When Taiwan Falls, It Will Be Like Constantinople
'Tis the best, and worst, of times for a new world order
“As the Chinese said, to curse someone: ‘May you live in interesting times.’”
Umberto Eco
We live in interesting times where every war is about democracy, and every election is about WWIII. Yet, despite the hype, we all know so-called third world wars never happen. Study says.
(Whenever I try to fool myself into believing something, I mentally repeat “study says.” A critical thinking skill I learned from watching CNN.)
Or, at least, not until China says so. Xi Jinping is candid about “the use of force and reserving the option of taking all necessary means” over the Taiwan issue, which he insists “cannot be passed down from generation to generation.” It’s all part of his grand ‘Chinese Dream,’ set to be realised by 2049.
This leaves us with a quarter-century to avert a catastrophic showdown between the U.S. and China over Taiwan. I’m not blind; if China decides to muscle in on Taiwan, then we’re talking World War III.
However, the idea of China waging war ‘over’ Taiwan doesn’t quite add up. A WWIII over Taiwan is one thing; a WWIII with Taiwan already flying the Chinese flag would be a whole different beast.
And China, of course, isn’t without options. Sure, an invasion’s on the menu, but so are diplomacy, social engineering, cyber warfare, financial leverage — each a geopolitical delicacy China is very familiar with.
The catch with invading Taiwan is crystal clear. China would need to go all-in from the outset, launching a preemptive strike against U.S. bases along the First Island Chain. Otherwise, the U.S. military would repeal the invasion, decimating China’s invading navy as if shooting fish in a barrel. Then China would be left with no options, but to escalate the situation.
The First Island Chain, which includes Taiwan, serves the strategic purpose of bottling up the navies of China and Russia, thereby allowing the U.S. to project its power over Southeast Asia. China’s maritime access is restricted by this chain, and while Russia might have an extensive coastline, it is largely frozen.
China would likely have acted on Taiwan already if they believed the U.S. wouldn’t or couldn’t retaliate. Taiwan, for its part, would have shown appeasement towards China if they thought the U.S. would not come to their defense.
The U.S. recognises that inaction in the face of a Chinese invasion would irreparably damage its deterrence strategy, undermining its credibility with nations in the region under threat, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines. Intervening to block a Chinese advance on Taiwan could lead to a full-blown, and likely nuclear, war.
Thus, the drawbacks for China in invading Taiwan are evident. On top of that, there are significant upsides to be considered in not invading.
Russia’s venture into Ukraine did little to enhance its military strength. In contrast, China’s ‘integration’ of Taiwan would be transformative. For starters, they would gain access to advanced semiconductor technology, potentially upgrading their military weapons capability to rival that of the U.S.
However, the real prize lies in effectively breaking the First Island Chain, granting China free maritime passage and elevating its navy to a global force, capable of throwing punches anywhere in the globe, just like the U.S.
Such an upgrade in military technology, along with a blue-water navy, would dramatically alter China’s position in a hypothetical WWIII.
Yet, the West need not lose sleep over WWIII just yet. A better reason to lose sleep would be the ‘new’ China, rising from such a transformation, signalling a truly new world order. Emboldened, and possibly already the world’s largest economy, China would be poised to overturn global institutions and assume the role of leader of a captive world. No war required upfront.
Even at the height of the Cold War, there was no contender with the capability to both survive a U.S. downfall and then reign over the remnants. The Soviet Union, limited in its ability to project power, faced a binary fate between collapse or mutual destruction. It could never ‘win.’ China, however, could emerge as the first nation capable of going toe to toe with the U.S. for global influence, and beating it at its game. There was never such a nuanced approach to the Cold War.
Which Timeline Are We In?
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
“Why now?” That’s the unanswered question connecting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s orchestration of the October 7th attacks, and — if it transpires — China’s invasion of Taiwan.
The answer, I’d wager, hinges on figuring out which relevant timeline we’re in.
We’re unmistakably in a timeline that includes the Iranian Deal, the Obama ‘red line’, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the uncertain support for Ukraine. Here, U.S. deterrence falters, emitting mixed signals to friends and foes alike.
Is this the same timeline where the invasion of Ukraine leads to the October 7th attacks, and then Taiwan? This is the prevailing impression in mainstream media: a ‘surge in authoritarianism’ ushering in WWIII, lacking clear purpose, coordination, or a gameplan.
It’s the established narrative of globalist heroes championing democracy against the fascists, casually referencing Trump and Orban for quick validation. It presupposes that the entire world adheres to the mindset of 21st-century Western elites, even 19th-century men like Xi and Putin.
I’d be hard-pressed to argue that the conflicts in Ukraine, the Holy Land and Taiwan are about democracy. The same goes for most Western elections.
Perhaps we’re in the timeline extending from the Berlin Wall to the World Trade Center, and eventually Taiwan. It marks the end of ‘Pax Democratica,’ a makeshift band-aid over Pax Americana, founded on half-baked principles like Thomas Friedman’s ‘Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention.’ The old Cold War conflict between capitalism and socialism, or today’s vogue, individualism and collectivism.
