The Art of War in the Taiwan Strait

The USS Abraham Lincoln has been in the Arabian Sea since January 26. The Gerald R. Ford transited Gibraltar on February 20. Thirteen Aegis destroyers, 600-plus Tomahawks in single-salvo capacity, 500 aircraft spread across bases from Jordan to Qatar—the largest American force concentration in the Middle East since 2003. Every analyst in Washington is writing about the coming air campaign against Iran. None of them are writing about what matters, which is that Beijing is using this spectacular distraction to take Taiwan without an amphibious landing, without a naval engagement, and without a shot fired.

To understand why the Iran crisis is a feature and not a bug from the Chinese strategic perspective it is first, necessary to understand what actually happened in June 2025, as opposed to what the censors convinced the media happened.

The air superiority story was real. Israeli F-35s and F-15s operated with impunity over Iran. The IRIAF’s fleet of pre-1979 American hand-me-downs was irrelevant. Israel struck 1,480-plus targets and the B-2s hit Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. This is not in dispute.

What is has mostly been suppressed is the cost of defending against Iran’s response. Iran launched roughly 550 ballistic missiles and over 1,000 drones during the Twelve-Day War. The official “90% interception rate” is a masterwork of selective statistics: it describes the success rate of attempted intercepts. Al Jazeera’s analysis found that of 574 missiles, only 257 were engaged at all. The remaining 317 were never intercepted. Of the 257 attempts, 201 succeeded, 20 partially, 36 failed.

The damage to Israel, the extent of which is still under military censorship, included a direct hit on the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv that rendered Netanyahu’s office unusable for four months, confirmed satellite imagery of structural damage at Tel Nof Airbase, devastation of the Beersheba cyberwarfare base, $150-200 million in damage to the Haifa oil refinery, and at least five military facilities directly struck according to the Telegraph. Israeli journalist Raviv Drucker reported that “many strikes went unreported” and that “we were also deterred.” So much for the clean victory.

But the damage to Israel is secondary. The primary problem is the damage to the interceptor stockpile. The United States expended approximately 150 THAAD missiles in twelve days—roughly 25% of total production since 2010. Eighty-odd SM-3s were consumed. Israel was running low on Arrow interceptors by war’s end. FY26 authorized procurement of 37 new THAAD rounds. Twelve days of defending against 500 missiles consumed years of production and a quarter of the cumulative stockpile.

Iran began the war with 2,500-3,000 missiles. They fired 550. This means Iran retained 1,950 to 2,450 missiles post-war. They’ve had eight months to build and otherwise acquire more missiles, disperse them, and harden their launch sites. The interceptor math does not work for a second round. This is not analysis. It is arithmetic. And the more significant danger is if either the Chinese or the Russians have helped them reduce their margin of error from 1 kilometer to 500 meters or less.

Just this week, something happened that the press mentioned in passing and clearly failed to understand the implications. The PLA and MizarVision published high-resolution satellite imagery pinpointing American military assets across the Middle East. Eighteen F-35s and six EA-18G Growlers at Muwaffaq Salti in Jordan. Patriot positions at Al Udeid. THAAD deployments in Jordan. The PLA produced a video titled “Siege of Iran” showing eight US bases under continuous satellite surveillance, with real-time maritime tracking of carrier groups via Yaogan satellites.

This was not an intelligence leak. It was a gift to Tehran, delivered publicly, with the PLA’s name on it.

The significance is not the obvious warning, but what it enables. Iran has completed its transition from GPS to BeiDou-3 for missile guidance, which means it is now encrypted, jam-resistant, and isn’t subject to American denial-of-service attacks. During the June war, GPS jamming was one of the most effective defensive measures against Iranian missiles using satellite terminal guidance. That vulnerability has been eliminated. Combined with Chinese satellite targeting data showing the exact coordinates of every defensive position, fuel depot, and aircraft shelter in the theater, Iran can shift from the saturation tactics of June to more accurate time-sensitive strikes against specific targets.

Former CENTCOM commander Votel dismissed the Chinese and Russian naval presence in the Strait of Hormuz as “an easy way to show support” that “doesn’t fundamentally change anything.” This is the kind of assessment that sounds reasonable if you think military support means destroyers, and sounds idiotic if you understand that ISR is the decisive enabler of modern precision warfare and that China is providing exactly that. The next Iranian missile will originate from Iranian soil. Its targeting data will have traversed Chinese satellites. No Chinese ship needs to fire a single missile for this to fundamentally change the equation.

