Goodwill and trust are needed to take the New Détente forward, hence the significance of the US considering the indefinite delay or outright scrapping of its backlogged arms shipments to Taiwan as a bargaining chip in these discussions in order to incentivize China to reciprocate by making its own compromise on a similarly important issue of concern for its rival.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on Sunday that “U.S. Effort to Arm Taiwan Faces New Challenge With Ukraine Conflict”, spiking an extra $4 billion over the past year to a total of nearly $19 billion worth of arms that America has yet to deliver to that rogue island due to Kiev taking priority. Unnamed sources also informed the outlet that this includes 208 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 215 Stinger anti-air ones from separate orders made in 2015, which they worry will weaken Taiwan’s “porcupine strategy”.
That concept refers to the strategy of “arm[ing] Taiwan in a way that raises the cost to China should it decide to invade” such as seriously complicating any air, amphibious, coastal operations that the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) and other branches of Beijing’s armed forces could attempt. Self-propelled howitzer artillery are also reportedly delayed according to the WSJ’s unnamed sources despite official denials, though an $8 billion deal for 66 F-16 jets is supposedly still on schedule for this decade.
The importance of the information shared in their article is that it actually presents an unexpected opportunity to facilitate recent Sino-American efforts to reach a series of mutual compromises aimed at establishing a pragmatic balance of influence between them that would then become the “new normal”. Also known as the New Détente, this process was initiated by China in mid-November after the People’s Republic realized the seriousness of its grand strategic crisis caused by a recent confluence of events.
Described in detail in my piece from early October about how “The Ukrainian Conflict Might Have Already Derailed China’s Superpower Trajectory”, the gist is that the systemic consequences of this proxy war destabilized the global basis upon which China’s long-term plans were predicated. The general insight contained therein was also recently confirmed in The Daily Beast’s latest piece about the People’s Republic, thus adding credence to my observations about its grand strategic vulnerabilities.
Readers should review those two preceding hyperlinks as well as my analysis of the interplay between the US, China, Russia, and India in order to better understand the driving forces behind the New Détente. Upon doing so, it’ll become clearer what role the information shared in the WSJ’s latest article could play, namely that it stands the chance of becoming a bargaining chip towards reaching the pragmatic balance of influence that China and the US hope to agree with one another by early next year.
There’s little chance that China will proactively employ military means for reunifying with Taiwan absent America seriously crossing its national security red lines on that island, especially since the self-inflicted economic crisis caused by the EU’s compliance with the US’ anti-Russian sanctions made Beijing realize that Brussels could credibly follow suit against the People’s Republic in that scenario. That could cripple China’s economy, hence why it can be described as a Damocles’ sword for deterring Beijing (for now).
Nevertheless, as was written above, the People’s Republic would probably still risk those crippling economic-financial consequences if it felt that the alternative was full-on strategic capitulation to American military blackmail emanating from Taiwan. The mutually disadvantageous consequences of China proactively employing military means to defend the integrity of its national security red lines on the island should thus incentivize the US to exercise restraint in order to avert that scenario.
This logic leads to the relevance of the WSJ’s article to the ongoing Sino-American discussions on a New Détente since the US could either scrap its backlogged arms shipments to Taiwan as a “goodwill gesture” for facilitating those talks (or a reward for their successful conclusion) or postpone them indefinitely in order to “save face” before its domestic audience and Western vassals. What’s most important is for the US to freeze its contribution to Taiwan’s “porcupine strategy”.
After all, it’s this policy that could tangibly complicate China’s potential military campaign there more than anything else, including the F-16 deal that’s supposedly on track to be delivered from the mid-2020s as planned. Those planes can be shot out of the sky, but those troops landing on the island’s coast and heading inland (or even if they’re airdropped into the latter) would have as difficult of a time advancing as their Russian peers have in Ukraine due to the swarm of anti-air and -tank missiles.
If China’s military-driven reunification campaign doesn’t succeed in establishing a secure foothold on Taiwan in its first few days and/or if it incurs massive physical costs, then the follow-up economic-financial consequences caused by the expected Western sanctions could ultimately make the whole endeavor unacceptable. Beijing would therefore need to blitz its rogue region and reassert its legal writ over it as soon as possible in order to avoid the worst-case scenario of a potentially humiliating failure.
That’s not to predict that China would indeed fail, but just that the chances of that happening increase tremendously the more that Taiwan’s “porcupine strategy” enters into effect upon the delivery of the US’ delayed anti-air and -tank missiles. The island already has impressive enough potential in this respect to have deterred that scenario thus far, but going even further like the US might do could risk crossing Beijing’s national security red lines there and thus inadvertently provoking a military response.
