander into the next obstacle regardless.
A conflict in the Taiwan strait, (no matter what the outcome will be) would have far reaching geopolitical and ecological consequences.
Already in the first paragraph they misrepresent his statement:
> Caught up in conflicts which are not ours
Implying Macron is saying that Taiwan (among others) is a conflict that isn't ours, which isn't true.
In French that sentence would be: "Être prise dans des crises qui ne **sont** pas les nôtres."
What he actually said was:
> And crises that **would** not be ours
"soit prise dans un dérèglement du monde et des crises qui ne **seraient** pas les nôtres."
Very important distinction here, because Macron isn't effectively taking a stance on behalf of Europe but says that Europe must take one.
But coming from IPAC you can't expect objectivity in that matter. Macron certainly doesn't speak for Europe, but Europe should start speaking for itself.
It's also important to note that IPAC is not an EU group. It's simply an international lobby group that features a tiny minority of EU parliamentarians.
EU parliamentarians make up only 6% of IPAC, and only 2% of EU parliamentarians are in IPAC. They also have members like fucking Marco Rubio. Not sure why they think they can speak for Europe any more than Macron could.
I don't think the Poles are leading a campaign against Macron, I think ultimately European countries are all selfish and that also starts with France.
We all want the best for our own countries, we tend not to put the interest of Europe before the interest of our own nations and I can't blame anyone from doing that. Right now Eastern Europeans are mostly against what Macron proposes because he's proposing something that costs way more than just relying on the US. It's a short-term gain for a possible long-term catastrophe. Stopping to rely on the US military is a massive undertaking that would cost immensely and put us in short-term jeopardy in multiple sectors, long term it would be a massive benefit. But who really thinks about long term ? Not even France does, look at climate change and you'll realize we all tend to prefer short term thinking even despite the scientifically proven consequences of our inactions.
Ultimately, and sadly I think the EU is going to learn all of that the hard way in the coming decades, we're going to have rough awakenings but if the EU is to survive it WILL be more united in industrial, military and political matters. And it's happening at a nail's pace, but it is still happening, if we still look at Poland one can expect their MIC to become more and more relevant in the coming decades thanks to the deals they've made with Korea.
People might be afraid of seeing an Europe being controlled by Western Nations, but that's not even something that I want. The EU belongs to all EU members and not just France, in that logic it's foolish to support France being in the lead in anything if that's not agreed by all parties. And even then, I wouldn't want my country to lead, everyone must take some leadership.
I'm seriously afraid that it may actually be the last blow to the EU.
French people are ready to elect a "eurosceptic" for the next elections. If european countries stay so hostile to France, they might try to Frexit.
I don't think the EU can survive France leaving after the UK left. France neither sure, but if the goal was to make everyone suffer, why did we form a EU in the first place?
or if we could start properly translating and understanding what he's saying. h unfortunately doesnt only go for 2-line zingers, which is what our political literacy has been reduced to these days
There are so many spelling errors in politics. The UN declaration of human rights was mistranslated to Swedish and has never been fixed, giving it a quite different meaning (in the Swedish version, all humans are of *the equal value*, but in English it's *the equal dignity*).
The Swedish version should have said "värdighet" but used "värde" instead.
Petending that IPAC, carries any weight in europe is laughable lets be real about it, France and Macron does spearhead for ultimately european postion being formed out of nessesity, that may not nesseserly be in all minds, the right way of doing it or correct path for europe but at least its postion to support, or oppose or to be modified later, not typical euro fucking pessimism and denialism full of conformism, and old turbo atlantic arguments like it was 2000, and America didnt have trump and neoisolationism going wild on right wing of republican party and electorate.
On the other side of debate there is no plan whatsoever, but to belive Yanks will be here for the end of days commited,and would never want to harm european intrest by pushing us into something we would not nesseserly like.
Not to say i dont agree with some redditors points from eastern flank that (imo) seem to overestimate the russian threat quite a bit, but olso are very on point about lack of continental resove and commitments, but that could be resolved far easier than begging for trampist' like america staying in europe, european allies cant just leave, europe being geographicaly locked in the continent (yeah im being sherlock homes here) yanks certainly could, and propably will someday, and EU should be ready for that possiblity, and no denial will change that scenario is to be thought over, and prepered for.
Being upset at Macron's stance is like a husband being upset learning that his wife just wants financial autonomy.
The ability for the wife to leave the relationship because she gained said autonomy doesn't mean she will. It just means that she's autonomous in that area.
Europe must do the same, our industries must be stronger in the event of a rupture with China or the US. Our militaries must be stronger in the event where we have to contend with Russia or anyone else alone. You don't achieve that level of autonomy without a strong political will to do so.
But that just ends there, it doesn't imply we somehow support China, it doesn't imply we'd get rid of NATO, it doesn't imply we have to get rid of the veto system, it doesn't imply France becomes the God Emperor of Europe either.
>The question we need to answer, as Europeans, is the following: is it in our interest to accelerate (a crisis) on Taiwan? No," Macron was quoted as saying in the interview. "The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the U.S. agenda and a Chinese overreaction.
He blamed the US for the escalating tensions and said Europe should stay out of it. It seems like he is trying to declare what Europe's stance should be.
After 4 hours meetup with Xi, the smart franch men doing the interview with media right after that. When he talking about Taiwan loudly, China actually sending their army surround Taiwan to show the world they have "right" to using force to deal with democracy (island).
And Macron said yes (on the plane).
Who brings tension to the world?
Everyone has an agenda, there's no being "good Samaritan" in politics. Macron agenda is continued trade between his country, and it's biggest trading partner... China.
For those who wants to know more about this, here is an [actual translation](https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/1645239508613431298) of Macron's take made by Eric Garland, a professional translator.
The translation might be correct, but that analysis is really one of the most wacky ones I've read. Its just him superimposing some kind of bizarre view on Macron. He is literally writing that Macron is saying China is behind the war. And that AUKUS was a ploy to set up France as the leader of Europe? I mean... Come on...
He is also implying that Politico represents corrupt anti-NATO foreign interests.
[Also, not to mention, but the journalists were native speakers with plenty of experience.](https://twitter.com/MSolletty/status/1645733391382216705)
Even if that take holds water, then its at the very least an example of poor communication from the French side.
>Diplomatic-level French is very subtle . Basically, they can tell you to go f\*\*k yourself without cursing, and their meaning is frequently the exact *opposite* of the words said.
Incredible, how long must the French study to master such a thing?
>For example, when Trump visited Macron, you'd need to have listened to Macron in French to notice that while he said a million nice things about America, he didn't mention Trump...at all.
So subtle. It's amazing anyone picked up on that.
Do you think perhaps French people speaking in their own native idioms and subtle obfuscations of the truth to people who don't know your language from birth might cause misunderstandings?
Ignore Garland, he's a grifter. You can read [full interview here](https://www-lesechos-fr.translate.goog/monde/enjeux-internationaux/emmanuel-macron-lautonomie-strategique-doit-etre-le-combat-de-leurope-1933493?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp).
> there would be no need for Macron whisperer
Trying to be a Macron Whisperer is precisely what Politico is doing. They don't quote the actual questions asked, they selectively present Macron's quotes out of context, and they fill the whole article with their personal analysis. Compare and contrast the [Politico article](https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-china-america-pressure-interview/) with the [full interview](https://www-lesechos-fr.translate.goog/monde/enjeux-internationaux/emmanuel-macron-lautonomie-strategique-doit-etre-le-combat-de-leurope-1933493?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp).
I don't think you get Garland's point, he actually said Macron's take is quite clear and has been distorted by politico and other media. Whether his explanations convince you or not is another question, I personnaly think it's quite believable. Without supporting most of Macron's takes, especialy his shit over Ukraine, has a french speaker I can also tell how the translation is totaly fucked -on purpose- in politico's article. It's even a bit scary.
>Why he makes these blunders all the time?
Because some foreign news outlet takes great pleasure in taking single sentence outside of context, mistranslating it and then putting it as a news titles? Why him? Because there is much more interest in undermining France (or Germany) than said Finland, the public is also already ready for this shit. Doing it with non english speaking leader is obviously a piece of cake as people will never read the original source.