The American analytical establishment is organized by regional command. CENTCOM watches the Middle East. EUCOM watches Europe. INDOPACOM watches the Pacific. Nobody’s job is to watch all three simultaneously, which is why nobody in Washington can see the obvious.

Iran: Two carrier strike groups committed, hundreds of aircraft, the largest Middle East deployment in two decades. Iran can’t fold because the regime’s survival calculus has inverted—6,000 protesters killed in December, the rial down 90% since 2018, senior officials telling Khamenei that fear is no longer a deterrent. The Libya precedent governs: Gaddafi disarmed and died in a ditch. Iran’s leaders would rather fight and die than capitulate and die, and they’re now better armed for the second round than they were for the first.

Ukraine: Russia is not “bogged down” and it never was. Russian forces are optimized for modern attrition drone warfare and are methodically advancing. Putin stated in December that “interest in withdrawal has been reduced to zero.” Ukrainian assessments give Russia a 12-18 month window for an Odessa operation, with the summer 2026 offensive already in preparation. Odessa’s fall makes Ukraine landlocked, which marks an end to maritime trade, an end to grain exports, and the end of the war. Every interceptor America fires in the Persian Gulf is one unavailable for European defense. The Russians have an obvious incentive to keep the US occupied in the Middle East during the Odessa push.

Taiwan: No carrier surge. No unusual PLA mobilization. No amphibious lift concentration. Nothing that triggers the satellite-watchers and wargamers.

That’s because the operation isn’t going to be a military one.

The CCP’s annual Taiwan Work Conference in February identified four priorities for 2026: unite “patriotic” forces in Taiwan; integrate PRC-Taiwanese supply chains while weakening US-Taiwanese ones; strengthen the legal basis for unification; and establish a task force using United Front work and cyberspace operations to damage the DPP in upcoming municipal elections.

The KMT isn’t being coerced into this. Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun has publicly and repeatedly sought engagement with Xi. PRC state media reported approvingly on her cross-strait policies. The CCP is transforming the KMT into a recognized party able to speak on Taiwan’s behalf, into a parallel diplomatic channel that bypasses the elected DPP government entirely.

Taiwan’s domestic politics just happen to be cooperating in harmony with this development. Constitutional crises, legislative paralysis, opposition attempts to remove President Lai and his cabinet, mass recall elections, and gridlock of the court system. The AEI/ISW assessment, from analysts who are actively unsympathetic to unification, recognize the instability of the situation: “The CCP can exploit this gridlock and general distrust in Taiwanese institutions to undermine the legitimacy of Taiwan’s government and present itself as a preferable alternative.”

The fishing militia exercises are relevant here, but not as the invasion rehearsal the military analysts believe them to be, but as economic coercion capability demonstration. Between 1,400 and 2,000 PRC fishing boats mobilized in blockade-like formations in December and January. Taiwan’s Coast Guard expanded its “suspicious vessel” list from 300 to 1,900 in response. This doesn’t signal D-Day. It signals the ability to strangle the island economically at will, and therefore the cost of resistance to any incoming government considering whether to cooperate with Beijing or not.

The path forward isn’t complicated. The KMT wins municipal elections. The DPP is discredited. A political crisis—manufactured or organic—produces a change of government. The new government invites dialogue, accepts a framework for integration, and stands the military down. What, precisely, is the US going to invade to prevent? It cannot defend a government that does not wish to be defended. It cannot maintain an alliance with a country whose leadership has chosen the other side.

The military analysts build their models of Taiwan as if Xi Jinping were a US president and someone who receives briefings about a faraway island he’s never visited and doesn’t know very well. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and the Chinese president.

Xi spent seventeen years in Fujian Province, directly across the strait from Taiwan. Vice mayor of Xiamen, party secretary of Fuzhou, governor of the province, and simultaneously head of the Party Committee’s Leading Group for Taiwan Affairs. His specific job for nearly two decades was courting the top Taiwanese businessmen with tax incentives, land deals, and government support. Xiamen and Fuzhou became the primary hubs for Taiwanese investment on the mainland under his direct management. He opened the direct shipping routes between Xiamen and Kinmen. The cross-strait economic integration model that later became national policy was his personal creation, built from the ground up at the provincial level.