We believed free markets could solve everything, from providing cheap labour through immigration to democratising China and the Middle East. The notion was, if we talk tough and carry a soft stick, no two countries where McDonald’s has planted its flag would ever go to war against each other.
Well, that theory was dead on arrival. Soon, the revisionist idea that the U.S. never bombed a country in Apple’s supply chain will likely be discredited.
So, are we in a timeline from Franz Ferdinand’s assassination to Poland’s invasion, culminating in Taiwan? I doubt it. But if we are indeed on the cusp of WWIII, then striking China, Russia, and Iran right now might be the best strategy, as John von Neumann would’ve suggested. Only because it won’t get any easier. Since that doesn’t sound reasonable, we must be in a different timeline yet.
I believe we’re in the timeline from the fall of Carthage to the fall of Constantinople, to the fall of Taiwan. Historian Donald Kagan, in his On the Origins of War, presents a persuasive argument for a common lineage between the Peloponnesian War, Punic Wars, WWI, and WWII. It’s a prolonged, slow-burning timeline. Perhaps similar to the one we are in now.
After Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire reigned, with the Barbary States controlling the seas. The West was compelled to circumnavigate the globe, discovering new worlds. Interestingly, the Russian Empire rose by conquering what was once a great empire from the East.
Predicting the outcome of China’s move on Taiwan is challenging, as it depends on intermediary events yet to happen. But any speculation is still more rational than assuming WWIII is imminent due to the ‘delusions’ of autocrats like Putin, Xi, or the Ayatollahs; while overlooking the delusions of our own pseudo-democracies, embodied by the Bidens, Macrons, Scholzes, and Sunaks. Perhaps our adversaries comprehend this better than we think.
In any event, there’s no denying something big is happening. And the trial runs for WWIII are well underway.
New World Disorder
“Verba movent, exempla trahunt
(Words move, examples compel)”
To suggest that your enemies are plotting is to be branded a conspiracy theorist. The moderate position, however, seems to be blindly trusting that our side has a plan, even in the absence of any evidence.
What is true, though, is that the world is engaged in one big war game across three expansive fronts: the resurgence of a Eurasian empire led by Russia, the erratic attempts to form an all-encompassing ‘Islamic State’ — with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey as contenders —, and China’s rise to global preeminence, using Taiwan as a stepping stone, not an objective.
They’ve been fortifying their strategic positions for a long time, mobilising resources and bolstering their military arsenal, seemingly intent on challenging the U.S.’s hegemonic status and shaping a multipolar world.
We believe ‘Pax Democratica’ poses a threat to them — that it will democratise China, de-radicalise the Middle East, and even topple Putin’s regime through sanctions. But in reality, this naïve belief is their ace in the hole. ‘Pax Democratica’ unwittingly serves their purposes.
Just look at how interesting things are since 2022: we’ve seen Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Hamas, with brewing tensions in Serbia-Kosovo, Venezuela-Guyana, and possibly Iran-Pakistan. Last year, it was Armenia-Azerbaijan.
Iran’s ticking closer to a nuke by the minute. North Korea is ratcheting up tensions with South Korea, which is simultaneously strengthening naval and defence ties with Japan, despite their bloody historical relationship.
Global trade is in literal dire straits. Suez Canal trade volume has plummeted by 40% due to regional conflicts. China’s shadow over Taiwan looms large, threatening cross-strait trade. The Red Sea is choked by Iran-backed militias, and Panama’s stability is increasingly in question.
Meanwhile, 3.2 million illegal immigrants entered the U.S. across the southern border last year, and half of the global population are heading to the polls this year.
And then there’s ‘Putin's Coup Belt,’ a series of real-life insurrections that have torn through Africa since 2020:
China’s growing role as a global creditor adds to the disorder. IMF and G20 officials whisper about China cutting deals in the shadows in the emerging world, which might include collateral like mines, power plants, and other key infrastructure. Defaults could spark political upheaval in countries like Zambia, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Ethiopia, and Pakistan, all of which are heavy borrowers from China.
China holds $867 billion of US debt. In the event of a conflict in the South China Sea, there might be a 40% sell-off of U.S. treasury papers (by China and other parties in the region, like Japan), significantly crippling America's fundraising capabilities.
Blue Navy Envy
“From the heights of the Pyramids, forty centuries look down on us.”
Napoleon
On the map below, note the Chinese naval base in Djibouti, its first overseas, and a ‘commercial port’ in Equatorial Guinea, both nearly flanking Putin’s Coup Belt:
Also, observe the proposed and operational bases dotting Southeast Asia and the Solomon Islands, forming an almost complete envelope around the First Island Chain.
Oceans are, of course, the bedrock of the international order. China, confined by the First Island Chain, is establishing overseas outposts for access, refueling, and replenishing. Hence, the trillions invested by China in port infrastructure all over the world:
Then there’s Panama, which some forget was invaded by the U.S. in 1989 during Operation Just Cause. There, a Chinese consortium is building a bridge over the Canal, one that will be exempt from the Panama Canal Neutrality Protocol. This protocol dictates that the canal “both in times of peace and in times of war it shall remain secure and open to peaceful transit by the vessels of all nations.”