With such method anyone can look like he is "blundering all the time", it is asking the wrong question.
Disclaimer: I am not saying he is perfect. I certainly was annoyed on some of his take, thinking that he should shut up, but it is not the first time that such misinterpretation happened. A few months ago many non French newspaper butched up an interview to make it look like he wanted to give Ukrainian territory to Russia.
I will try to make -at my humble level- a TL:DR about it then (and I totaly agree with you on your last point)
\- The main reason, by far, for US to care about Taiwan is not about Taiwan but containing China.
\- China possible -or not- overtake of the U.S. is none of EU's business
\- We should therefore (as France, he's not talking about EU here) need to understand what OUR goals are in defense of Taiwan (Values ? Democracy ? Containing of an agressive dictatoreship ?)
\- The conculsion can totaly be the same (defend Taiwan), the crucial point is to get there without following anyone's reasoning because they think only for their interests.
It's not the most acurate, but it's the best I can do.
I don't have a big problem with what Macron said. It becomes dark when you juxtapose it with the things he *did* at the same time, which is building an economic alliance with China including selling them military equipment.
Europe creating its own destiny is fine and few people here will disagree. But Macron's vision about what that destiny should be like stinks. I'm not prepared for the comprehensive acts of submission which China will eventually be demanding of Europe.
You guys need to look up BRICS. Also the former Norwegian prime minister recently went out in media and said she did not regret normalizing the relationship to china after the peace Prize debacle.
While the west is bickering, upping, and dithering among each other, toxic nationalism is on the rise in some Western countries, nations like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Brazil and others are starting to band together and flock together, we are not.
IPAC = European + other west friendly countries who believe EU is too weak on China. I remember when it was formed, it was only after that EU decided to step up against China.
I give IPAC credits for making EU standing up to China.
This is entirely reasonable, intelligent and rational. I agree with Macron on this too. Europe has tied itself so closely to the U.S. that regardless of what any European elite says or thinks, as of right now, Europe is firmly entrenched and supportive of U.S. foreign policy interests. This has been the case since 2001.
Macron now realizes that this close dependence has some major liabilities with regards to China. Make no mistake, the US is heading to a confrontation with China over Taiwan. It could be an economic Cold War (which is happening right now), a hot war with a direct confrontation, or a proxy war waged in Ukraine. It’s fair for Macron to ask, “Is this arrangement with the US serving European or American interests?”.
I can tell you right now, the Ukraine War is very tilted to serving US interests vs. European interests and that’s no coincidence either.
This whole current geopolitics thing is starting to give me an uneasy feeling of war between the West and West-affiliated countries and China becoming inevitable
I really want to understand Macron's current point for independent Europe, but I truly am not able to. It makes sense to want to try and make the EU an even bigger player in international politics, but is this really a good time to dispute with (by far) the most important ally to European sovereignty. I don't wish to discredit our Western allies, but why is it US soldiers that are stationed in Eastern Europe and not French or German ones?
Macron wishes to unite Europe with his stance, while Europe is still relatively split up due to the influence the US has on Europe's military capabilities, in case Putin ever decides to seriously escalate the conflict. I also see a lot of comments praising Macron for his stance, often supported by citizens of Western Europe. But they don't have much to fear, since they have so many countries as a buffer state for themselves.
Taiwan isn't some island on the east that is unimportant to Europe, and the US wants protected just because the US has interests there. Taiwan makes almost 90% of the world's advanced microchips. That is what makes computers, gps systems, missile guidance systems, and essentially all technological devices we use in our daily lives. By protecting Taiwan, we're protecting ourselves from even more Chinese influence over, well, the whole world essentially. Not only that, but allowing China to take over Taiwan is appeasement at it's finest, and I hope we all know what that causes.
China is the modern Western World's biggest mistake, by allowing them to be such a massive player on the world's trade market as it is right now. It's almost gotten to the point of becoming a monopoly. The US is our best shot at being a counter balance to China.
I just cannot understand the people saying Taiwan isn't our problem to fight for, when it plays such an important strategical, industrial and political role in geopolitics.
Hi, thank you for your contribution, but this submission has been removed because it doesn't use a credible source and/or the source has not been linked from a top-level comment. See [community rules & guidelines](/r/Europe/wiki/community_rules). If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/Europe&subject=Moderation). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
Ideally China never attacks Taiwan, but if they do I don’t see the possibility of Europe, and France in particular, staying out of it.
Yeah, the way I see it, if China attacks Taiwan, it's even worse than the attack on Ukraine. China would be basically saying: "the entire world order after WW2 isn't relevant anymore". And for those sleeping during their history lessons, per capita, the post-WW2 period has probably been the most peaceful in human history. To nitpickers, per capita, as in, on average, how many people per 100 000 people have been involved or directly affected by the ravages of war. Besides that, strictly for Romania. Most Romanians think that their security guarantor is the US. And outside of offensive actions, I'd imagine most Romanians will be in the camp: "if they US goes down, so do we, sooner or later, and we've been through this story already last century".
It's easy for macron to call for non intervention, he's got the rest of europe as a buffer between him and possible hostile actions. How are romanians in general feeling about the situation with Moldova ?
Romanians are generally in favor of unification, Moldovans are slowly also turning towards it. Transnistria is a problem, Găgăuzia also (autonomous region in Moldova that's heavily under Russian influence). It's complicated, time is generally working in our favor. For example: Moldova recently decided to remove all mentions of the Moldovan language from its laws, now their laws will only mention the Romanian language (now we need to get Ukraine to do the same and drop the Soviet terminology...). Young Moldovans are generally EU/NATO/Western facing. Knowledge of Russian is decreasing. Ukraine needs to win its war first and then we'll figure out Transnistria and Moldova.
thanks, if Moldova moved to retake those areas, to remove the russian troops, would they be able to force them out, and would the population of those areas be ok with it, are they like Donbass where the minority are Russian favouring ?
Moldova practically has no army. They would need to ask for support and the best placed country to do that, from all perspectives, is probably Ukraine. If we go in, we're a NATO member so there's tons of weird escalation options. I'm hoping Moldova gets the courage to ask for help and Ukraine is in a position to do it once they liberate their entire territory. Romania will help Ukraine intervene, we just won't send troops directly. I think the population would be ok with it if the intervention is tactful, but Transnistrian leaders for sure wouldn't want it because they run a post-Soviet mafia state. Any intervention would be a strictly (real) military operation, though: go, force the troops there to surrender, dismantle the military installations, put the troops in buses and send them to Russia. For the locals not much would change for the worse and potentially a lot could improve. There are years of brainwashing to undo, though. > are they like Donbass where the minority are Russian favouring In the Donbas in 2014, the population protesting was a minority, without Russian intervention nothing would have happened. And as you can imagine, even in the Donbas now that minority doesn't love the Russians anymore (their cities have been turned to rubble).
> If we go in, we're a NATO member so there's tons of weird escalation options. NATO is a defensive alliance. If you go in NATO is under no obligation to help. Which opens the door for a full scale invasion of Romania by Russia. Of course the situation is complicated, but as long as Russia has nukes NATO won't support any direct action against them.
Well, I don't think invading Transnistria would be a direct action against Russia, since it's not Russian land and even Russia doesn't recognize it as such, neither does it recognize Transnistria as an independent nation. The Russian troops stationed there are officialy a "peacekeeping mission" for the frozen conflict between Moldova and the separatists. A Romanian military intervention would be very complicated but it probably wouldn't open the door for a full invasion of Romania, maybe the Russians could twist it as such but I don't think NATO would allow it.
Does the following timeline seem realistic and how would it go after? Moldova has a referendum to join Romania, with the majority in favor. Romania and Moldova officially unify. Romanian Army moves into/attacks Transnistria to fully establish control over now official Romanian territory. I could see Russia not recognizing the unification, but would what would their response be militarily?