Then five years in Zhejiang, which is the other major destination for Taiwanese investment, followed by Shanghai. He staffed his government accordingly. Zheng Shanjie, now the NDRC chairman, started as a local official in Xiamen when Xi was deputy mayor. In a “surprise” career move, Zheng was appointed deputy director of the Taiwan Office. This should not surprise anyone who has been paying attention.

Xi doesn’t need intelligence briefings about the Taiwanese business elite. He’s known them for thirty years. He knows who’s leveraged, who owes him favors, who’s sympathetic to unification, and who can lean on others. A political transition doesn’t require tanks. It requires the right phone calls to the right people at the right moment, and Xi has spent his entire career assembling the right numbers.

Washington’s analytical failure on Taiwan isn’t an intelligence failure. It’s a cultural failure.

The entire American strategic establishment runs on Clausewitzian concepts: war as politics by other means, identify the center of gravity, mass force, achieve decisive battle. That’s how they think about Taiwan, in terms of carrier groups, kill chains, amphibious lift ratios. The analytical infrastructure is organized around “can China successfully invade?” as if that were the relevant question. But it’s not.

Sun Tzu’s hierarchy of strategic excellence ranks the highest achievement as defeating the enemy’s strategy, followed by disrupting his alliances, then attacking his army, with besieging walled cities at the bottom—the mark of failure, the option you resort to when everything else has gone wrong. An amphibious invasion of Taiwan is literally the lowest-ranked option in the strategic tradition Xi was educated in. Everything Beijing is actually doing—the economic integration, the KMT cultivation, the United Front work, the three-theater overextension of American forces—maps to the higher levels of the hierarchy. But the Pentagon keeps modeling the lowest one, because that’s the one they know how to wargame.

The entire PLA buildup may serve a dual purpose that the military analysts can’t see because they’re not trained to look for it: fixing Washington’s analytical attention on the invasion scenario, consuming defense budgets and strategic planning bandwidth on the wrong problem, while the actual operation proceeds through political channels. All warfare is based on deception, and the most elegant deception is one where the enemy sees exactly what you’re doing—building an invasion force—and draws exactly the wrong conclusion about what it’s for.

Xi Jinping is 72. He has broken every CCP institutional policy in order to remain in power. The 2027 Party Congress is where he has to either step down or pursue a fourth term. The centennial of the PLA’s founding falls the same year. Taiwan’s next presidential election is January 2028.

Mao founded the People’s Republic. Deng opened it to the world. Neither accomplished reunification with Taiwan island. I believe Xi intends unification to be his crowning legacy, and peaceful reunification would mark the superior achievement, not just in strategic and economic senses, but in the Chinese civilizational context. Military conquest would prove the PLA is strong. Peaceful reunification would prove that Chinese civilization’s gravitational pull is irresistible, that the Western model of strategic competition was defeated by patience and political art, and that the last holdout returned to the fold voluntarily. It would vindicate not just the CCP but the entire Sunzian tradition against the Clausewitzian one. The Americans spent trillions preparing for an invasion that never came while China won through asymmetric unrestricted warfare and 勢—the patient cultivation of positional advantage until the outcome becomes inevitable.

That would be a personal legacy that surpasses Mao, and Xi knows it.

The board is now set. Iran absorbs American attention and interceptor stocks. Russia pushes toward Odessa while the European governments begin to collapse under the weight of their impotence and corruption. The KMT builds its position inside Taiwan. Xi waits for the convergence, the right moment when US forces are committed, interceptors depleted, Europeans are helpless, Taiwan’s DPP is discredited, and the first quiet phone calls are made.

I don’t know the exact timeline. But I know the strategy, and I know about the man, and as an East Asian Studies major and armchair military historian, I know the tradition he operates in. From the Chinese perspective, the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting a battle. And while we’re watching Iran, I suspect that’s exactly what’s happening.

DISCUSS ON SG


When History Rhymes

I don’t know if Big Serge intended this post about Japan’s general strategy in the lead-up to WWII, or rather, the obvious lack of it, to be a warning relevant to the current situation facing the United States, but it’s educational regardless.

