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/cathbadh]

There are generally two reasons to do this:

1) concerns about Xi's position and wanting to shore up loyalty

2) Preparations for military action by getting rid of dissenters or those who won't be able to perform.

Xi has purged people for "corruption" in the past, and most estimates or an invasion of Taiwan still point to a year or more away for when they'll have the capabilities to even attempt an attack, and most of those ignore the lessons of Ukraine. So I wouldn't go to the worst possibility yet

[u/BendicantMias → u/cathbadh]

China won't invade. Why bother? They don't need to. They could simply blockade Taiwan indefinitely. It's not Ukraine or Iran - it's actually an island. Why do it the hard way? If the US tries to intervene, which is looking increasingly unlikely, it'd be fighting in the most favorable battlespace China could ask for - right in China's backyard, against the PRC Navy (already larger, albeit shorter ranged but who cares when the battle is close to China), Air Force, Rocket Force, Drones and even parts of its army air force. They've also already fortified that area with AA/AD weapon systems all over the place. China is already the world's largest shipbuilder, and drone producer. The US is neither, and far from home. It would be a disaster. So why should they invade?

It is already the policy of the PRC to retake Taiwan, that didn't start with Xi. They largely left it alone for generations as they focused on their own internal development, but the recent uptick in interest to taking it is likely a reaction to the US than cos Xi especially needs to do it politically. Reaction to what from the US? This - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy

For both the U.S. and the PRC, the island chain strategy emphasizes the geographical and strategic importance of Taiwan.

Lastly, what does China spend on its military? Its defense spending amounts to 1.7% of its GDP. That's HALF the US figure, and even less than Europe spends. That hardly looks like a massive defense buildup. They could double that and still be only on par with the US, and still under NATO's new defense spending target. They could quadruple that and still only be matching that of Russia, never mind Israel and especially not Ukraine's ridiculous spending (only possible due to massive quantities of foreign money).

So this hardly looks like the prelude to an invasion of Taiwan. More likely they see Taiwan as a foregone conclusion and are only waiting for the best time to deal with it i.e. with minimal foreign intervention. They'd prefer that Taiwan gets disheartened enough by American reticence to help it that it decides to compromise and come to negotiations. And that will wait until the next US president, as right now Taiwan is, like everyone else, hoping Trump will burn himself and his movement out, resulting in a complete volte face in the US govt. after he's gone. China would like to know how much of Trumps' foreign policy will quietly persist after Trump. Then they can decide whether force is needed or simple pressure on Taiwan will do

[u/ViskerRatio → u/BendicantMias]

They could simply blockade Taiwan indefinitely.

The problem with this strategy is that active hostilities in the China Sea would de facto blockade all commerce in the China Sea. Without active commercial shipping through the China Sea, Taiwan would be in a difficult situation. However, it's a relatively small nation that could easily be kept afloat by U.S. merchant marine activities.

China, on the other hand, would run out of fuel and food in a matter of months with no realistic way to keep its infrastructure operating or feed its people.

The only way China takes Taiwan is with a rapid victory. Which, if we remember our 20th Century history, is the strategic linchpin of nations who lose wars.

If the US tries to intervene, which is looking increasingly unlikely, it'd be fighting in the most favorable battlespace China could ask for

The battle space is actually a lot more favorable to the U.S. than China.

Remember, we're not talking about interior supply lines here. Any major war fought in the China Sea region has to be fought with food and fuel from elsewhere.

However, China's enemies control all the paths to that 'elsewhere' - China is surrounded by hostile nations on all sides. So while China itself would be cut off from essential resources to continue the fight, its enemies would not.

Lastly, what does China spend on its military?

The U.S. and Chinese military are fundamentally different in nature.

The Chinese military has limited power projection, is primarily built around internal security and mainly functions as a container for state businesses.

The U.S. military is in the business of warfighting - and they are very, very good at it. Not only is the basic U.S. military far more capable than what other nations (including China) manage, but it has a vast and deep institutional knowledge about how to fight wars that places like China lack.

More likely they see Taiwan as a foregone conclusion

Honestly, China's got bigger problems - a looming demographic and debt crisis - than Taiwan that they're probably focused on. Taiwan is an issue of national pride more than anything else.

[u/BendicantMias → u/ViskerRatio]

it's a relatively small nation that could easily be kept afloat by U.S. merchant marine activities.

Uh what? Do you know what a blockade is? What kind of a blockade do you imagine China would impose? Some sort of glorified naval parade?

