U.S. moves to de-risk from China with a new investment ban suggest that Western allies may be learning from national security failings in Russia, according to analysts.
U.S. moves to de-risk from China with a new investment ban suggest that Western allies may be learning from national security failings in Russia, according to analysts.
But the US is doing something called “stragetic ambiguity,” where they neither ally with Taiwan nor ally with China. China has repeatedly stated that the day Taiwan declares independence is the day they attack. However, if the US ever feels confident enough to actually establish diplomatic relationships with Taiwan, maybe that’s not a bad thing either.
Yeah indeed strategic ambiguity has been the approach they’ve taken so far. If they decided to they could change the approach though. I think it’s unlikely China would carry out the threat if a formal alliance was actually announced since in that case they’d be starting a world war. I think it’s more likely they’d express outrage, protest and perhaps fly some fighter jets over Taiwan, take some steps short of actual war. My worry is that if the situation remains ambiguous China might conclude that the security guarantees are not real and that US would not respond. Having strong credibility there is essential for maintaining peace I think, especially if the intention is to actually respond.
I think we should start calling these bluffs. Can’t let countries bully the world forever. Stop helping north Korea, add tawain to nato. Give them the finger.
LOL China is a bully? Are you just ignorant of the last 200 years of history. Do you have any idea WHY the KMT managed to maintain a 40-year reign of terror on Taiwan? Why Hong Kong needed to be returned to China? Or why all Europeans were completely immune to Chinese law in living memory? Hint: it was because of a bully, and China was the victim.