This is not a history of the Second Sino-Japanese War. For our purposes, however, three vital threads emerge from the beginning of that conflict. First, that the Japanese incorrectly anticipated a quick victory in northern China, after which they would begin to digest the region’s economic resources. Secondly, the rapid and unexpected expansion of the fighting in China created an enormous drain on Japanese resources which led directly to the economic pressures which created the Pacific War. Third, that same resource crunch sparked and escalated the inter-service disagreements and factionalism which characterized Japanese leadership throughout the war.

In the context of Japan’s larger imperial ambitions and strategy, it is difficult to imagine a more severe backfire than the decision to launch into northern China in 1937. Japanese planners initially hoped for a quick and decisive victory using limited forces. In July 1937, Army operational plans sketched out an offensive using just three divisions which were expected to overrun the Beijing area and crush the enemy’s main forces, at which point Chiang Kai-shek was expected to sue for peace. The idea that Chiang might still be in the field, fighting, even after the loss of both Shanghai and his capital at Nanking was unthinkable, but that is precisely what happened.

The natural result, therefore, was rapid and massive escalation of Japanese resource commitments in China as the war spilled its banks. The optimistic initial estimates – three divisions, three months, and a total cost of just 100 million yen – were swept aside, and the Japanese General Staff found itself preparing to mobilize the entire army for action on an indefinite timetable. Three divisions became twenty; 100 million yen became 2.5 billion.

The ballooning demands of the field army in China pushed Japan into a bona fide economic crisis. Tokyo initially hoped that the field army could finish the fight on those materials that had already been stockpiled in the theater, but these had been exhausted by the end of 1937, with no end to the conflict in sight. Munition and fuel stocks in China were on empty, but that was not all. Even the munitions stocks in Japan were barely sufficient to supply ongoing operations in China, which meant that a Soviet attack on Manchuria – a longstanding and ever present Japanese fear – could quickly create a critical situation.

In short, the stubborn refusal by Chiang to simply collapse and sue for terms as expected had created an enormous resource sink which forced Japan into a full war economy in a state of near crisis. Most disconcertingly, the only way for Japan to make up the critical shortfalls in key materials – above all fuels of all types – was by massively increasing imports from the United States.

The USA has already engaged in one attack on Iran. It appears now about to engage in a second one, this time with Russian and Chinese ships at the other end of the gulf. At the same time, it also has a weakening economy and an excessive dependence upon imports as well as foreign debt.

And, as I’ve already pointed out, in industrial terms, the USA is to China what Japan was to the USA in 1940…

DISCUSS ON SG


China Shuns US Debt

From BRICS News:

JUST IN: China instructs banks to reduce US Treasury holdings.

This isn’t a massive surprise. It’s obviously been in the works for some time; I even wrote about it three years ago. But the quiet reduction from $1.3 trillion to $680 billion has been gradual, while this public announcement may reflect a more aggressive policy of dumping the dollar.

It also suggests that BRICS will very soon unveil an alternative payment structure, not just for the BRICS nations, but for the world. Which, given the fragility of the current US-based payment processing systems, would be a very welcome alternative for many neutral parties.

DISCUSS ON SG


Failed Coup in China

It appears the global satanists, having failed with their attempted color revolution in Iran, recently tried to unseat Xi Jinping by corrupting two members of the Chinese general staff.

According to sources cited by Reuters and Bloomberg, reports are circulating that an attempted military coup took place in China aimed at removing Xi Jinping. Two key generals have reportedly been detained, along with their families and up to approximately 3,000 military personnel.

What is known at this stage:

  • Zhang Youxia (Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission) is suspected of organizing the coup attempt against Xi Jinping.
  • An armed confrontation reportedly occurred, involving gunfire between troops loyal to Zhang and the presidential security detail, resulting in several of Xi Jinping’s guards being wounded or killed.
  • The plans of Zhang Youxia and Joint Staff Chief Liu Zhenli allegedly included mobilizing troops to carry out a state coup against Xi Jinping.
  • The intended slogan of the operation was reportedly: “Save the Party, Save the Nation.”
  • The plan is said to have collapsed due to a suspected betrayal from within the inner circle.
  • Both generals are currently under strict control and investigation; their families and up to 3,000 military personnel have reportedly been detained as well.

