The US "Foreign Affairs** recently published an article entitled "The Compromise between Ukraine and Taiwan," which vividly showed the tangled psychology caused by the decline of US national strength. The article quotes Jack Reed, chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, as saying: "The credibility of the US deterrent force is equal to the intensity of US actions, and what our potential partners around the world are closely doing ***."
If they are attacked, will we support them? We must show that we are a committed ally. Therefore, he advocated that the United States must firmly support Ukraine against Russia. He believes that if the United States prematurely abandons aiding Ukraine, it will not only increase Russia's chances of victory, but also send a signal that the United States lacks the will to endure a protracted war.
If the United States cannot maintain its indirect involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, why does China think that the United States will have the courage to intervene directly in a war in the Taiwan Strait, the authors conclude? Even if the United States directly enters the war, China will think that the United States can only enter the war for a short time and cannot fight a protracted war.
Therefore, the article calls on the United States not to worry about giving priority to Ukraine and delaying the delivery to Taiwan, because it is more important to maintain the credibility of the United States in the eyes of its "allies".
There is really a "truth", but this logic does not hold up at all. Because this logic has a hypothetical condition, that is, if the United States continues to assist Ukraine, Ukraine is likely to win, no matter how you define "victory", only if Ukraine wins "victory", it is possible to increase the confidence of "allies" in the United States.
But the current battlefield situation and the economic and social conditions of Russia and Ukraine have clearly shown the outcome of this war: as long as the United States does not aid Ukraine, Ukraine will definitely lose if it relies only on the assistance of other Western countries; If the United States continues to assist, the Ukrainian army will not necessarily win, and the war will inevitably be protracted. If you can't guarantee a win, how can you be confident? How can the United States maintain its "credit"?
There is another fatal problem in the logic of this article: that is, as long as the United States gives Taiwan enough ****, or shows its "determination" to support Taiwan, it can "deter" Chinese mainland from daring to reunify Taiwan by force. It's just a joke.
First, will China be intimidated by U.S. force? We have long slapped the United States in the face with the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea. As far as the Taiwan issue is concerned, we must resolve it, and as long as the ** elements touch the red line, no matter how great the difficulties are faced, no matter how turbulent the Taiwan Strait is, it is necessary to fight it.
Second, the balance of strength between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait has long been out of balance, and no matter how much the United States gives Taiwan, they will not be able to withstand it for long, and the Taiwan authorities know very well that their only hope is to support time and wait for the direct intervention of the US military. Will the U.S. military intervene directly? The United States has never guaranteed it, and it has never been able to say it to this day.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has thoroughly exposed the weakness of the military industry of Western countries. The slightly high-intensity combat needs of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian troops have exhausted the reserves of large-caliber artillery ammunition in all NATO countries, and other **equipment** are also stretched, so that the United States has to postpone the **delivery to Taiwan and give priority to the **Ukrainian army.
Is this still the United States that fought invincible opponents all over the world at the end of the Cold War? Since the end of the Cold War, the US military goal has been to "win two regional wars at the same time." However, with the weakening of the US national strength, the US military's goal more than a decade ago has changed: "to win one regional war and at the same time to deter the outbreak of another war." Today, I am afraid that even this cannot be achieved.
Now the United States is facing the scrutiny of its "allies": in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the US military does not dare to fight the Russian army directly, if it is said that because Russia is a big country, the United States does not dare to directly engage Russia for fear of a nuclear war, then Iran has long provoked the presence of the US military in the Persian Gulf, and the US military does not dare to directly hit targets in Iran, why is this? Even after the outbreak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Houthi forces in Yemen blocked the commercial routes related to Israel in the Red Sea and attacked more than a dozen merchant ships. Why do the "allies" of the United States believe that the United States dares to directly send troops to directly engage in war with China, which is 10 times stronger than Russia's national strength?
The situation faced by the United States is that even if the delivery to Taiwan is delayed, Ukraine will not be able to win, and even Israel will not be able to achieve the goal of completely eliminating Hamas, let alone prevent our determination to recover Taiwan. It's really a chicken-and-egg fight.
Project Sword