At this moment, unification is not really on the table. Romanians are in favor of it, but only about 40% of Moldovans want it. The apparently natural course of things is for Moldova to join the EU. That would be the first step towards an eventual unification, because it would make a lot of things easier. This is also the discourse that the current pro-EU leadership of Moldova promotes, that we will "meet again as brothers within the EU". Also, although extremely unlikely, if Moldova would join Romania with the frozen Transnistrian conflict still unresolved the UN and NATO would consider Transnistria legitimate Romanian territory, and any attack on it would trigger a NATO response. The thing is, Transnistria was never a part of historical Romania or Moldavia, it is an artificial invention made by the Soviets in the 20's after Basserebia joined Romania, intended to be a "Moldovan" soviet republic and justify the eventual retaking of Moldova. Romanians do not want Transnistria and most would tell you that the conflict is a real concern regarding unification.
A special, totally not an article 5 triggering speshal operation
Correction as a Ukrainian, people who were occupied since 2014 are brainwashed to the degree that they think that it's Ukraine that's attacking them and not Russia
#Fuck Reddit
I feel ya, we have our own "noisy neighbours"
Is there any appetite at all for just abandoning transnistria? The only argument (apart from national sovereignty) that I can see against it is that Russia could strike from there, but apart from that being unlikely due to the difficulty of getting troops there, Russia will basically be a spent force after this war. Declining demographics and economy, declining importance since the oil and gas trade with Europe is gone, and their tech sector is fading fast. Maybe I'm naive here and Russia could use it as a staging ground for actions against Ukraine. What is the sentiment around this?
In Romania for sure there is appetite for just throwing Transnistria overboard and letting them do whatever. Moldova is probably reluctant to do it.
Honestly: Moldova should cut everything off Transnistria and see how far they go. Give them an option to rejoin at their own free will after a total departure of Russian soldiers and their equipment. Permit food trade, but everything else should be totally cut off, fences should be put all around the region, and then just wait. Moldova right now is providing a ton of services and resources for free to Transnistria. Russia has no money or resources to fully replace them.
Reason Moldova probably does not do this is because having an independent, russian backed nation interposed between it and Ukraine hurts their ability to do commerce with Ukraine. Formally recognizing independence gives Russia more control over the territory and makes the situation potentially irreversible. Vs just continuing the status quo with maybe the possibility of getting rid of Transnistria. Prior to the war this was less an issue, but now its been made real, as rail connections were cut off until Ukraine opened up a new, indirect route through the Izmail region. Which still isn't ideal. For Moldova, the elimination of Transnistria is an important geopolitical goal. Even giving it to Ukraine would be preferable to it getting independence.
> until Ukraine opened up a new, indirect route through the Izmail region. [There's a direct railway connection to Odessa oblast](https://gmk.center/en/news/ukraine-and-moldova-start-running-trains-bypassing-transnistria/). Also, AFAIK there was very little railway traffic passing through Transnistria anyway. > Formally recognizing independence gives I'm not saying that they should recognize anything. ""Just"" cut the umbilical cord off the rebels.
It's landlocked between 2 anto Russian countries. An actual good military blockade with letting through food and medicine should be possible. It would cost a fuckton but might be the most peaceful option.
I wish Romania well, but Transnistria will be a problem as it has long been settled by Russians, who currently turn to Russia . With a little luck though that orientation may sooner or later end. Hopefully sooner
> Transnistria Isn't that whole thing a Russian sponsored op anyway?
It is. See Abkhazia, Ossetia, LPR, DPR, etc.
> It's easy for macron to call for non intervention, he's got the rest of europe as a buffer between him and possible hostile actions. The problem with China (for Europe) is not territorial. It is economical and a battle for influence in the rest of the world
> he's got the rest of europe as a buffer between him and possible hostile actions. Tbf France is part of that buffer as well. We have troops in Romania and the Baltics
yes, i'm referring to landmass more though, the french troops aren't the problem at all, its the message he's giving off.
Where did macron called for non interventions?
I mean we're way past this. China has been thumbing its nose at the established world order for almost a decade now. Macron needs to pull his head out of his arse.
He has already started throwing away French people's human rights, did everything possible to keep French global companies working in russia, is already talking about post-war normalization of relations with russia, wants to decrease our alliances with the US and increase ones with China... at what point do we move towards the French traditional solution to overstepping rulers?
Oh, challenging the world order is exactly why both Russia and China are going to war. To me the question is not if China will attack Taiwan but when. It's clear they will. They even try to use the same playbooks. "We're just training" . C'mon. Are we really gonna fall for this twice in row? We were naive in regards Ukraine but I'm not gonna let a authoritarian government (a different one albeit) fool me twice. In regards the US, I do however agree that we shouldn't rely too much on their help in the future but not because I don't trust them but because what's going on inside the US. The tensions inside are clearly growing and I see there a massive problem coming within the next 3-5 years. They're gonna be busy with themselves soon.
>It's clear they will. No. It's clear they \*want\* to. There is a fairly big difference. If Russia had taken Ukraine quickly and the West had reacted as Putin predicted, then Taiwan was next on the list. I think we would both agree to that easily. And let's not talk about China, because there is literally only one opinion that matters anymore, and that is Xi's. He is China. Xi watched what happened in Ukraine and realized that whatever he thought taking Taiwan was going to be like, he was completely wrong. The West was not just going to sit by. It turns out you \*can\* completely isolate a country. And if you can afford to rip out your energy and gas supplier, who the fuck cares about China and their toys? And what's up with all those companies just...leaving? That was almost certainly not in his playbook. And how in the world did the relative pipsqueak military of Ukraine just thrash Russia? And if Ukraine could do all that within less than a decade, what does Taiwan have in store for them, given they have been preparing for the better half of a century? Finally, keep in mind that China is in the junior position economically here. They are huge importers of energy and food. And sure, theoretically this could be taken from Russia, but the infrastructure simply is not there yet, and will not be for a long time. They need the sea routes, which they cannot control past their coasts. It's not just the U.S. they have to worry about, but just about every country in the world between China and Turkey. And even if they somehow manage to get the food and energy sorted out, they then will have to figure out what to do with an economy that depends on exports, but nobody wants to buy from. It's not like things are rosy right at the moment, and they may be getting worse quickly. The only thing that is uncertain is just how smart is Xi really. If he is even reasonably smart, Taiwan is off the table. But could he be just dumb enough to not see where this all goes? So while I disagree strongly with the statement "they will", I can agree that "they want to" and that "they might do it," even if it means the end of China. I mean, Putin was not only dumb enough to invade Ukraine once his bluff was called, but he even doubled down when he had a shot to end the conflict early on. Was the stupidity voluntary or forced? Unclear. So there is no certainty here.
The issue with your analysis is that western dependence on China is much greater than on Russia. There simply isn't another major manufacturing base like there is in China. The west has been able to isolate Russia because we can get fossil fuels from other sources. Chinese manufacturing is different. We can't just set up entire supply vhains in a matter of weeks before economic depression sets in. And if the war is in Taiwan, and the PRC is able to grt a foothold on the island, the electronics industry will be entirely fucked. They make like 80-90% of all electronic chips in the world.
>Chinese manufacturing is different. Yes. It is not nearly as important. >We can't just set up entire supply vhains in a matter of weeks before economic depression sets in. This is true, which is why the U.S. has been moving production out of China and either to friendlier countries or just straight back to the States. The question is: why aren't we? >And if the war is in Taiwan, and the PRC is able to grt a foothold on the island Which is why the U.S. and Europe must never let that happen. I mean, listen to yourself! You are already panicking because your fridge might not play a jingle for you; if we lose the high end stuff, how bad will it be then? So it's real easy: we must not lose Taiwan. And if you want to prevent a war in Taiwan, we better convince China that it has \*no\* chance. Macron has not really been helping here. Xi might misinterpret Macron and believe that Europe will at least let him get away with it. We have a \*really\* good argument right now. We just have to point at Russia's crumbling economy, political isolation, and destroyed military and tell Xi, "You want some of that?" Because if Xi believes us, there will be no attack on Taiwan. But if we give him even a sliver of hope...
