Glenn Greenwald has a question:
What do you think might explain this? pic.twitter.com/ImHHEXv0xh
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 24, 2022
Glenn is obviously implying that Biden is either stupid or senile. But that's just trash talk. It's worth taking this question seriously.
First of all, Biden has always had a reputation as a bit of a gaffe machine. So some of his recent gaffes are just gaffes. Nothing more to it.
But Biden also has a reputation for sometimes speaking his mind even if it puts him off the reservation. President Obama was not especially happy when Vice President Biden announced in 2012—an election year, no less—that he was in favor of gay marriage. But that's Biden: everybody on the planet knew that he and Obama had nothing against gay marriage even though they felt they had to say so in public, and Biden finally got tired of it. So he surprised everyone and just told the truth on national TV.
So what about his latest statement saying the US would defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression? Official US policy for decades has been "strategic ambiguity." There have been two points to this: by telling China that we might defend Taiwan we deter them from invading. But by telling Taiwan that we might not defend them, we deter Taiwan from doing something stupid that incites a war they know we'd fight for them.
In reality, everyone knows that American politics would never allow us to stand by while China invades Taiwan. Biden spent more than 30 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so this is a very unlikely subject for him to stumble on. Nor do these sound like the words of a man whose mind is wandering:
“You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons,” a reporter said to Mr. Biden. “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”
“Yes,” Mr. Biden answered flatly.
“You are?” the reporter followed up.
“That’s the commitment we made,” he said.
The president’s declaration, offered without caveat or clarification, set the stage for fresh tensions between the United States and China, which insists that Taiwan is a part of its territory and cannot exist as a sovereign nation.
The obvious interpretation of these remarks is also the correct one: He got tired of being forced to speak gobbledegook in public, so he stopped. And he didn't warn his staff beforehand because he knew they'd try to talk him out of it and he didn't feel like hassling with that. Afterward the White House released the predictable statement that "nothing has changed," and in a way that's true. Everyone has always known we'd almost certainly defend Taiwan if necessary, and Biden has merely confirmed that.
Oddly enough, you have give Donald Trump some credit for starting this trend of occasionally abandoning diplomatic niceties. As with everything else Trump did, he did it ignorantly and incompetently,¹ but he did show that it could be done without huge blowback. I imagine Joe Biden has taken a lesson from that.
¹Remember Trump's pre-inauguration effort to implicitly recognize Taiwan? It didn't go very well.
Biden's land for peace deal coming up won't be popular in some circles with the Ukrainian situation, but I see little choice. Most of the 40 billion in aid was mostly defensive and Russia is clawing in the southeast side. Ukraine does not have logistics for retaking it. The fact troops will likely be on the ground in Kiev is as much a signal to Ukraine as Russia.
The wall is being rebuilt. The militarization of Ukraine will be permanent. Next up for Russia is the mess in Belarus. Unlike Ukraine, it's one they(central command) really don't want to face.
What land for peace deal? I've seen a few commentators advocating for some such, but no indication that the US government, or any other NATO government, is even contemplating such a thing.
Shooter is communing with us from the bottom of a bottle of Rumpelminze.
Don’t follow Greenwald, so, no expert on him, but from what little I do know, I imagine he’s unhappy that Putin’s giant blunder in Ukraine has united Europe and the US in favor of defending democratic societies. In that context, of course Biden is going to say we’ll help defend Taiwan.
Greenwald is deeply and profoundly anti American. He should be ignored by all sensible people.
He, like Peter Thiel & Andy Sullivan, thinks money &/or minstrelsy, will keep him out of the gas chamber when the American Orbanite Popular Republiq takes power in DC.
China blew it with the failure of the "one nation, two systems" in Hong Kong. Taiwan can screw things up if it declares that it is its own country.
Yes I think that's actually a good point here. China's image in Taiwan was doing better to the point where "pro-China" politicians were doing better in Taiwan, then China cracked down in the most brutal way in Hong Kong. Taiwan was watching. The "pro-China" politicians there lost their support. As I recall, even the current President (of Taiwan) was predicted to lose her re-election race until China's actions in HK turned it around for her.
