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/BendicantMias]

That's mostly irrelevant to China. I didn't say they'd win Taiwan over with roses, rather that Taiwan would be left with little choice if they can see that no one is gonna save them if China chooses to act. Taiwanese defiance is based on confidence that it will get help, so the past years are not really indicative of how a blockade will actually go. If Taiwan knows that it's on its own - which has NOT been the case for all these years (and even now still isn't), then they'll have to reconsider their stance. Not before the blockade, when they can be as defiant as they like, but during it. If they aren't saved within months, or if their saviors are sunk to the bottom of the sea, then all that spirit will soon have to contend with their geographic and economic reality. I'm not talking about US uncertainty - I'm talking about certainty. If the US doesn't come, or if it comes and loses, then there is no hope for the future. They give in or starve.

It would still be seen as an act of war by many governments and it would disrupt global trade on a scale that would damage China’s own economy.

Nowhere near as much as trying to take out the largest trading nation on Earth. It's funny how people treat Taiwan as somehow crucial, yet neglect to note that China today is the largest trade partner of the most nations in the world. Without Taiwan the rest of the world loses advanced chips - not even all chips, just the most advanced, mostly only used in computers and phones, not all devices. Without China you've lost the literal 'factory of the world', and its second largest consumer market too. Every market would face massive upheaval. In addition Taiwanese chips can be had once more after China takes the island if they're not destroyed (which China has no reason to do). They'll simply be Chinese exports now. That makes no difference to most of the world, only to the West which will face even more reliance on a strategic rival.

give the United States and its partners a clearer legal and diplomatic basis to intervene.

I already spoke of them doing so, and mentioned just how disadvantageous that fight would be. Assuming a US intervention would be an automatic victory is nothing but hubris. Also, though their opinion is really irrelevant these days, but an intervention would not have UN backing, as Taiwan isn't recognized as independent by it. And China could simply veto any resolution too.

Taiwan has prepared for this scenario for years and it has stockpiled essential supplies to avoid being forced into negotiations by short term pressure.

Who said this had to be short term? China can keep up a blockade indefinitely if it wants. And there's no way Taiwan can last longer than China itself could, which has even larger stockpiles and even more open trade routes as it's not an island - and the largest trader on Earth.

It is not guaranteed to break Taiwan’s political will and it could easily harden it instead.

You cannot harden beyond starvation. They will bend, the only question is how long it'd take. Although I don't think it'll ever come even close to this, I'll mention it anyway - even if the entire population were to starve rather than give in, China has more than enough people to replace them with. I don't say that cos I think that's how it'll play out, just to emphasize just how hopeless that defiance is. China doesn't even need to take the island alive, just to take it.

And China will still prefer that outcome, cos even that is preferable to this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy The US nearly started WW3 over the Soviets being in Cuba, and China will absolutely be as ruthless if necessary to keep the US off of its 'Cuba'. The Cuban crisis was averted by the Soviets backing off. We'll see if the US will do that.

It is also not guaranteed to keep outside powers on the sidelines.

I never said it was guaranteed to begin with, so this is a strawman. China would like to minimize the cost of doing so sure. But my point was that it can do so. The easy way, or the hard way...

[u/terpcity03 → u/BendicantMias]

The idea that Taiwan would simply collapse once it feels alone ignores how coercion has actually worked in the region, and it also assumes China can run an indefinite blockade without triggering consequences that would hit its own economy and security. A blockade is not a clean pressure tool because it would still be treated by many governments as an act of war, and it would invite counter measures from other states that includes the possibility of war. China is the largest trading nation in the world which means it is also one of the most vulnerable to a maritime crisis, and even a partial interruption of shipping would cause economic shock, capital flight, supply shortages and a collapse in foreign investor confidence.

Taiwan is also not relying on hope or bravado, and it has spent years preparing for a long siege. Political will does not evaporate the moment supplies tighten and history shows that populations under attack often become more resistant rather than less. The claim that China could simply starve out twenty three million people and then replace them is not a realistic political scenario. It would create a humanitarian disaster so severe that China would face international isolation on a scale similar to the backlash Russia received after its invasion of Ukraine. A blockade or even the threat of a blockade would accelerate the ongoing trend of countries moving their manufacturing to places like Vietnam, India and Mexico.

While China could still choose to impose a blockade, the real question is whether the leadership is willing to accept a result that inflicts severe long term damage on China itself. Nobody can predict how a blockade would unfold because any military action in the Strait carries enormous uncertainty and risks that no state can fully control. Russia thought it could conquer Ukraine in three days. Most analysts gave them a month or two. Yet the results speak for themselves.

Better to let the status quo be the status quo.

[u/BendicantMias → u/terpcity03]

China is the largest trading nation in the world which means it is also one of the most vulnerable to a maritime crisis, and even a partial interruption of shipping would cause economic shock, capital flight, supply shortages and a collapse in foreign investor confidence.