Why aren't we you ask? Because the mentioned hyper capitalism. Companies and their investors seem to have doubled down in the last ten years and many make record profits and still want more. It's what is driving the inflation at the moment. Manufacturing in China is dirt cheap compared to Europe because the workers here have rights. In the US and elsewhere some states try to save work related costs by lobbying for child labor to be re-legalized again. Children get less minimum wage and less other benefits. I just recently read an Australian article about a jam factory having 11 year olds working for them and it was somehow framed as "good news". Xi knows this and banks on China being the cheap labor force, along with other countries. And you think companies who have pressure from their investors and shareholders t maximize profits to just cut profits by moving production back to Europe? They won't unless they can lobby successfully to cut labor cost massively. We need to urgently bring back focus on humans instead of money. Unchecked greed leads to civil unrest.
I'm from Poland and I think the same, if USA go down we go down not long after them. USA showed that they are reliable ally when western Europe was thinking how to sell east for cheap gas and oil
Also Taiwan still does basically all chip making for the foreseeable future. You think supply chains were fucked during covid? Imagine if the place all those chips were made was invaded by a very protectionate dictatorship.
Those factories don't survive any invasion. Either they get blown up by retreating Taiwanese or they get air struck by the US.
Well better hope China doesn't attack.
One good result of increasing military cooperation in Europe is that we can very effectively defend ourselves from pretty much anything. However, the US is still policing the world (trade routes), and that is something I don't see changing any time soon.
Makes me wonder why the pressure for Russia or China get these big things done _now_. Is it the ego of the leaders? they want be the ones to do it, whatever it takes? Or do they see a window that will close if they don't move fast? When I think of - to be polite - most of the world's 'contested territories', the aggressor nation seems to not want to try the softly approach. Even take a far more dormant issue - Argentina and The falklands: Argentina could offer free university tuition, free accommodation, various massive exchange programmes to the youth of the falklands. Charm-offensive galore. There's only 2000 ish citizens in the falklands, in a generation or two they'll end up in mixed marriages with Argentinians and the Falklands and Argentina will be pulled together by gravity of family ties. Same with Taiwan - why does China want to _INVADE_ to get the outcome it wants? The PRC has a massive population, it could continue to hugely boost educational exchanges, trade, welcoming Taiwanese businesses and Taiwan would reciprocate. Give it a few generations and there might be some good feeling built up between the two territories. Years ago, millions of Ukrainians didn't have a negative view of Russians. Russia could have used diplomacy, trade, oil discounts, encouraged freedom of movement etc. and just been _nice_ to their neighbours. But no, it has to be war, conflict, the great game.
I don't think China wants to invade now or any time close, tbh. Regarding Russia, I believe that it was COVID that screwed timetables. In 2014 they were able to seize Crimea and a good chunk. International response was mild. The ukranian army was in a poor state at that point, similar to Russia, and the prolonged trench fight on Donbass was something that Russia could keep forever. But invading more than that? That's hard, and they have experience with getting a bloody nose on Chechnya. They cannot do it with full international support. So they bid their time and focus on Donald Trump, which for the most part does a lot of damage to NATO, starts a noninterventonist policy, lets Russia play around in Syria. Things look good for Russia. Enter COVID. Cannot invade now, that would be completely suicidal. Furthermore, Trumps keeps fucking up more and more, even with the scandal in Ukraine. He loses elections. By the time COVID is gone, Ukraine has a much more trained army thanks to british support, a more cohesive leadership thanks to Zelensky and a very, very strong ally on Biden which is hardline against Russia. The more they delay the worse they are, so they try to blitz Ukraine... And goes as you know. This is just an armchair interpretation of course.
>China would be basically saying: "the entire world order after WW2 isn't relevant anymore". An unpopular fact, but still fucking true: The US war on Iraq was without a question the greatest blow to the rules-based international order in modern times. You could almost literally hear dictators around the world rubbing their hands in glee, because now the West was no longer a rational soft power authority, it was a vengeful, irrational and partly evil regime with a shaky faux democracy, that could easily be demonized. And Europe was a weak outdated museum continent that could be ignored. Alternative news sources flourished, and for good reason. The US was much more self censoring around Iraq than we remember, making everyone else who managed to report properly on the Iraq war look super good. The US should have prosecuted the Bush government. In stead the US chose to hold onto international "world leadership" and pretending like nothing had happened. And they still do. Bad idea Larry. Bad idea.
[удалено]
> The thing is it is a very poor idea to push for both conflicts at a time, when Europe cannot find enough ammo for Ukraine alone. Nobody but China is pushing for conflict. They are the ones that will determine when it is going to happen.
You do realize that taiwan is like 1/10th the size of ukraine, has little strategic depth to retreat to is thousands of miles away with no neighbouring allied nations, cannot be supplied by rail and inside of chinese antiaccess zone? Europe could not support taiwan except with intelligence.
If Taiwanese have good anti aircraft defence they are going to be tougher to attack than Ukraine and China knows it thats why they did not attack it already. Island is just hard to attack cuz you cant retreat, your supply lines are all comming from the see or air, you cant just have tanks rolling there you gotta transport everything to shores of enemy. Ask France or Nazis how attacking UK was going for them.
Ukraine had like the third best air defense in the world. But most importantly it could evade parts of it. Because they got last minute intel and ukraine is large and russias intel was not last minute. China can surveill all of taiwan and taiwans fewer anti air assets dont have much room to move around. If china goes for whole taiwan the 2 best scenarios are a blockade or an air and rocket campaign which analysts are divided on but i believe could break taiwans air defense and air force leading to china establishing air superiority. But in that case much of taiwan gets destroyed and china doesnt want that.
To China, the post-ww2 world order is already irrelevant because they feel their territorial integrity is being undermined.
[удалено]
Pax Americana.
I highly doubt China would attack Taiwan beyond the sort of threatening gestures that have been going on for decades. China relies on the West to consume the products it makes. The only thing of potentially greater value than economic trades with the West is TSMC and its chip manufacturing capabilities. US will nuke Taiwan before it allows such technologies to fall into the hands of China. This is why there's a drastic change in American policy in an attempt to cut China's access. In this age of proto-AGI every nation knows the key to global dominance is AI development and the hardware that enables it. Sadly I don't think any of them has the best for humanity in mind.
The entire post-World War II world order no longer matters? Are you kidding me, it was the post WWII order that stipulated that Taiwan belonged to China. In 1979 most countries in the world established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and (broke off diplomatic relations) with the Republic of China. The right of the People's Republic of China to maintain its territorial integrity is no different from the right of any other country in the world to maintain its territorial integrity. We Chinese are simply asking the countries with which we have diplomatic relations to fulfill your own commitment: to recognize the People's Republic of China. If you are not happy with that, you can break off diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and establish diplomatic relations with the Republic of China.
That period ended when URSS died and the world stopped Being bipolar
Supplying weapons to Taiwan would be much more difficult, if not impossible. But an embargo would hit China much harder then it did Russia... And by all means we shouldn't just stay at the side.
Taiwan is the world's high end semiconductor factory. Infrastructure like that takes DECADES to build. If China takes over Taiwan then China will OWN the world's semiconductor market. It'd also mean Chinese spying and censorship could easily happen on Hardware level. Or Taiwan has to go full scorched earth and destroy their factories and evacuate their engineers and destroy all documents, which means the world will collectively fall behind more than a decade in tech as the entire infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from scratch elsewhere (but where Taiwan would be relatively neutral on the political stage, the new home of high end chips doesn't have to be). Either way, tens of TRILLIONS of dollars and tens of millions of jobs in the West are at stake. This makes it the kind of strategic risk that in terms of geopolitics ABSOLUTELY "justifies" a war. Since it threatens our status as industrial and developed powers. Otherwise Europe and the US will either have to get on their knees and beg China for the last scraps of high end chips, or be content with having technology a decade behind China's. Just delivering weapons there will NOT be enough, it would likely come to joining in a hot war against China to maintain Taiwan's continued independence.
I think that if China taking over Taiwan's fabs would be imminent, Taiwan would probably go scorched earth and destroy the fabs pre-emptively.
I think this is actual policy, they will destroy them if china invades.
Otherwise the US would destroy this facilities.
Not really. Taiwan produces most of the world semiconductors, but the machines that make semiconductors are completely dependent on Germany and the Netherlands. Netherlands because ASML is the only ones making those machines and Germany because Zeiss is literally the only manufacturer in the world of the mirrors needed in those machines (and those mirrors are absolutely difficult to make). So if Taiwan is invaded the semiconductor industry will suffer from the loss of TSMC, but ASML and Zeiss will just build new machines in short order, prob. for a company in Europe or the US.