Following the exposure of the alleged plot, heightened combat readiness measures were introduced, troop movements were halted, mobile phones were confiscated, and mass propaganda efforts were launched. These events coincided with Chinese military exercises simulating strikes on Taiwan and the destruction of its governing authorities.

While China’s Ministry of Defense has officially confirmed the opening of investigations into Zhang Youxia and Liu Zhenli—citing “serious violations of discipline and law,” a phrase often associated with corruption—the claims of an actual “coup attempt” and “armed clashes” remain unverified at this time and largely stem from social media and opposition-linked outlets. Western news agencies such as Reuters and Bloomberg tend to interpret these developments as another round of purges within the military elite initiated by Xi Jinping.

Another report was more or less in line with this, although it claims the CIA was involved.

It appears that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been successfully running agent networks within China’s military-political elite. China’s highest-ranking general, the current Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission, Zhang Youxia, is accused of transferring key technical data on China’s nuclear weapons to the United States. According to participants in a high-level briefing cited by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), China’s Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China officially announced yesterday that an investigation has been launched against the general for “serious violations of discipline and law.”

In addition to alleged treason, the general is accused of corruption and abuse of office — specifically, accepting bribes in exchange for promotions and allegedly trading influence over the position of Minister of Defense. This development represents one of the largest scandals within China’s political and military elite, as Zhang Youxia was considered one of Xi Jinping’s most trusted figures. Any potential leak of nuclear data would constitute a strategic-level blow to China’s national security.

The CIA has been of dubious loyalty to the American people since its post-WWII formation. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if it was also involved in running the “protests” in Minnesota, which looks very much like a conventional color revolution, lacking only the missing national leader to serve as a popular figurehead for it.

DISCUSS ON SG


China Bans Exports to Japan

Not all exports, you understand, but all dual-use exports:

China on Tuesday banned exports of goods that could be used for military purposes to Japan, a move that escalates tensions between Beijing and a key U.S. ally as disputes intensify over Taiwan. The Chinese commerce ministry said in a statement that any items that have a dual use — civilian and military — would no longer be exported to Japan.

The government did not offer specifics on which items would be included in the ban. But state-affiliated media said Beijing was considering whether to include rare-earth minerals.

Japanese leaders increasingly have linked Taiwan’s fate to Japan’s own security, with Tokyo’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warning that a Chinese move against the island could amount to a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan — a legal threshold that could permit military action under Japan’s self-defense laws.

The US Secretary of War cited the Fuck Around and Find Out principle in relation to Venezuala. It appears China is in the process of applying the same principle to Japan and everyone else who attempts to interfere with the Xinroe Doctrine in the South China Sea.

DISCUSS ON SG


Taiwan > Okinawa

China’s strategists have begun implementing a new rhetorical wedge issue against Clown World. It turns out that China has a far better claim to Taiwan than Japan does to US-occupied Okinawa.

Articles by Chinese media questioning the history of and Japan’s sovereignty over Okinawa Prefecture surged in November, analysis showed, as Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on a Taiwan emergency sharply deteriorated Tokyo-Beijing ties.

The number of Chinese articles using terms such as “Ryukyu” — a historical name for the former island kingdom that includes present-day Okinawa — and “independence” increased by around 20-fold last month from a year earlier.

Assertions casting doubt on Okinawa’s status as Japanese territory became more prominent, suggesting a possible propaganda campaign triggered by Takaichi’s comments, indicating her government may act if China were to launch a military attack against the self-ruled island.

The apparent aim is to unsettle Japanese society while shaping public opinion within China. Beijing views Taiwan as a renegade province to be reunified with the mainland, by force if necessary. They have been governed separately since 1949, following a civil war.

The articles were extracted from reports by media based in mainland China and Hong Kong in which “Ryukyu” or “Okinawa” and “independence” appeared close together in the text. Under the criteria, about 30 such articles were identified in November 2024.

But the figure rose to around 600 last month, soaring after Nov. 7, when Takaichi said in a parliamentary session that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, potentially involving its defense forces.

In November, Chinese-linked media articles highlighted Okinawa’s past as an independent kingdom, arguing that the southern island prefecture’s sovereignty did not revert to Japan under the 1972 reversion agreement.

