China’s Fallen Generals Are Getting Unexpectedly Harsh Punishments

[u/Soggy_Association491]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/05/22/china-xi-jinping-purge-generals-punishment-death-sentence/

[u/Soggy_Association491]

Starer comment:

This is the first time senior officials, just one level below member of politburo is sentenced to suspended death sentences which life imprisonment with a permanent bar on parole and further commutation. While suspended death sentences are not unusual in major Chinese corruption cases, the permanent denial of parole and commutation is exceptionally severe and sets a new benchmark for punishment

Additionally Chinese state media also has shifted its language from describing offenses as corruption to portraying them as acts of political disloyalty against the Communist Party and implicitly against Xi himself.

Then there is the concern about the effectiveness of such a strong handed approach against combating corruption. If senior officials believe they face the maximum punishment regardless, they may have little incentive to limit their behavior.

However I would like to present another angle of this news. (I am bad at writing this kind of stuff so bare with me)

Historically the Central Military Commission consisted 7 members. Now there are only 2 remaining (including Xi) and the last member, Zhang Shengmin originated from the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection which is a part of Xi faction. It can be surmised that Xi want to concentrate the control over the military to him by reducing the influence of senior generals.

Also when we examine the charges against Zhang Youxia or Wei Fenghe, most of them focus on "violations of discipline" or "undermined the CMC system". Their language in the PLA context imply that they are guilty of seeking to establish some level of independence for the PLA and push back the influence of the non-military member of the CMC over military strategy and decision-making.

This pattern feels eerily similar to Nacht der langen Messer or Night of long knives in 1934 where Hitler purged a long list of unfavorable elements in order to consolidate his authority and prepare to the rearmament of Germany. Then in 1938, he ousted senior generals like Ludwig Beck, Werner von Fritsch, Werner von Blomberg who disagreed with him on foreign policy (aka the war).

Do you think history will repeat itself now that Xi has total control including the ability to tell the PRC to invade Taiwan even if the generals said no?

[u/ExpressLab6564 → u/Soggy_Association491]

The time for him to invade is the next 3 years. He will not make the mistake putin made and wait for the next democratic president 

[u/cathbadh → u/ExpressLab6564]

I don't think party matters here as much as capabilities and ideology. Biden was a Democrat and responded with weak half measures and constant constraints on Ukraine. There's no reason to believe he would have rushed to an all out war with China.

On the other side Trump is a wild card who preaches a turn away from neoconservative foreign policy while attacking and threatening nations frequently. There's no reason to automatically believe he wouldn't defend Taiwan.

The economic factor matters a great deal. The world's economy needs Taiwanese chips. The US especially. The risk of their destruction would be devastating, and the risk of their intact capture would be even worse. Even the most isolationist President can't just accept economic disaster or outright surrender tech or AI supremacy to China.

Looking to the future, I keep hearing that Vance is owned by the tech elite and Rubio does have a long history or neoconservative foreign policy beliefs. Why wouldn't either of them step up? What's more is it totally out of the realm of possibilities that the Dems would elect a populist who ran on saving jobs by fighting AI or who just sees American interventionism as colonialism and bad? What makes the thought of a Dem in the White House somehow the greatest fear Xi could have; one so bad that he'd give up his greatest ideological goal?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/cathbadh]

Trump is anti-China, but him being a wildcard means his allies can't trust him as much. Although Biden should've been more lenient, his support for Ukraine was far more consistent than Trump looking for reasons to delay aid.

[u/cathbadh → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Maybe more consistent, but far from reliable. Every ounce of aid came with handcuffs that did nothing but draw the fight out and lead to a reasonable belief that the Western goal was to bleed Russia's war making capability by prolonging the war rather than helping Ukraine win

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/cathbadh]

He sent about $180 billion worth of aid.

Which would you prefer: Receiving a gigantic amount of help that came with some handcuffs, or a relatively tiny amount of aid that's delayed because the president wants something in return?

Criticizing the handcuffs is fine, but Biden was far more reliable than Trump.

[u/cathbadh → u/Interesting_Total_98]

I didn't realize those are the only choices. What about aid with significantly less restrictions on its use? Why can't I say that is the better option?

You seem to think I'm saying Trump was more reliable, and if I forgot to add the absurd "I'm not saying anything good about Trump" caveat that is sadly necessary to get reasonable replies, I apologize. Im not going to sit here and praise Biden just because he didn't do as bad as Trump.

So to make it clear, neither did an especially good job in my opinion. Ukrainians died needlessly because of how both Presidents approached things.

[u/ExpressLab6564 → u/cathbadh]

It's not Biden didn't do as bad a Trump, it's trump has not done anything that has benefited the US at all.

[u/cathbadh → u/ExpressLab6564]

trump has not done anything that has benefited the US at all.

Nothing? Literally nothing at all? OK, I'll tap out here if we're not going to be at least a LITTLE realistic.