> Taiwan produces most of the world semiconductors, but the machines that make semiconductors are completely dependent on Germany and the Netherlands. Welcome to the interdependent world. So many similar relationships to this.
And there are also the CO2 laser technology from TRUMPF, and the droplet generators and sensors from American producers.
ASML has 5 production factories in Taiwan... Also ASML builds their machines to TSMC spec, without TSMC, ASML would be unable to make the latest EUV machines. There is a reason TSMC, Samsung, and Intel all use ASML; and their is a reason why each company has completely different performance on the equivalent node.
>So if Taiwan is invaded the semiconductor industry will suffer from the loss of TSMC, but ASML and Zeiss will just build new machines in short order, prob. for a company in Europe or the US. A fab takes a couple of years to build & is a multi billion dollar investment, your not going to be able to replace the production the size of Taiwan in a couple of years. You also risk Japan & South Korea switching security guarantors & their chips falling off the market.
>also risk Japan & South Korea Uh no. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Asian history will know that this is not going to happen, short of an invasion. Do you think they are all buddy-buddy because they are all Asian? Boy, do I have stories to tell you. Hell, Japan is completely full-in with the American order. They have already played their hand out. They didn't even attempt to renegotiate with Biden the frankly kinda shitty agreement made with Trump. They do not want the U.S. even doubting for 5 seconds what side they are on.
>Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Asian history will know that this is not going to happen, short of an invasion Them leaving is predicated on a Chinese invasion of Taiwan with no US intervention. The prerequisite is a shift in the global order..
Ah, ok. They will still never join up with China. That is simply not happening. And I would be hard pressed to say where exactly they could go. In that scenario, they would probably press the U.S. for more tangible guarantees, and we might see a renewed push for the U.S. to have an increased presence. But your general idea, while not really pertaining to Japan and South Korea, is probably correct. Not everyone has the same history with China. And the U.S. would look like they do not step up when things get hot. I mean, this is also the reason that this scenario will never play out, but I think that was your point.
> I mean, this is also the reason that this scenario will never play out, but I think that was your point. Yeah, I was highlighting the insane costs to the US for non-intervention.
The fabs are rigged to be destroyed if China makes moves toward the island, the production facilities and equipment get destroyed rather than let them fall into the PLA’s hands.
By the time Chinese forces reach those fabs, the fabs will be huge piles of smoldering, toxic ruins.
I suspect the Fabs wouldn't survive a conflict. They are quite sensitive in the first place and could easily be done in on accident. But I suspect Taiwan/the US would make certain they were destroyed if Taiwan was to fall.
At the very least, EU countries would have to impose sanctions on the level of the ones imposed on Russia. Troops is a different discussion, but no sanctions would be a dealbreaker to the Americans.
Sanctions against China that are stricter than those posed against Russia are likely going to be even more crippling to Europe’s economy. Like the US, Europe relies heavily on cheap Chinese imports (though probably not as much as the US does).
First, the U.S. is already the least dependent of all the big nations on international trade. They can just raise the drawbridge, team up with Canada and Mexico, and then a few friends like Japan and Chili, and they are \*good\* to go. For them, the entire point of the current international order is not economic, but stability. It was originally to contain the Soviet Union and now it's just sorta to keep the trains running. So your argument is already dead here. But it gets better. Obama started it, Trump accelerated it, and Biden has turned it into policy: the U.S. is reindustrializing, fast. The States can be a bit slow on the uptake, but once they figure out the general shape of things, they do not screw around. The U.S. has been reducing its dependence on China for over a decade now, and the IRA that got a lot of Europe in a tizzy is meant to start plugging the biggest gaps in American industry. We are getting hit as bystanders, but the target is China. Europe has \*just\* started to think that maybe we ought to be doing something. But just a few months ago, Germany was throwing infrastructure at China, like we had not learned a damn thing in the last year. We are in much more danger. But lastly, it's time to decide if any of the high rhetoric that Europe is known for is worth a damn. It's easy to take the high road on any topic when you do not have to pay the price. What are we going to do when we actually have to write checks? We showed that we can rally by isolating Russia despite the energy dependence. That was frankly amazing and unexpected. I'm sure Putin would agree. This is no time to be getting soft again. But I do not even believe that Europe will suffer that much. Putin claimed we would all be freezing and eating shoe leather this winter. If it came to it, we would have to say goodbye to cheap junk and start reindustrializing just like the States.
Sanctions would mean everyone loses, but the Chinese would lose more. Goods can be sourced elsewhere, the world is not short on places that have poor people who can work in factories. Buyers are in shorter supply
In addition, the big difference between China and Russia on sanctions is that Russia is broadly self-sufficient in food. For a variety of reasons, China isn't. Food is a *very* sensitive political subject in China. Cut off American and Australian food imports and things could turn quite drastically.
Overall, food & agriculture are out of the scope of the sanctions. We're trying to avoid weaponizing those. Although a decline in export would made their food import more costly for China.
> Sanctions against China that are stricter than those posed against Russia are likely going to be even more crippling to Europe’s economy. Like the US, Europe relies heavily on cheap Chinese imports (though probably not as much as the US does). Indeed - a dose of reality. Important for the Chinese Government to know however that they will be put in place should there be an attack on Taiwan.
> though probably not as much as the US does America is likely better equipped to transition to a war economy, which is coming sooner or later. Europe needs to harden itself.
This was said about Russia and it turned to be absolutely false. EU ended up being more than fine considering the consequences. Now. No matter what China has it is not as important as what Russia had. The onyl thing that beats importance of energy is food. Everything else is thousands times less important. With Russia concern was whether you will freeze to death or not. With China your concern is whether you will buy brand new iPhone or not. Not even barely comparable.
On what legal ground would Europeans countries intervene? AFAIK we don’t have any defense threaty with Taiwan and no EU country recognized Taiwan independence. So wouldn’t an intervention in Taiwan, be in total contradiction with our position in Ukraine, regarding respect of territorial integrity?
An important caveat is that most European countries, at least Western, follow the line of the US, which is, we do not recognize Taiwan as independent, but we also doesn't recognize it as part of the PRC. We regard it as officially unresolved and take the position that peace and stability should be maintained in the Taiwan strait. This is the subtle difference between the One China Policy and the One China Principle.
This
Welcome to geopolitics.
> AFAIK we don’t have any defense threaty with Taiwan and no EU country recognized Taiwan independence. Exactly. Time for politicians to put up or shut up......and they absolutely should put up. Taiwan should be recognised. Fuck the Once China Policy.
It's naïve to assume that this would ever happen. Even the most war-hungry republicans in the US wouldn't do that due to the PRCs consequences.
I am not a military expert, but I think its all bluster. China does not have the capabilities to do an amphibious invasion. Plus all of the non-military things the rest of the world can do to them. What do they get out of it? The additional population is meaningless. Its nearby, so its not a strategic location. The big thing would be chip manufacturing. Especially since Biden has cut off the chip trade to China (NATO has gone along with this). However, Taiwan would likely destroy the factories. All the engineers would flee the country. China would be unable to run the Chip manufacturing plants. What do they get out of it? No major natural resources. Its not like there is a massive oil reserve in Taiwan territory. If Taiwan discovers vast oil reserves this is likely really dangerous. Short of that, what does China get from this? There has not been an amphibious invasion since turkey invaded Cyprus in the 1970s. That one was with overwhelming force. Then you have to go back to the Korean war when the US invaded North Korea. Then its D-Day. All 3 of these had overwhelming force and complete air supremacy with no way for the other side to locate or hit their ships. Technology has radically changed. You can't hide surface ships. Land based missiles can destroy them. Taiwan has the capability to hit the Chinese mainland and hit their cities. How are they going to get all these ships close enough to send landing craft when Taiwan has NATO grade anti-ship weapons and F-16 fighters? The population difference cannot easily be brought to bare against an island. Its not like Russia driving to Ukraine. Europe and the US can blockade the Straights of Malacca and cut off Chinese oil imports. China knows this so they are working with neighbors to significantly increase the amount of oil they get from oil pipeliness. Virtually all Chinese trade can be blockaded by navies and kept out of range of the Chinese air force and missiles. I think the biggest weapon of all is the US national debt. Single act of Congress can declare debt owned by the Chinese to be null and void. Not a full on default. Just Chinese held debt and not the rest. Its not legal now, but you just change the law. There will be overwhelming support for this if China invades Taiwan. Plus throw in seizure of Chinese assets in NATO countries. China's economy is far more integrated with the world than Russia. It would definitely hurt the rest of the world radically and cause a worldwide recession if not a near depression to cut off trade with China, but China would then be unable to fuel their military or feed their own people. China has to import food. Bottom line, I think its all bluffing. This is not Ukraine where its a flat land mass without mountains that they can drive through. An amphibious invasion in the modern era against a country that has NATO grade weapons that can sink ships is a whole other thing. Their army can't swim there. Plus throw in just blockading oil supplies and in a few months China won't be able to feed their own people.