It’s fascinating how quickly the so-called “rules-based world order” is trying to forget the rules that established it back in 1945. But even if we ignore the rules, the historical facts are equally clear:

  • The Qing dynasty formally annexed Taiwan in May 1684, making it a prefecture of Fujian province while retaining its administrative seat (now Tainan) under Koxinga as the capital.
  • In 1879, Japan annexed the entire Ryukyu archipelago. The Meiji government then established Okinawa Prefecture. The monarchy in Shuri was abolished, and the deposed King Shō Tai was forced to relocate to Tokyo.

The Chinese claim to Taiwan predates the Japanese claim by nearly 200 years. Or, if we subscribe to the rules of the rules-based world order, by nearly 300 years.

DISCUSS ON SG


Australia will be Chinese

I was wondering how long it would take before people began to realize that Australia is going to be a Chinese continent.

A Chinese propagandist has sparked outrage after claiming the superpower should take control of Australia, in part due to its colonial past. The furore began when the China hawk, who goes by the name ‘BeijingDai’, shared a map to social media on Saturday with Australia labelled as a ‘Chinese vassal state’.

New Zealand, Myanmar and the Solomon Islands would be given the same classification under the plans, while much of south-east Asia would fall under ‘China’s sphere of influence’. The self-described China ‘patriot’ said occupation of Australia would be a cost-effective alternative to direct occupation of the entire south-east Asian region.

‘Southeast Asia has a huge population. If China conquers them, it will need to need them and develop them. This is a super hard task,’ he wrote on social media. He added: ‘However, annexing Australia is a very cost-effective deal. ‘Australia has over seven million kilometres of land and abundant resources, but its population is even smaller than that of Shanghai.’

He claimed Australia’s colonial history would make Chinese occupation not just cost-effective, but morally defensible.

It’s not only cost-effective and morally defensible, it’s also inevitable. Not unlike the United States, Australia sealed its own fate back in 1973 when it officially abandoned its White Australia policy. Now there are 1.5 million Chinese residents, representing about six percent of the total population. This demonstrates that China can easily flood Australia with immigrants and ensure an outright electoral majority without a single shot ever being fired.

Remember, 17 million non-British people are now resident in the UK, pretty much none of whom were there prior to 1948. There are only 27 million people in Australia. So China can, and will, take control of the continent whenever it decides to do so, now that its navy has reached effective parity in the Pacific.

And given the Clown World rhetoric about the morality of migration and the absolute priority of people seeking freedom from authoritarian governments, there isn’t anything that the West can even say, let alone do, to object.

DISCUSS ON SG


The Last Bluff

Big Serge explains the real reason why the USA cannot afford to provide any Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine:

The basic pattern here is well established. The United States has done what it can to backstop Ukrainian strike capabilities, but it has held them at a level where Ukraine’s damage output falls far short of decisive levels. So long as that is the case, Russia has clearly demonstrated that it will simply eat the punches and retaliate against Ukraine. Hence, when the United States helps Ukraine target Russian oil facilities, it is Ukraine that receives the reprisal, and it is Ukraine which has its natural gas production annihilated as the winter approaches. In a sense, neither side is really trying to deter the other at all. The United States has raised the cost of this war for Russia, but not enough to create any real pressure for Moscow to end the conflict; in response, Russia punishes Ukraine, which is something the United States does not really care about. The result is a sort of geostrategic Picture of Dorian Gray, where the United States vicariously inflicts cathartic damage on Russia, but Ukraine accrues all the soul damage.

In the case of Tomahawks, the risk-reward calculus is just not there. Tomahawks are a strategically invaluable asset that the United States cannot afford to hand out like candy. Even if the launch systems could be provided (highly doubtful), the missiles could not be made available in sufficient quantities to make a difference. The range of the missiles, however, significantly raises the probability of miscalculation or uncontrolled escalation. Ukraine shooting American missiles at energy infrastructure in Belgorod or Rostov is one thing; shooting them at the Kremlin is another thing entirely.