None of this is one-sided, and it would hurt other nations far more than China as it would not be a unified global response. Far from it, the list of nations expected to respond is very short, while China has a very diverse list trade partners as literally the state that is the biggest trade partner of the most nations globally. More than even America. And almost all nations don't recognize Taiwanese independence, nor share America's worries over chips coming from China rather than Taiwan (they import most of their electronics from China anyway). China is also not as dependent on exports as, say, Germany or Japan are. Exports are a fifth of its gdp, whereas for Germany it's around half - that's what an export dependent economy actually looks like. China is also a large market for Germany btw.

The claim that China could simply starve out twenty three million people and then replace them is not a realistic political scenario.

I never said it would come to that, it was merely to illustrate just how much more preferable it would be to China than to let the US have it. Look at what the US is doing to Cuba now. As I've said, Taiwan is China's Cuba. Quite literally - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy

Also, you vastly overestimate the amount of backlash powerful states ever receive. Trade is still open for Russia to most nations in the world. Less than quarter of the worlds nations are sanctioning it, representing even less of the worlds' people (really just Europe and North America). Most nations and people still trade with Russia, and even today there are still even western firms operating in Russia.

Now scale that up for China, far more critical to the world economy and the majority trade partner of the most nations on Earth. And btw, what of the US, which has already done comparable wars? Vietnam killed over 3 MILLION people, yet trade continued, while the more recent War on Terror saw to the deaths of over 4.5 MILLION - https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human

If you want to claim the whole world is going to boycott China over an island most everyone already proclaims as theirs, then why has the whole world not boycotted the US yet? Even now, as the whole world is suffering from yet another American war? This is what the world thinks of the US, and yet still trades with it - https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/

Russia thought it could conquer Ukraine in three days.

That claim came from US General Mark Milley actually - https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/why-gen-milleys-ukraine-war-prediction-missed-mile

Better to let the status quo be the status quo.

That's what China has done. The island chain doesn't allow them to, as it upsets the status quo. You can directly trace the rise of recent Chinese hostility to changes in America, not China, in the form of air and seaspace violations of Taiwan. They rose greatly starting in 2016-17 - China didn't change then (Xi came to power half a decade earlier), America did (Trump came to power on the back of an anti-China crusade, which even Biden continued albeit multilaterally)

China may very well not even formally take Taiwan in the end, instead offering it some sort of superficial protectorate status to entice them after a blockade has worn them down. That would leave them nominally 'independent', but without control of their foreign policy. That would avoid starvation, but crucially also put an end to their partnership with America. They might eventually end up absorbed in all but name like Hong Kong, but not initially. China can afford to be patient about that, but the island chain demands they act to ensure America is kept at bay.

[u/terpcity03 → u/BendicantMias]

We can speculate all day about who would respond, how unified the reaction would be, or how China might try to manage the fallout, but none of that changes the basic reality that a blockade is a profoundly risky move for China and nowhere near as straightforward or inevitable as you are trying to make it sound. There are reasons why the status quo remains the status quo.

As for your last paragraph, it overlooks the most important factor of all: the people of Taiwan have no desire to be dominated by China. Every major poll for years has shown that the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese reject unification, reject Beijing’s political model and prefer to maintain their current democratic system. Even under pressure, even under intimidation, that sentiment has remained stable or strengthened. You cannot coerce a population into believing they are part of a country they do not want to join, and assuming they will eventually “bend” ignores the political identity and lived experience of twenty three million people. Whatever China’s long term goals may be, the will of the Taiwanese public is not something Beijing can simply override.

[u/BendicantMias → u/terpcity03]

China already prefers the status quo, or at least the status quo prior to 2016 or so. They would prefer to do things slowly, but will not allow the US to reverse that steady progression as it escalates its rivalry with them. I mention a blockade as itself a less bloody alternative to an invasion, if push comes to shove (such as by a US recognition of the island, in response to disputes over other things). Even that I expect to be presented otherwise, as some sort of 'quarantine' operation to stop weapons or the like - very much like what the US did to Cuba during the Missile Crisis.

And I think you have an overly romantic view of these things tbh. Which is ironic, considering America itself is known for it. It's currently at war with Iran for instance, but this conflict traces back a long way. All the way back to a time when America DID coerce the country into accepting a puppet ruler (albeit not forever), and that too without invading it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

China has also incorporated territories it claims into itself, as has the US (which once fought a war with Mexico over land, remember, or Hawaii - both lands are now firmly part of the US by now). There's Hong Kong of course, whose resistance has crumbled. Or Tibet, which also no one imagines is going to gain its independence anytime soon. You don't even need to be a superpower to do it, as Azerbaijan is now proving in formerly Armenian controlled (and populated) territory.

https://observers.france24.com/en/how-azerbaijan-erasing-traces-ancient-armenian-presence-nagorno-karabakh

https://www.cftjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Exodus_FinalV4.pdf

As I said, China may not even formally take over the island. Do I think the Taiwanese will be fooled by being labelled a 'special autonomous region' or 'protectorate'? No. But neither was Hong Kong, and it didn't matter. Once it becomes clear the US can't/won't save them, it will come as a relief. And China so far has held on to these territories afterwards even as it slowly absorbs them into itself. Once America is out of the picture, they can afford to be patient. The more restive Taiwanese will just leave, and more Chinese people will move in, as has happened in Hong Kong. The 'will of the Taiwanese people' will eventually shift as they themselves do.