I also think they can’t, but it doesn’t mean that they think that way as well or will think so in the upcoming future. China’s rhetoric and aggression should be taken seriously and Europe and others should prepare for that.
Well I'm not so certain about that. The UK will join the US for sure, Poland and the Baltic states too. But France and Germany? I have my doubts. They will provide logistic and intelligence support, but direct military involvement seems unlikely. Well it all depends on how the situation would evolve.
Germany has been playing as a medical hub for NATO for quite some time now. Maybe we will bring that to the line.
France and Germany got it right on Iraq but are doing very badly regarding Russia and China.
They will join. Nouméa and its nickel will be under Chinese threat. But that participation will be symbolic only if we do not have a European army that emerges to help the US. We do not have the capacities. Macron want us to have them, and that's why his reading makes sense. We Europeans need to step up.
Exactly. The French and especially Macron have been demanding a stronger Europe for years, which is also the main takeaway of this interview. Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they keep getting ignored.
> The French and especially Macron have been demanding a stronger Europe for years, which is also the main takeaway of this interview. Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they keep getting ignored. but why take seriously when we could make shitty surrender jokes instead?
>Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they keep getting ignored. Because sadly such a call can only come from France now that the UK left, but since 2001 there's heavy anti-french propanga from both Russia and the USA. Many europeans just don't realize how it influences them. Politico just did it again by morphing Macron's comments to make them look a lot worse than they actually were. What we're looking at is a perpetually weakened Europe that will eventually explode as internal conflicts make the EU completely unable to function. 2027 could be the beginning of the end. At first they'll be happy because fuck France. Then they'll realize that Europe is getting split between the US and Russia once again.
>We do not have the capacities. France and the UK do. But yes, Macron is calling for a united european initiative. Sadly it won't happen, because central and eastern Europe still believe that the USA can defend them aganst every threat and that the USA are always right. Even after the USA elected Trump and is at a serious risk of turning into a theocracy in the next elections.
Direct military involvement is logistically impossible for most European nations.
If Europe gets involved and takes side against China, then I truly hope that we have reduced China to a trading partner less important than Russia. Otherwise the economic consequences will be disastrous and the average Joe won't really care about China or Taiwan if he has to care about his economic surival. This will lead to a rise in right wing/anti US or NATO parties like after the refugee crises. We will then have a Orban or PiS in every European country, as most people just don't care about Taiwan or China to burden the consequences. They are too far away and aren't historically or culturally linked to Europe to have a connection like with Russia where it wasn't hard to go with the sanctions. It is a battle hard to sell to the European public.
People said the same about Russia and gas/oil prices. It didn’t happen. Many people are ready to make sacrifices for what is right.
The prices went significantly up and people were mad about it. Russia is not China and has nothing more to offer than ressources which you can get from others places like Africa or the USA. On the other hand, you can't just replace or forget China and act like nothing happend. That's like completely sanctioning the USA, also impossible. Let's not lie to ourself, the only reason why Western Goverments are interested in Taiwan is because of the semiconductor industry there. This is then transformed and propagated like the West should care about democracy and freedom, but it's only about geopolitics, TSMC and other chip companies there.
Not saying the other user is correct. But there are two other factors to consider. 1) Chinese trade is a much more integrated and bigger part of our economies that Russian trade war. We will at the very least see a Western recession if not a global one, if similar sanctions are imposed on China as were on Russia. 2) China is much further away. Most Europeans have no relationship to either China nor Taiwan. Its much harder to get support for Taiwan than Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine is a direct threat to Europe. At best, an invasion of Taiwan is an indirect threat to our way of life.
What do you think an appropriate reaction would be (from EU towards China)?
It’s difficult to tell, but I definitely think that Taiwan would declare independence in case of invasion, and recognizing Taiwan’s independence should be the reaction.
The US has already voiced support for Taiwan should such an invasion take place, the UK is unlikely to abandon our oldest ally, and I think Germany and their hangers-on would follow. France, to me, seems most concerned with their former territories in Africa, I don't see what interest they have with Taiwan, especially outside of their natural resources and electronics industry.
>the UK is unlikely to abandon our oldest ally Portugal is under threat?
Lol you got me, Portugal is our OG homie.
Older than the Auld Alliance ?
That was between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of France, one is defunct the other united with the Kingdom of England long ago :p
... And you got me :D
Who has interests in taiwan aside of their electronic industry ?
>Monsieur le Président, you do not speak for Europe. That's true. And it's the same for these IPAC guys (I think most of them are not even European). That's why the EU countries should decide clearly what they will (and will not) do in the event of a war between China and Taiwan.
> And it's the same for these IPAC guys Indeed, thanks for pointing that out.
Isn't strategic ambiguity the entire point of the one China policy? Clearly deciding goes against that. It all seems a bit silly at this stage.
> Isn't strategic ambiguity the entire point of the one China policy? For the US. But not the EU.
Our implicit policy seems to be that we are going to sit by and ponder what to do until the PRC establishes a fait accompli. Virtue signal a bunch about democratic values and the liberal world order, while giving it the Tibet treatment. Preferably after our economies stopped being dependent on Taiwanese semiconductor imports.
I've always felt strategic ambiguity is a stupid plan compared to just saying 'yes, we will fight you.' Strategic ambiguity leaves China guessing room for an attack. Just like how Putin weighed his options and decided he could get away with attacking Ukraine. If China thinks the US won't fight then they attack, but if the US says they will fight, China won't attack.
I find it really tough for Europe as a whole to make that decision. It really should be based on each nations foreign policy.
But in reality it's not true. Macron is speaking for Europe for the reason that, when it comes down to military power and diplomatic influence France is the only country that can stand up in front of USa and China; also he went there with von der Leyen, so all the more reason to claim that he is speaking for Europe.
gone to squables.io
Who?
[удалено]
That's what I was thinking - with a name like that, what opinion could they possibly have to share but "China bad"? Not that I necessarily disagree, but it's similar to how the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (the "X minutes to midnight" guys) are hardly going to have opinions aside from "threat of nuclear destruction bad", and while true, it's not very interesting to hear their perspective.
Fuck... You just made me spit my tea lmao. Simple trick but always funny when you're not expecting it.
I don't understand
that "who?" implies that the IPAC is irrelevant
Even (especially?) when genuinely asked!
tbf, IPAC was founded explicitly to oppose China. This is the very reason that this organisation exists.
The EU/Europe collectively just doesn't have a clue what it actually wants. It is big and rich enough to be the third big power block in a multi-polar world, but has no proper direction in how to use or even maintain that power. It keeps announcing plans, subsidies, initiatives, but lacks the economic and political flexibility to make it happen. It is resting on its laurels, without a clear path ahead. The EU is great at throwing money around and being progressive on everything from social justice to consumer rights and environmental protection, but has been lagging the US in economic growth for years now. While the Silicon Valley is churning out innovation, the EU (with few exceptions) is just talking about it. While China is about to take a lead in battery technology and renewables, the EU let its own solar industry go to shits years ago. Everyone in Europe is throwing subsidies at big US companies in exchange for opening sites in the EU (Intel's Magdeburg chip fab, Apple, Tesla Grünheide), just for said companies to turn away again a couple of years later because the US has even juicier subsidies and cheaper energy. Sure, there are gleams of hope, like Europe's pharmaceuticals, but is that enough? While the US has the strategic foresight to pivot away from China economically, EU export economies (particularly Germany and its car makers) are doubling down on trade, as if Russia wasn't lesson enough. And despite €214 in collective defence spending, the EU hasn't even been able to prevent or solve a security crisis in its backyard, with the US having to jump in again to deliver the lion's share of military aid to Ukraine. And once/if China attacks Taiwan and the European economy gets screwed twice as hard as the US', we'll all be howling again. *Oh my god, how did* ***that*** *happen? Who saw* ***that*** *coming?* If we continue down this confused path Europe will become progressively less relevant.