Taiwan is a really nice place and in many ways the most liberal society in Asia (only country in Asia that recognizes gay marriage, I believe). Very much a live and let live place. More Americans should know what a good society it is and why it's worth defending. Lots of mainland Chinese know that Taiwan is a good place as well. A few years back it was a trendy place for mainland Chinese to travel to, almost invariably coming home to China with tales of how free and polite the society is.
Strategic ambiguity isn't concealing that we would go to war to defend Taiwan. It's concealing that we wouldn't. The US economy is too dependent on inputs from China. Look at the supply chain problems we are having now, then multiply them by a hundred. The whole system would implode. It would be like the baby formula shortage, except everything.
and Taiwan is the major supplier of microchips to the World. Any war over Taiwan will disrupt that--even a "short war" will lead to months of down time for chip manufacturing, hurting all economies.
The US-China co-dependence is supposed to help us avoid war or conflict. That's also why Russia would never invade Ukraine.
and Taiwan is the major supplier of microchips to the World. Any war over Taiwan will disrupt that--even a "short war" will lead to months of down time for chip manufacturing
There's zero doubt a cross-straight war between Taiwan and China would cause a tremendous global economic disturbance even if it didn't also involve a USA-PRC direct military clash (in which case the effects are likely to be catastrophic).
Which is a big part of the reason China won't invade soon.
HOWEVER, it seems guaranteed that Beijing is gaming out the probable effects of invasion, including the economic toll (including Western sanctions), and by all accounts is endeavoring to harden its economy against the likely effects of such a conflict. It would be very surprising indeed if part of that effort didn't involve development of more robust chip-making capacity. The United States, I believe, is also looking at this issue.
So, war's not going to happen tomorrow. But in in a few years—most of the analysis I've seen suggests no more than about seven—the Chinese will feel they've sufficiently prepared their economy (and, among other things, can get by if Taiwan's chip sector is destroyed).
Not a full fledged invasion....but a blockade and US air supply ala the Berlin airlift. The goal will be to get the other side to fire first so they can be blamed for the war.
The PRC is a net importer of food, oil and coal. Arable land and oil deposits can’t be created at will. While sustainable energy sources can replace oil as fuel, it is also the feedstock for petrochemicals. I suppose Russia could supply sufficient oil for that use, unless sanctions on petroleum technology continue and reduce production capacity.
Are there Chinese exports that would be difficult to replace, given that it would take time? Of course China exports vast quantities of manufactured goods, but most are low-tech, or products assembled from high-tech components produced elsewhere. Competition from Vietnam, Indonesia and other SE Asian countries is increasing.
I don’t think any rational leader would risk even the kinds of sanctions Russia is subjected to, but I don’t think Xi Jinping is the sharpest knife in the drawer either. I hope his underlings are more inclined to tell him what he needs to hear than Putin’s were …
The PRC is a net importer of food, oil and coal.
Chinese can (and is doing so) build stockpiles. They can also gets supplies from Russia. Also, in recent years China has been (literally) bringing a new nuclear reactor online every 3-4 months (and massively building out solar/wind power), so they're likely to be less dependent on imported energy. Also, they may (recklessly) gamble on no US blockade (it's not even clear the US Navy would be able to impose a blockade five or seven years from now), so, it's possible China wouldn't face serious supply disruptions were they to invade.
(A blockade is an act of war per international law, and, Biden's protestations to the contrary, I think it's far from clear the US will risk war with a nuclear power—it doesn't seem terribly eager to do so in the case of Russia—which is what an attempted blockade of mainland China would entail).
Anway, yes, all of this is incredibly risky, and Xi is mostly perceived (correctly, I think) as being risk averse. But I really do think for the CCP (and unfortunately for a lot of ordinary Chinese) Taiwan is different, and emotions too often cloud reason.
A blockade is indeed an act of war, that’s why I was discussing sanctions, which are not. China produces enough grain for its needs; so Russia’s surplus isn’t actually needed.
Ukraine needed Russia. Not clear Russia needs the Ukraine.
Ukraine needed a peaceful Russia.
This works both ways. The Chinese economy is highly dependent on inputs from Taiwan, and that’s not just microchips but also investment and business expertise. Some of the biggest employers in China are Taiwanese companies.
Yes.
It’s hard to see the benefit to the people of mainland China of subjugating a ruined Taiwan, relative to trade with a prosperous if de facto independent island. Of course, Russians won’t benefit from a Donbas reduced to rubble, either. Nationalism is a mental disease.