Seeing as how that sequence of events should be averted in order to avoid the mutually disadvantageous chain reaction that would follow, the US should therefore consider making the delivery of its delayed “porcupine” arms to Taiwan a bargaining chip in its New Détente discussions with China. America’s already supplied enough to its proxy as it is and therefore successfully offset that scenario for the time being, but doubling down on this policy risks provoking a major conflict by miscalculation.
If the US signals that it could at least indefinitely delay these shipments as a reward for reaching a New Détente, then it’s very likely that China would be extremely receptive and thus consider reciprocating in some way or another through its own compromise on a similarly important issue of concern for its rival. Goodwill and trust are needed to take the New Détente forward, hence the significance of including backlogged American arms to Taiwan in the portfolio of discussions, even if only informally for now.
China has no need to compromise with the US over its own territory.
China holds all the cards: economic, social, ethnic, military, technological and financial. TSMC has no IP to speak of.
Better to wait.
Informative analysis, but one that is flawed in many respects. Firstly, Russia had no intention to annex Donbass - the Minsk agreements would have made them Russia-leaning independent territories. But the US obstruction of them gave Russia no choice. And having been forced to suffer heavy losses in Ukraine, due to the massive training and arming of the Azov Nazis by the US and NATO - Russia then assimilated those territories (legally in my view) as compensation. And to secure its land-bridge to Crimea. Russia hasn't or shouldn't have - any interest in the rest of Ukraine which is mostly agricultural and low in GNP - except perhaps to establish a further buffer zone beyond Donbass. The settlement Russia now hopes to impose during this winter, assuming it can 'end the war' and prevent the long-scale insurgency the West wants to inflict on it - will require Ukraine to accept never to join NATO etc.
China on the other hand, has its clear objective to assimilate Taiwan, which it considers a province and to which the US agreed ('One China') three times in the 1970s. So this is not using Taiwan to create a security risk for China, but rather preventing/delaying China's ambition, or even provoking it to attack Taiwan, which is not China's preference, although Xi Jinping refused to exclude the use of force at the recent Party Congress - as a signal to the US that its obstruction would be fought if needed.
Beyond that the risk of sanctions severely damaging China's economy is overstated by you, in my opinion. China has nearly 1.5 billion people which provides a massive domestic market. Despite border issues with India, China remains a major supplier to India as well. And the Global South, as in Africa, where countries like South Africa, Burkina Faso and DRC are openly critical of the West's predations in their continent, and seek better and more productive relationships with Russia and China. The massive Belt Road Initiative is a colossal project touching dozens of countries across Eurasia, and China is CENTRAL to it, as is Russia.
Besides which it will take the US some years to 're-industrialize', an objective it is clearly seeking with the 'planned demolition' of Germany with the 'suicidal' anti-Russia sanctions, which have largely failed, but which have inflicted costs on the Western populations, but more so on the Global South (excepting India for reasons you have written about - the massive ramping up of trade with Russia, especially oil and fertilizer; and presumably China and other nations who certainly would have paid attention to Putin's revolutionary speech on the day the Donbass was formally incorporated into Russia).
China has never been a warmongering country, and you continue to display anti-Chinese bias with your assumptions it seeks to replace/rival the US as joint hegemon. The US and West's hegemony has been based on warmongering, imperialism, military crimes, plus economic crimes like the utterly criminal sanctions, and the 'austerity measures' imposed on countries forced into debts with the IMF etc. by Western neoliberal crimes which have massively increased inequality in the West itself.
As the coming winter sets in, the pressure on the populations of Europe will escalate and protests against the US/WEF sanctions will also dramatically increase. How far will the WEF planted puppets like the German Foreign Minister (clearly a graduate of the 'Young Global Leaders' program) and others seen dancing in discos - be able to dismiss the protests of their freezing and starving populations? How far will Nazi thugs like the EU President Ursula van den Leyen keep barking 'we will support Ukraine no matter the cost on Europeans'?
India (I am Indian-born) certainly played the difficult cards it was dealt very well, which had the benefit to Russia of reducing its dependence on China, but I think you are wrong to think China is seeking anything other than the natural, lawful, peaceful resumption of its dominant economy role on the planet, which it occupied for 18 centuries without invasions or colonizations of others - until the British, European and American opium warcrimes devastated it and gave it '100 years of humiliation'. Putin himself declared a new world order based on multipolarity was dawning, which indicates he understands China will unquestionably be a major pole, along with Russia, India and Africa, rivalling the declining hegemon and its increasingly diminishing G-7 clout.