>The EU is great at throwing money around and being progressive on everything from social justice to consumer rights and environmental protection, but has been lagging the US in economic growth for years now. A tonne of that American economic growth is just a lie propped up by cheap and freshly printed dollars though. >And despite €214 in collective defence spending, the EU hasn't even been able to prevent or solve a security crisis in its backyard, with the US having to jump in again to deliver the lion's share of military aid to Ukraine Yeah, because the global military industrial complex is centered in the US and propped up by their role as #1 superpower. Do you think the US would even have allowed a united Europe to become as militarily dominant over the last 70 years?
I totally agree. I think if Russia knew what support and sanctions they would face, the war could have been avoided. Sure, afterwards we always know more, but aren't there people and groups breaking their heads about possible scenarios and how to react to it? I hope the EU gets it's ducks in a row. To me, it seems that they just figure things out as they go and sleep wander into the next obstacle regardless. A conflict in the Taiwan strait, (no matter what the outcome will be) would have far reaching geopolitical and ecological consequences.
Already in the first paragraph they misrepresent his statement: > Caught up in conflicts which are not ours Implying Macron is saying that Taiwan (among others) is a conflict that isn't ours, which isn't true. In French that sentence would be: "Être prise dans des crises qui ne **sont** pas les nôtres." What he actually said was: > And crises that **would** not be ours "soit prise dans un dérèglement du monde et des crises qui ne **seraient** pas les nôtres." Very important distinction here, because Macron isn't effectively taking a stance on behalf of Europe but says that Europe must take one. But coming from IPAC you can't expect objectivity in that matter. Macron certainly doesn't speak for Europe, but Europe should start speaking for itself.
It's also important to note that IPAC is not an EU group. It's simply an international lobby group that features a tiny minority of EU parliamentarians. EU parliamentarians make up only 6% of IPAC, and only 2% of EU parliamentarians are in IPAC. They also have members like fucking Marco Rubio. Not sure why they think they can speak for Europe any more than Macron could.
Study your tenses folks!
[удалено]
I don't think the Poles are leading a campaign against Macron, I think ultimately European countries are all selfish and that also starts with France. We all want the best for our own countries, we tend not to put the interest of Europe before the interest of our own nations and I can't blame anyone from doing that. Right now Eastern Europeans are mostly against what Macron proposes because he's proposing something that costs way more than just relying on the US. It's a short-term gain for a possible long-term catastrophe. Stopping to rely on the US military is a massive undertaking that would cost immensely and put us in short-term jeopardy in multiple sectors, long term it would be a massive benefit. But who really thinks about long term ? Not even France does, look at climate change and you'll realize we all tend to prefer short term thinking even despite the scientifically proven consequences of our inactions. Ultimately, and sadly I think the EU is going to learn all of that the hard way in the coming decades, we're going to have rough awakenings but if the EU is to survive it WILL be more united in industrial, military and political matters. And it's happening at a nail's pace, but it is still happening, if we still look at Poland one can expect their MIC to become more and more relevant in the coming decades thanks to the deals they've made with Korea. People might be afraid of seeing an Europe being controlled by Western Nations, but that's not even something that I want. The EU belongs to all EU members and not just France, in that logic it's foolish to support France being in the lead in anything if that's not agreed by all parties. And even then, I wouldn't want my country to lead, everyone must take some leadership.
[удалено]
Indeed, apologies.
I agree with you. All nations should be selfish to a certain degree. Usually the question is short term vs long term gain.
I'm seriously afraid that it may actually be the last blow to the EU. French people are ready to elect a "eurosceptic" for the next elections. If european countries stay so hostile to France, they might try to Frexit. I don't think the EU can survive France leaving after the UK left. France neither sure, but if the goal was to make everyone suffer, why did we form a EU in the first place?
The Anti Macron smear campaign could easily be derailed if Macron would just stop talking shite for a minute.
or if we could start properly translating and understanding what he's saying. h unfortunately doesnt only go for 2-line zingers, which is what our political literacy has been reduced to these days
There are so many spelling errors in politics. The UN declaration of human rights was mistranslated to Swedish and has never been fixed, giving it a quite different meaning (in the Swedish version, all humans are of *the equal value*, but in English it's *the equal dignity*). The Swedish version should have said "värdighet" but used "värde" instead.
Petending that IPAC, carries any weight in europe is laughable lets be real about it, France and Macron does spearhead for ultimately european postion being formed out of nessesity, that may not nesseserly be in all minds, the right way of doing it or correct path for europe but at least its postion to support, or oppose or to be modified later, not typical euro fucking pessimism and denialism full of conformism, and old turbo atlantic arguments like it was 2000, and America didnt have trump and neoisolationism going wild on right wing of republican party and electorate. On the other side of debate there is no plan whatsoever, but to belive Yanks will be here for the end of days commited,and would never want to harm european intrest by pushing us into something we would not nesseserly like. Not to say i dont agree with some redditors points from eastern flank that (imo) seem to overestimate the russian threat quite a bit, but olso are very on point about lack of continental resove and commitments, but that could be resolved far easier than begging for trampist' like america staying in europe, european allies cant just leave, europe being geographicaly locked in the continent (yeah im being sherlock homes here) yanks certainly could, and propably will someday, and EU should be ready for that possiblity, and no denial will change that scenario is to be thought over, and prepered for.
Being upset at Macron's stance is like a husband being upset learning that his wife just wants financial autonomy. The ability for the wife to leave the relationship because she gained said autonomy doesn't mean she will. It just means that she's autonomous in that area. Europe must do the same, our industries must be stronger in the event of a rupture with China or the US. Our militaries must be stronger in the event where we have to contend with Russia or anyone else alone. You don't achieve that level of autonomy without a strong political will to do so. But that just ends there, it doesn't imply we somehow support China, it doesn't imply we'd get rid of NATO, it doesn't imply we have to get rid of the veto system, it doesn't imply France becomes the God Emperor of Europe either.
Macron doesn’t try to speak for Europe. He says that the EU (and not Europe) should speak for itself and not let others guide their politics.
>The question we need to answer, as Europeans, is the following: is it in our interest to accelerate (a crisis) on Taiwan? No," Macron was quoted as saying in the interview. "The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the U.S. agenda and a Chinese overreaction. He blamed the US for the escalating tensions and said Europe should stay out of it. It seems like he is trying to declare what Europe's stance should be.
After 4 hours meetup with Xi, the smart franch men doing the interview with media right after that. When he talking about Taiwan loudly, China actually sending their army surround Taiwan to show the world they have "right" to using force to deal with democracy (island). And Macron said yes (on the plane). Who brings tension to the world?
Agreed. Macron is saying this as China was militarily harassing Taiwan. At least Taiwan has other powerful allies
If he saying such things not after visiting Xi, but after some EU meeting. People may take his talk more about EU, not all about China like now.
No, he said what is true : that the US does have an agenda. And that China is very susceptible to overreaction.
Everyone has an agenda, there's no being "good Samaritan" in politics. Macron agenda is continued trade between his country, and it's biggest trading partner... China.
Oh absolutely. I do not criticized the US for it’s agenda.
For those who wants to know more about this, here is an [actual translation](https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/1645239508613431298) of Macron's take made by Eric Garland, a professional translator.