Yes I think you're right. I'm very skeptical of the "China will invade Taiwan" argument because I think ultimately the leaders of China recognize they hang on to power only because most people think they are handling the economy pretty well. An invasion of Taiwan would be terrible for the mainland economy.
On the other hand, the leaders DO regularly whip up nationalist sentiment over the Taiwan issue when they feel they have a weak hand domestically, so it IS possible, under certain circumstances I think, that if China had a real economic meltdown, they might rattle the saber rather seriously at Taiwan as a diversion.
I started to write “Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders were smart enough to find ways to boost their popular support that didn’t end tens of thousands of lives and ruin livelihoods for many more?” Then I thought about the very competent job the Biden administration is doing coping with multiple dire situations, and yet sees its support declining. So, wouldn’t it be great if all the peoples of Earth were smart enough to see where their enlightened self-interest actually lies?
I wish I believed top CCP leadership were rational with respect to the Taiwan issue. Unfortunately the signs suggest they may well not be. OR, to put it another way, what reasonable analysis suggests is rational self-interest from the perspective of the nation-state may not be rational self-interest from the perspective of an aging dictator trying to fend off challenges to his authority and prestige,
We are far more dependent on trade with Taiwan. The worst part of the present supply chain problem is semiconductors that come overwhelmingly from taiwan. There is nothing from china that can't be replaced by stuff from vietnam and the philipines.
In reality, everyone knows that American politics would never allow us to stand by while China invades Taiwan.
This is undoubtedly the case.
But there's obviously a difference between arms shipments/economic warfare (our approach in Ukraine) and sending in the Marines. The latter means entering a shooting war with a nuclear power in a way America has never done.*
Our stategy in Ukraine seems to be working. Why not use it in the case of Taiwan?**
I guess Joe's new, hawkish strategy wil have worked out great if, a hundred years from now, historians note that the strategy adustment was successful in convincing the Chinese they daren't invade. I'm pessimistic this is going to work.
*Please, save the comment about Soviet pilots in Vietnam. This was small in scale, and, critically, offered both sides enough plausible deniability to ignore. That won't be the case if the US Navy is duking it out with Chinese missile cruisers, or if the 82nd Airborne is sent to that island to kill PLA soldiers.
**If China were to invade a US treaty ally like Japan or South Korea then yes, indeed, the United States is at war (in exactly the same way we would be if Russia did the same wrt to Poland or Estonia or some other NATO member).
Anwyay, this is a long-winded way of saying: I fully believe the United States at all costs must meet its mutual defense obligations worldwide. I'm less enthusiastic about dangerously expanding those obligations.
Our stategy in Ukraine seems to be working. Why not use it in the case of Taiwan?
Because it's a completely different situation. There is no strategic depth in Taiwan. Geographically, it's about 5% of the size of Ukraine. And there is no way to send military equipment to Taiwan if China controls the seas around the island. Our strategy in Ukraine would be nonsensical if we tried the same thing with Taiwan.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan will be decided pretty quickly after the real rumble gets started. There may be some preliminary action over control of the airspace and seas, but once the actual amphibious invasion gets underway, the conflict will be fairly short. If the Chinese manage to establish a solid beachhead and can keep it supplied, they'll win. If the Taiwanese beat off that assault, it will be very difficult for the Chinese to regroup and try again.
The good news is that there are reasons to be skeptical that the Chinese would be successful. Amphibious assaults are the most complex military operation there is. China has never attempted one. By that, I don't mean that the PLA has never mounted such an attack; I mean that, in the thousands of years of Chinese history, its military has never done so. The Mongols tried a couple of times against Japan, but Mongols will be more than happy to tell you that they aren't Chinese.
The largest, most complex amphibious assault in history was at Normandy. A Chinese attack on Taiwan would be larger and more complex. There aren't very many good beaches to land their troops, and the Taiwanese have all of them fortified. The bluffs behind Omaha Beach, which created such carnage, are about 100 feet high. Most of the suitable beaches in Taiwan are backed by bluffs about five times that high. The Germans built impressive fortifications, but they were severely undergarrisoned. The Taiwanese have both the emplacements and the manpower. There are also rocky islets along the Taiwan coast that they have turned into heavily fortified artillery emplacements that can shell an invasion force. The Chinese would have to reduce these positions before they could land the main force. That main force would be vulnerable to attack while they do so.