China, on the other hand, would run out of fuel and food in a matter of months

Right, supposedly the massive continental nation that's the largest trader on Earth, with an even more massive allied neighbor just to its north that has plenty of food and fuel, and has the largest stockpiles on earth - is just going to fall over faster than the tiny island next to it.

I've heard this rhetoric used to argue that the Iran war is really about hurting China. The reality is that they're holding up better than any other non-American nation, for good reason - https://www.reuters.com/graphics/IRAN-CRISIS/CHINA-OIL/egpbeormkvq/

In fact they're holding up so well under it that they're literally partially sparing the rest of the world from its worst effects - https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/iran-war-china-cuts-oil-imports-energy-prices-6109266

Any attempt to blockade China won't be as effective as it's not an island, will do nothing to save Taiwan, and will quite possibly result in other nations like Japan also being blockaded too in retaliation if the US insists on staying far away anyway. Plus the nations in the region where that blockade would have to be imposed - we both know you're talking about the Malacca Strait - would not take kindly to being dragged into a war they'd rather sit out. All of them have China as their largest trade partner, so any such blockade would majorly hurt their economies. All you'd accomplish is taking a bad situation and making it worse.

The U.S. military is in the business of warfighting - and they are very, very good at it.

Right, the military that keeps losing wars over and over 'is very, very good at it'.

Taiwan is an issue of national pride more than anything else.

Taiwan is an issue of Cuba more than anything else - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy And we all know how the US responded to the Soviets in Cuba...

[u/ViskerRatio → u/BendicantMias]

Uh what? Do you know what a blockade is? What kind of a blockade do you imagine China would impose? Some sort of glorified naval parade?

Blockading the entire island would be essentially impossible - especially given that the U.S. would almost certainly maintain air supremacy over the entire region.

Remember, this isn't a few aircraft carriers fighting halfway around the world. It's the entire sky-darkening might of the U.S. air force flying out of places like Japan, kept operational by endless sea of fuel from unassailable resource areas.

with an even more massive allied neighbor just to its north that has plenty of food and fuel

Russia is not 'allied' to China. They're political adversaries.

Any attempt to blockade China won't be as effective as it's not an island

About three months after the war you're imagining, China would be in the grips of a famine. It wouldn't even be able to operate the internal infrastructure necessary to distribute its domestic food production - much less cover the shortfall in that domestic food production.

Moreover, you don't need to blockade the Chinese coast. All you need to do is close the Straits of Malacca - easily done by the U.S. and well outside the operational reach of the Chinese navy.

Not to mention that any sort of large-scale conflict in the South China Sea would inherently shut down all commercial shipping without even having to shoot anyone because those commercial shipper wouldn't be able to cover the risk.

in other nations like Japan also being blockaded too

Again, you're imagining scenarios that just aren't feasible in the real world. You cannot conduct a naval blockade when your enemies have air supremacy over the water or interfere with submarine operations. While China might be able to maintain control over its own air space, there's no chance they'd be able to do so over Japan. Likewise, while they might be able to interdict submarines passing into the China Sea, there's no chance for them to do so in blue water.

In fact they're holding up so well under it that they're literally partially sparing the rest of the world from its worst effects

Read the article. They're not 'holding up'. They're invading their strategic reserve. While they're not actually drawing it down, this is because they're not maintaining the tempo necessary for an offensive war.

Right, the military that keeps losing wars over and over 'is very, very good at it'.

The U.S. military isn't good at counter-insurgency because no one is. But we're not discussing counter-insurgency. We're discussing the ability to establish and maintain military supremacy in a region - which the U.S. has been able to do with complete impunity in every war since Korea. Even then, the U.S. military could have driven to Beijing if that was the overall strategic goal. We didn't conquer China back then not because we couldn't but because it wasn't in our national interest.

Ask yourself this: if it was an easy as you're imagining for China, why haven't they done it? It's not like they're a bunch of peace-loving hippies who just want to give love a chance. They're aggressively expansionistic and have no problems using brutal force to suppress local populations.

They're also facing debt and demographic catastrophes that likely make it a "if not now, then never" issue for them.

The reason they don't is simple: they know they'd get annihilated. The logistics are severely disadvantageous and while it may not be apparent by just counting ship hulls, the force disparity disadvantage is equally enormous.

[u/ATLEMT → u/BendicantMias]

I’m curious what wars you’re referring to and how you define losing?