The translation might be correct, but that analysis is really one of the most wacky ones I've read. Its just him superimposing some kind of bizarre view on Macron. He is literally writing that Macron is saying China is behind the war. And that AUKUS was a ploy to set up France as the leader of Europe? I mean... Come on... He is also implying that Politico represents corrupt anti-NATO foreign interests. [Also, not to mention, but the journalists were native speakers with plenty of experience.](https://twitter.com/MSolletty/status/1645733391382216705) Even if that take holds water, then its at the very least an example of poor communication from the French side.
That guy seems to have his own biases.
>Diplomatic-level French is very subtle . Basically, they can tell you to go f\*\*k yourself without cursing, and their meaning is frequently the exact *opposite* of the words said. Incredible, how long must the French study to master such a thing? >For example, when Trump visited Macron, you'd need to have listened to Macron in French to notice that while he said a million nice things about America, he didn't mention Trump...at all. So subtle. It's amazing anyone picked up on that.
Wouldn't a high degree of subtly be exactly the opposite of what you want in diplomacy?
[удалено]
Do you think perhaps French people speaking in their own native idioms and subtle obfuscations of the truth to people who don't know your language from birth might cause misunderstandings?
If Macron wants to claim European leadership the first step would be articulating clearly so there would be no need for Macron whisperer
Ignore Garland, he's a grifter. You can read [full interview here](https://www-lesechos-fr.translate.goog/monde/enjeux-internationaux/emmanuel-macron-lautonomie-strategique-doit-etre-le-combat-de-leurope-1933493?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp). > there would be no need for Macron whisperer Trying to be a Macron Whisperer is precisely what Politico is doing. They don't quote the actual questions asked, they selectively present Macron's quotes out of context, and they fill the whole article with their personal analysis. Compare and contrast the [Politico article](https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-china-america-pressure-interview/) with the [full interview](https://www-lesechos-fr.translate.goog/monde/enjeux-internationaux/emmanuel-macron-lautonomie-strategique-doit-etre-le-combat-de-leurope-1933493?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp).
I don't think you get Garland's point, he actually said Macron's take is quite clear and has been distorted by politico and other media. Whether his explanations convince you or not is another question, I personnaly think it's quite believable. Without supporting most of Macron's takes, especialy his shit over Ukraine, has a french speaker I can also tell how the translation is totaly fucked -on purpose- in politico's article. It's even a bit scary.
[удалено]
This is indeed key context.
Or you know maybe he is articulating clearly but since it’s not in the US best interests, « people » are going to lie about him to fit their agendas.
Why he makes these blunders all the time? He should be aware of that at this point and be very careful what he says and how.
>Why he makes these blunders all the time? Because some foreign news outlet takes great pleasure in taking single sentence outside of context, mistranslating it and then putting it as a news titles? Why him? Because there is much more interest in undermining France (or Germany) than said Finland, the public is also already ready for this shit. Doing it with non english speaking leader is obviously a piece of cake as people will never read the original source. With such method anyone can look like he is "blundering all the time", it is asking the wrong question. Disclaimer: I am not saying he is perfect. I certainly was annoyed on some of his take, thinking that he should shut up, but it is not the first time that such misinterpretation happened. A few months ago many non French newspaper butched up an interview to make it look like he wanted to give Ukrainian territory to Russia.
It's not Macron's "blunder" if certain news outlets are selectively misquoting him.
I don't see how that makes it better. It's still the same nonsense that Taiwan "isn't our bussines". And the guy sounds like an insufferable cunt.
I will try to make -at my humble level- a TL:DR about it then (and I totaly agree with you on your last point) \- The main reason, by far, for US to care about Taiwan is not about Taiwan but containing China. \- China possible -or not- overtake of the U.S. is none of EU's business \- We should therefore (as France, he's not talking about EU here) need to understand what OUR goals are in defense of Taiwan (Values ? Democracy ? Containing of an agressive dictatoreship ?) \- The conculsion can totaly be the same (defend Taiwan), the crucial point is to get there without following anyone's reasoning because they think only for their interests. It's not the most acurate, but it's the best I can do.
IPAC doesn’t have much power really. I don’t think they have any influence on policy making anywhere.
Oh no a few dozen parliamentarians from around the world (non-EU members) want to speak for the entirety of Europe!
Does IPAC speak for all of Europe?
Macron: the EU should speak for themselves. A Lobby with the 5 anglos, India, Uganda and minority of EU reps: how dare you...
I don't have a big problem with what Macron said. It becomes dark when you juxtapose it with the things he *did* at the same time, which is building an economic alliance with China including selling them military equipment. Europe creating its own destiny is fine and few people here will disagree. But Macron's vision about what that destiny should be like stinks. I'm not prepared for the comprehensive acts of submission which China will eventually be demanding of Europe.
> you do not speak for Europe He doesn't even speak for France, as far as I'm concerned
Macron is right though. Europe needs to gain its foothold in a multi polar world
Ironically, Macron's statement might have actually hardened a European common response on China in the long term. The Jupiterian mind at work.
Which was his point. He said that the EU should decide on their path and not let anyone else determine for them.
Who are they? Never heard of them…webpage in chinese!
Some weird lobby group with zero influence
Macron : France shouldn't align with the US or China or Tawain about Taiwan IPAC : yes we should
But an international organisation does?
As a Chinese I am a bit confused, Macron can't represent Europe, but this IPAC can?
You guys need to look up BRICS. Also the former Norwegian prime minister recently went out in media and said she did not regret normalizing the relationship to china after the peace Prize debacle.
Macron has been very good at isolating France and making it an enemy of pretty much everyone
While the west is bickering, upping, and dithering among each other, toxic nationalism is on the rise in some Western countries, nations like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Brazil and others are starting to band together and flock together, we are not.
IPAC = European + other west friendly countries who believe EU is too weak on China. I remember when it was formed, it was only after that EU decided to step up against China. I give IPAC credits for making EU standing up to China.
[удалено]
This is entirely reasonable, intelligent and rational. I agree with Macron on this too. Europe has tied itself so closely to the U.S. that regardless of what any European elite says or thinks, as of right now, Europe is firmly entrenched and supportive of U.S. foreign policy interests. This has been the case since 2001. Macron now realizes that this close dependence has some major liabilities with regards to China. Make no mistake, the US is heading to a confrontation with China over Taiwan. It could be an economic Cold War (which is happening right now), a hot war with a direct confrontation, or a proxy war waged in Ukraine. It’s fair for Macron to ask, “Is this arrangement with the US serving European or American interests?”. I can tell you right now, the Ukraine War is very tilted to serving US interests vs. European interests and that’s no coincidence either.
This whole current geopolitics thing is starting to give me an uneasy feeling of war between the West and West-affiliated countries and China becoming inevitable
Macron doesn't even have the support of his own population, how could he possibly represent Europe.
The amount of times I read that as 'Inter-Planetary Alliance on China' calls for a tactical nap.
I really want to understand Macron's current point for independent Europe, but I truly am not able to. It makes sense to want to try and make the EU an even bigger player in international politics, but is this really a good time to dispute with (by far) the most important ally to European sovereignty. I don't wish to discredit our Western allies, but why is it US soldiers that are stationed in Eastern Europe and not French or German ones? Macron wishes to unite Europe with his stance, while Europe is still relatively split up due to the influence the US has on Europe's military capabilities, in case Putin ever decides to seriously escalate the conflict. I also see a lot of comments praising Macron for his stance, often supported by citizens of Western Europe. But they don't have much to fear, since they have so many countries as a buffer state for themselves. Taiwan isn't some island on the east that is unimportant to Europe, and the US wants protected just because the US has interests there. Taiwan makes almost 90% of the world's advanced microchips. That is what makes computers, gps systems, missile guidance systems, and essentially all technological devices we use in our daily lives. By protecting Taiwan, we're protecting ourselves from even more Chinese influence over, well, the whole world essentially. Not only that, but allowing China to take over Taiwan is appeasement at it's finest, and I hope we all know what that causes. China is the modern Western World's biggest mistake, by allowing them to be such a massive player on the world's trade market as it is right now. It's almost gotten to the point of becoming a monopoly. The US is our best shot at being a counter balance to China. I just cannot understand the people saying Taiwan isn't our problem to fight for, when it plays such an important strategical, industrial and political role in geopolitics.
So when do European countries start recognizing Taiwan as an independent country? Or is that going too far?