I'm not saying that the Chinese can't, or wouldn't, win. No one has any idea how it would play out. Maybe they wouldn't try a landing at all, but rather would blockade and besiege Taiwan. Regardless, the only force that might prevent the Chinese from controlling the sea is the U.S. Navy.
The Taiwanese also have supersonic anti-ship missiles that can be launched from fixed, mobile or airborne platforms, in coordination.
Is there any indication that the PRC is building the capability to conduct a massive amphibious operation?
"And there is no way to send military equipment to Taiwan if China controls the seas around the island." Except we could send arms shipments and dare the chinese to attack them in international waters. Further, all Biden said was that we would be willing to be involved militarily. That could include doing exactly what we are doing in Ukraine, training Ukrainian troops, supplying weapons and providing real time intelligence,, all meet the definition of being involved militarily.
Because it's a completely different situation. There is no strategic depth in Taiwan.
It's very far from clear the seas separating Taiwan from mainland China don't provide a substantial degree of strategic depth. Moreover, your very post lays out the huge challenges for a would-be invader. Taiwan could easily mobilize a million or more highly trained troops to defend its beaches: if armed with the most sophisticated weaponry the West can provide, I like their chances. (But yes, they have to do their part, and that means a sharp(ish) increase in defense spending).
I think the sum of potential risks and benefits to the US (maybe not to Taiwan, but I'm not Taiwanese) favor such an approach. YMMV.
" that the strategy adustment was successful in convincing the Chinese they daren't invade" There was no strategy adjustment. The first words out of Biden's mouth was that there was no change in policy. And all he said was to the question of whether "you would be willing to get involved militarily." That doesn't require the US to go beyond what it is doing in Ukraine.
I fear Greenwald no longer has the presence of mind to be ashamed or embarrased for himself.
Yes, he's long gone round the bend, sadly.
The Hale, you say!
I pretty much understood that Biden had said the quiet part out loud.
Greenwald's proclivity towards embracing the fringe right esprit de corps Trumpism, however, is just dumb. Greenwald is radiating his Tucker Carlson vibe by "just asking questions" bullshit.
As an (alleged) former liberal-lefty, is Glemm Greemwald more the Gay KKKlay Travis, or is KKKlay the SEC Football Glemm?
Maybe Pawl Finebaum can moderate a debate between them.
Trump didn't start the trend. Kevin's post itself says Biden sometimes spoke his mind well before Trump came along. In any case, Biden's gaffes are mere speech gaffes, not a president being president as in the Taiwan case.
I'm so old that I can remember when Greenwald was on the progressive/liberal side of the aisle. Now, he's a FoxNewz hero.
He was never a progressive or liberal. Many people on the left made the mistake of thinking he was during the Iraq War. He was anti-Bush because he is fundamentally anti-American. The left (myself included) chose to interpret this as liberalism but it never was.
"So what about his latest statement saying the US would defend Taiwan from Chinese aggressio" Except this isn't true. Specifically all he said was the "he would be willing to be involved militarily". Nor is it true, contrary to the compulsive liars in the media that Biden's answer was inconsistent with the strategic ambiguity statement. The question was wordered "would you be willing to get involved militarily with Taiwan". Note, at this point he has already expressly said US policy has not changed, and that the US supports the one china policy. Further, most people are aware of the sayng "spirit is willing but the body is weak". Be willing to do something is not in fact a commitment to do something. And being involved militarily is a fairly ambiguous term that comes far short of putting active forces in the theater. (Though that is a bit under cut by the questioner defining action to date in Ukraine as not being involved militarily. Though again, Biden is not tied to using the reporters definition of being involved militarily and could define it as sharing intelligence and weapons and supplies.
Gosh, I’m actually agreeing with you today! ‘Militarily involved’ sounds, to anyone but a journalist looking for a sensational headline, like a pretty carefully calibrated increment in the US position - still ambiguous, but meant to communicate to the PRC that hostile action could have harsher consequences for them than they may have expected.
Specifically all he said was the "he would be willing to be involved militarily".
Fair point. Drones and military satellites providing intel. US Air Force transports flying in supplies. And so forth. That's military involvement.