There is, however, another aspect of this which seems to be garnering little attention. The biggest risk of sending Tomahawks is not that the Ukrainians will blow up the Kremlin and start World War Three. The bigger risk is that the Tomahawks are used, and Russia simply moves on after eating the strikes. Tomahawks are arguably one of the last – if not the last – rung in the escalation ladder for the USA. We have rapidly run through the chain of systems that can be given to the AFU, and little remains except a few strike systems like the Tomahawk or the JASSM. Ukraine has generally received everything it has asked for. In the case of Tomahawks, however, the United States is running the most serious risk of all: what if the Russians simply shoot down some of the missiles and eat the rest of the strikes? It’s immaterial whether the Tomahawks damage Russian powerplants or oil refineries. If Tomahawks are delivered and consumed without seriously jarring Russian nerves, the last escalatory card will have been played. If Russia perceives that America has reached the limits of its ability to raise the costs of the war for Russia, it undercuts the entire premise of negotiations. More simply put, Tomahawks are most valuable as an asset to threaten with.

The USA has been relentlessly bluffing, and the Russians have been relentlessly calling those bluffs, since the launch of the Special Military Operation nearly four years ago. There can be little doubt that the Russians will do the same thing if the Tomahawks are deployed against them, and then the US military will be revealed as the paper tiger it is so far outside its zone of influence.

Which, of course, is the one thing the US military cannot afford to happen in light of its global pretensions and asymmetric war with China.

DISCUSS ON SG


Cold War 2.0

The strategists of Clown World have belatedly realized that the neocons are not only lunatics, but rank amateurs when it comes to assessing military capabilities and are attempting to establish some sort of Cold War-style detente with China before the asymmetric warfare of the last 25 years goes hot. A 100-page report offers some principles and initiatives conceived to replace the outmoded idea that the US military can simply enforce the will of its masters with regards to the Middle Kingdom. (PDF)

Several broad principles can guide efforts to stabilize intense rivalries

  • Each side accepts that some degree of modus vivendi must necessarily be part of the relationship.
  • Each side accepts the essential political legitimacy of the other.
  • In specific issue areas, especially those disputed by the two sides, each side works to develop sets of shared rules, norms, institutions, and other tools that create lasting conditions of a stable modus vivendi within that domain over a specific period (such as three to five years).
  • Each side practices restraint in the development of capabilities explicitly designed to undermine the deterrent and defensive capabilities of the other in ways that would create an existential risk to its homeland.
  • Each side accepts some essential list of characteristics of a shared vision of organizing principles for world politics that can provide at least a baseline for an agreed status quo.
  • There are mechanisms and institutions in place — from long-term personal ties to physical communication links to agreed norms and rules of engagement for crises and risky situations — that help provide a moderating or return-to-stable-equilibrium function.

Six broad-based initiatives can help moderate the intensity of the U.S.-China rivalry

  • Clarify U.S. objectives in the rivalry with language that explicitly rejects absolute versions of victory and accepts the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party.
  • Reestablish several trusted lines of communication between senior officials.
  • Improve crisis-management practices, links, and agreements between the two sides.
  • Seek specific new agreements — a combination of formal public accords and private understandings — to limit the U.S.-China cyber competition.
  • Declare mutual acceptance of strategic nuclear deterrence and a willingness to forswear technologies and doctrines that would place the other side’s nuclear deterrent at risk.
  • Seek modest cooperative ventures on issues of shared interest or humanitarian concern.

I think it is at least 15 years too late for any sort of meaningful rapprochement between China and the Clown World West, because the Chinese now understand what we have also learned in the interim: there is an ancient and malevolent evil that is not limited by human reason or timeframes that is the motivating force behind Clown World. Any compromise with it will eventually result in submission and destruction.

I am not the only one who is skeptical. Simplicius, too, has serious doubts about the ability of the Western states to change their course, as well as the probability that the Chinese will be convinced to alter their own.

It’s clear that RAND is trying desperately to make US policymakers abandon their obsolete and blinkered world view centered on the idea that any challenger must by its nature represent the selfsame kind of hegemonic exceptionalism cultivated by the US itself for over a century. The US views the entire world as a threat in the same light that a thief mistrusts all those around him—it is past guilt sublimated into national suspicion and Machiavellian subversiveness.

The US, being the pernicious by-blow of the late British Empire, has inherited all the hawkish trappings of its former parent. RAND here attempts to ween the US political culture away from this perpetually adversarial and hostile approach to foreign diplomacy because, as it has become apparent, the people ‘behind the scenes’ have slowly recognized not that confrontation with China will lead to some kind of global war, but rather the much barer reality that the US simply isn’t what it once was, and does not have the sheer overwhelming capability to bully the world’s foremost ascendant power. Thus, this RAND call to action is not—as they would have us believe—some kind of de-escalatory peacenik measure, but rather a desperate attempt to stave off the US from a historically fatal humiliation and geopolitical defeat at the hands of China.