[u/terpcity03 → u/BendicantMias]

The entire argument you are building depends on the idea that Washington either cannot or will not act. Yet nothing in the last forty years of US policy suggests that the United States would simply step aside and allow a strategic shift of that scale. Whether one likes US involvement or not, it is a central variable in the region, and removing it from the equation is what makes your scenario look far more straightforward than it actually is. You assume away the single most influential external actor in the region. Not to mention that the regional environment is moving in the opposite direction of what you are implying. Countries in East and Southeast Asia have been growing more wary of China, and their defense policies, partnerships and public opinion all reflect that shift. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and even Vietnam have tightened security ties with the United States precisely because they do not want to live in a region dominated by Beijing.

It also does not make sense to treat Taiwan as another Hong Kong. From the moment the New Territories lease was signed in 1898, Hong Kong’s eventual return to China was baked into the legal structure of the territory. Everyone involved knew the handover date decades in advance. Taiwan is a self governing democracy with its own armed forces, its own political identity, and sovereign control over its own borders. The situations are fundamentally different, and treating Taiwan as if it is simply another Hong Kong is not just inaccurate, it shows a misunderstanding of the basic history.

[u/BendicantMias → u/terpcity03]

The entire argument you are building depends on the idea that Washington either cannot or will not act.

No, it does not. In fact I acknowledged American involvement right at the start, and pointed out very clearly how unfavorable such a battle would be. So the entire argument you're arguing against here is a strawman from start to finish. Indeed some of the comments focused especially on that, which I ignored as their responses were just jingoism about how untouchable America is. Ironic, while it's losing a war yet again.

they do not want to live in a region dominated by Beijing.

And Latin America doesn't want to live in a region dominated by Washington. Doesn't change how that played out. China has long dominated that region for most of its history. It's funny how much of these arguments mirror the US itself. The US even has Cuba as an island thorn in its side, just as China has Taiwan. China may make some of its neighbors nervous, but so has the US to pretty much its whole continent.

Your gallery of potential participants isn't very impressive either. Japan and Korea (the only significant military power among them) hate each other, and the latter has its northern neighbor to worry about. The Philippines is a reed in the winds that's already aligned with China before, and has much to fear from reprisal if the war is lost. They might let America use bases there, but will shut them down the moment the US either wavers or is defeated. Australia depends on China for its whole economy, and can offer nothing but token naval support. They're not gonna keep up a futile fight after the US is gone. Vietnam also has China as its largest investor, and is not a naval power capable of changing anything afterwards. Their history is one of staunch defiance to outside powers - including btw famously the US too - not of fighting afield to save islands populated by other Chinese people. Indeed Vietnam actually has its own disputes with Taiwan. Some of these nations may offer America support from bases there, especially Japan, but none of them can continue to fight on their own or even together. Either the US wins, largely with its own forces, or the island is lost. They won't save it.

Much like Latin America hates what the US has done to Cuba, yet none of them are rescuing it either. Indeed the whole world hates what the US has done to Cuba, and I mean THE WHOLE WORLD literally (save, notably, Israel), yet the world hasn't saved Cuba either - https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143112

Taiwan is a self governing democracy with its own armed forces, its own political identity, and sovereign control over its own borders.

So is Somaliland. Fat lot of good that's done it. The only way they've been able to get any semblance of recognition at all is by playing regional players against each other, much like Taiwan is. And much like Somaliland, most of the world still doesn't recognize Taiwan, so if China were to reclaim it it wouldn't represent a change at all for most countries. Only in the western alliance would it lead to a lot of handwringing.

You're treating Taiwan as special, it isn't. There are many such places, but only one that the west gets all up in arms about it. It's not like the Western Sahara dispute gets westerners excited, but this little island does. And the reasons for that have little to do with principles and everything to do with geopolitics. It will be settled geopolitically too. In the words of Clausewitz, war is just politics by other means. China may be content to play politics normally, but if the US tries to undermine that, it may very well decide it must pursue politics 'by other means'. They wrote the Art of War, after all, which long predates Clausewitz.

[u/terpcity03 → u/BendicantMias]

You are leaning heavily on analogies that do not actually map onto the situation you are describing. Latin America’s experience with the United States does not tell you much about how Asian states respond to China, because the strategic landscape, the alliances, the threat perceptions and the balance of power are completely different. Likewise, listing reasons why various Asian countries have limitations does not change the fact that they have all been moving toward deeper security cooperation precisely because they are uneasy about China’s behavior. Comparing Taiwan to Somaliland or Western Sahara misses the core point that Taiwan is not an unrecognized micro‑entity trying to survive on the margins of a regional system. It is a technologically advanced democracy with a major economy, a capable military, and deep integration into global supply chains. Treating it as interchangeable with any other disputed territory oversimplifies the situation to the point of distortion, and it leads you to conclusions that do not reflect the actual political, economic or strategic realities of East Asia.