Since Chiang Kai Shek’s defeat in 1949 by Mao Zedong’s Communists resulting in the former’s flight to the island of Taiwan in the same year, marked the beginning of the “Two Chinas,” dividing the Chinese people’s lives to Mao’s Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland and a path to full democracy from the late 1980s for the Republic of China (ROC). In 1971, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed Resolution 2758, recognizing the PRC as the only legitimate representative of China, while simultaneously expelling the ROC.
On January 1, 1979, the USA diplomatically recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China, thus ending official ties with the ROC. Yet, this recognition came with “verbal gymnastics,” acknowledging the PRC’s position diplomatically, yet withholding full acceptance of its “One China Principle” based on President Richard Nixon’s "strategic ambiguity.” From that time on, this island state is not merely a place where war between the PRC and the USA as well as its allies could happen; it is where the rules of international order are being tested on a daily basis. What will happen in the future around the Taiwan Strait will determine the ROC’s sovereignty, political security, economic prosperity, and the USA’s alliance credibility.
Essentially, the so-called “Taiwan Question” is positioned at the intersection of a variety of historical narratives and Beijing's overwhelmingly illegal expansionist aggression. The PRC defines “Taiwan” as a core national interest tied to unquestionable legitimacy, identity, and unfinished civil war. The ROC claims that the eight decades of complete separation - during which this island nation evolved into the opposite of the PRC as a self-governing democracy whose population sees its future radically different from the mainland’s dictatorship. The USA and its allies, committed to preserving the status quo by withholding full diplomatic recognition from Taipei, face the challenge of maintaining peace in an era of sharpening tensions with the PRC. Thus far, the PRC lacked the military capacity to force unification and the ROC avoided declaring formal independence. This equilibrium was never stable in the past and the present, but it worked.
This balance will not last forever. The PRC is getting stronger militarily. Its economy and technological capabilities are developing more rapidly than at any point in its modern history. Its naval exercises around the ROC are more threatening, more frequent, and more sophisticated, signaling both growing military capabilities and mounting political resolve. In Taipei, its national identity has become more pronounced, coupled with its firm decision to defend its independence against the mainland.
For these reasons, the strategic ambiguity of the past and the present must give way to a new strategic clarity and decisiveness to counter probable political as well as military miscalculations on the part of President Xi Jinping. These miscalculations appear to be very similar, if not identical to President Putin’s erroneous assumptions regarding Ukraine prior to February 2022. More importantly, Beijing’s narrative, combining pressure and fear, suggests a belief that verbal intimidation by itself will produce surrender or elite defection. Yet, as in the case of Ukraine, verbal coercion has only strengthened the people’s resolve to defend their island’s independence. An additional erroneous assumption of Beijing is that a blockade could be “clean and controllable.” On the contrary, blockade dynamics are inherently escalatory. The reasons are manifold. Blockades force the blockaded state to challenge it militarily by running the blockade. Second, such a blockade can quickly turn into a regional economic crisis. Third, the chances of weaponized clashes at air and sea could risk to expand into a regional or global war.
Equally reckless is Beijing’s belief that time is necessarily on the PRC’s side. The tyrant President Xi thinks that he can turn the screw of threat with military invasion indefinitely. Yet, the ROC is feverishly rearming and strengthening its defenses - including the largest budget increases toward asymmetrical warfare. As a result, the myth of easy coercion is becoming increasingly hollow. Concomitantly, the PRC-version of a Blitzkrieg - a fast fait accompli - is absolutely unrealistic. Beginning with the Taiwan Strait and continuing with the mountainous spine that splits the island and contains over 60% of the world’s known marble stock, and the lack of any viable landing beaches, provide the invaders with extremely limited internal mobility.
Clearly, geography is the main force multiplier for the ROC. Its ability for early detection of an invasion, its layered defenses, and its ability to a deadly concentration of defensive firepower against any approaches, render the attacker’s options to almost zero.
Turning to the PRC’s military’s key weaknesses that also make an outright invasion suicidal for the so-called People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The PLA has not fought a major war since the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. Then the “teaching the Vietnamese a lesson” quest ended with a complete humiliation of the PRC. Even more embarrassing for Beijing, the PLA resembled more a “paper tiger” than a potent modern military. Moreover, joint operations still remain a work in progress. Finally, political control by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), corruption as well as trust deficits, and the high-tech systems fragility exposes the PLA to a likely disastrous annihilation.
In closing, the danger is not just Beijing’s overestimation of its military capabilities and the underestimation of Taipei’s resolve. An invasion would not be an unequivocal demonstration of the overwhelming power of a rising superpower; it would be a high risk lottery that geography, weather, logistics, human fear, and global reaction can all be mastered at once - and on the first try. History has always been unkind to regimes that confuse propaganda for performance and illusionary plans for outcomes. The ROC is not a low-hanging fruit waiting to be taken down. It is a global strategic crucible. President Xi’s megalomaniac gamble will not only end as a global internal embarrassment, but a terminal political rupture whose consequences Beijing will be forced to live with for generations.