I tend to agree that this attempt at establishing a new detente is nothing more than the desperate flailings of a failing power to avoid its now-inevitable decline and fall.

DISCUSS ON SG


Asymmetric Economic Warfare

Despite being more vulnerable to trade war pain due to its export surplus, China has adroitly managed to gain the upper hand in the economic conflict by taking advantage of the fact that semiconductors require input factors that are almost entirely under Chinese control.

Despite the show of progress and professed optimism for a potential de-escalation in the Madrid trade talks, the US wasted no time to launch a series of trade and tech sanctions against China immediately afterwards, just like it launched the sneak attack on Iran shortly after its 5th round nuclear talks with Tehran.

  • The US Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) tightened its chip ban on China, expanding the embargo to cover all semiconductor related software and equipment sales to China, in an effort to completely choke off China’s ability for chip production
  • Washington expanded its entity list (i.e. black list) to deny high end sales to businesses outside of China that have 50% or more Chinese ownership
  • It announced a plan to charge million-dollar port fees for any Chinese-operated shipping companies, Chinese-made ships, or non-Chinese shippers with Chinese-made ships in their fleet or on their order books, in an effort to undermine China’s shipping building industry
  • Washington also put a 721% tariff on Chinese clean energy products such as solar panels
  • It imposed 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products and copper-intensive goods (e.g., wiring, batteries) under Section 232, targeting China’s dominance in EV/tech supply chains
  • It ended de minimis exemption for low-value packages, hitting e-commerce from Chinese platforms such as Temu and Shein

Faced with the bad faith from the Trump regime, China retaliated swiftly with a suite of counter actions:

  • Beijing published its latest restrictions on rare earth products to deny any sales of China-sourced rare earth magnets, processing technology, and equipment to foreign military and semi-conductor industry
  • It revoked import license for US lumber and soybeans. China was the biggest buyer of US soybeans in the past and accounted for over 50% its export. But it has ordered no purchase in 2025
  • Beijing announced it would charge reciprocal port fees for any US-operated or US-owned shipping companies. China runs 7 out of the world’s top ten container ports and has by far the highest port calls. Though the US builds few ships and few large shipping companies are US operated, US pension funds and asset managers own large shares in some of the world’s top shipping companies like Maersk which are now subject to the port fees. This move directly targets US financial interests
  • China also tightened up export of lithium ion and graphite anode, critical for green transformation
  • It expanded the unreliable list (China’s answer to the entity list) to cover more US defense contractors, tech firms, and critical mineral companies. It also launched anti-trust investigation against Qualcomm, a large US chip manufacturer

The latest tit for tats strongly indicates China is ready to move up the escalation ladder in its confrontation with the US on trade and technology issues.

In particular, Beijing’s enhanced rare earth restrictions are expected to deal a massive blow to high tech and military production in the US and its vassals.

In its embargo of chip technology against China, the US utilized the Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR) to block chip export to China if non-US made chips use any American technology, software, or equipment somewhere along the supply chain.

In essence, the FDPR allows US to claim jurisdiction to any products US technology touches even if it is made overseas such as the case with TSMC and ASML. The rule gives the US extraterritorial reach.

With the new rare earth restrictions, China flips the logic back to the US. Beijing has announced any non-Chinese companies operating anywhere must obtain Beijing’s approval to export rare earth magnets or semiconductors if those products contain Chinese original rare earth, or if they are produced using Chinese rare earth technology, process or equipment.

Beijing is denying all rare earth products, technology, equipment, and technical support to foreign end users it doesn’t approve.

The Chinese economic strategists understand that in an economic war, pain flows downstream. The US thought it was in the driver’s seat – and indeed, I assumed much the same due to the fact that the US economy would benefit greatly from refraining from importing goods from China and onshoring its now-absent industrial manufacturing capabilities.

But the stranglehold China has upon the materials required for modern warmaking materials, particularly drones and semiconductors, means that the USA will have to choose between its ability to make war and its ability to maintain the global Clown World economy. And for the first time, it is not possible for Uncle Sam to choose guns and butter.

DISCUSS ON SG