China’s shipbuilding capacity dwarfs that of the U.S. Its naval fleet, already arguably the world’s largest with over 340 warships, was once considered a green-water force, operating mostly near its shores. The speed of its transformation into a blue-water navy, capable of global reach, is remarkable.
Xi aims for a “world-class force” by 2035. The Fujian, China’s third aircraft carrier due in 2024, with longer-range and heavier ordnance capabilities, will extend China’s defensive perimeter to the Second Island Chain and beyond.
Make no mistake, we are dealing with the same China that fought the Taiping Rebellion, which left 30 million casualties decades before WWI, and the same China that expropriated 700 million acres of land during Communist rule. China is no stranger to large-scale conflicts or projects. What has changed is the method of projecting power; it is no longer through Great Walls, but rather through aircraft carriers.
Consider Alexander’s conquest of Tyre in 332 BC, deemed improbable, if not impossible. He built a causeway from the continent to the island city, once thought impregnable, which stands to this day, effectively turning Tyre into a peninsula. Then think about how China might get creative in its approach to Taiwan.
Domain Awareness Trap
“You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from.”
Cormac McCarthy, No Country for Old Men
Most red-blooded Americans are sick and tired of wars fought for democracy but paid for with dollars — and some blue-blooded ones as well. The post-9/11 era saw $8 trillion spent on foreign conflicts, not including the $105 billion earmarked for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It highlights the importance of recognising that the issue with Taiwan is not about the ‘banality of good’ of spreading democracy.
It’s easy to overlook how the Russia-Ukraine, Hamas-Israel, and potentially China-Taiwan conflicts are part of a larger picture, a power struggle involving the Russia-Iran-China axis against the U.S.-led West. And we cannot assume they lack a plan simply because we appear to lack one.
The scandal involving Chinese surveillance balloons over U.S. airspace, undetected by the Pentagon and only later leisurely addressed, revealed more than Joe Biden’s weakness and unsuitability as the leader of the free world.
Air Force General Glen D. VanHerck, head of NORAD and NORTHCOM, admitted to a “domain awareness gap,” a shortfall in the understanding or monitoring of a specific threat, where lack of complete information hinders effective decision-making or action.
Yet, after two decades of relative peace and economic growth; and under an unhealthy diet of obvious lies from world leaders who claim, without shame or self-awareness, that the real ‘existential threats’ to mankind are climate change and the patriarchy; we might have succumbed to a ‘domain awareness trap.’
A growing trend towards isolationism is evident, especially on the right, a clear response to wars falsely justified as democratisation efforts and a military focus on diversity over readiness.
Despite high defense spending, the West’s capacity to support allies like Ukraine, Israel, or Taiwan is constrained. Shell-producing capacity has plummeted from 867,000 shells a month in the 1990s to 28,000 today, with the Pentagon aiming to increase it to 100,000 by 2025. The Pentagon also plans to acquire thousands of inexpensive drones over the next 18 months, while its main supplier produced only 38 units last year.
A time may come when we look back nostalgically at the days when isolationists grumbled about military spending abroad, oblivious to the ease of life when the U.S. was playing war games from the bully pulpit. With house money.
The Three-Body Problem
“Universe has existed for only 20 billion years, whereas if the physical laws as we understand them are even remotely correct, the universe will continue to exist for as least another 100 billion years. Almost all of space and time lies in the future. By focusing atttention only on the past and present, science has ignored almost all of reality.”
Frank Tipler
We worry too much about the origin of the species, when the real trick lies in the destiny of the species.
Since the Cold War days, we’ve contemplated the existence of two, and only two, apocalyptic scenarios: a nuclear war ending the world tomorrow or a peaceful existence lasting a billion years until the sun consumes the Earth.
Regardless of whether now or never, it was pointless to think about the end of the world as we know it. And that belief has crept deep into our geopolitical psyche.
However, a third scenario is now emerging from the bunkers of Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, suggesting the world as we know it might end in a few generations – perhaps in 50, 100, or 200 years.
Interestingly, albeit under different pretences, this is the plot of The Three-Body Problem by Liu Ciuxin, arguably the greatest editorial success from China and a seminal sci-fi work of this century. The novel rips into China’s Cultural Revolution while envisaging an outsized leadership role for the country amid global turmoil. All with the presumed blessing of the Chinese Communist Party.
Drawing its title from the three-body problem in classical mechanics, the novel imagines an advanced alien civilisation, the Trisolarians, in a galaxy where their planet endures the chaotic influence of three suns, contrasting with Earth’s stable single-sun system. A not-so-subtle reference to our geopolitical solar system, with a sovereign sun (the U.S.) as an overwhelming source of gravity, keeping the system stable.
Upon discovering our solar system, the Trisolarians embark on a 400-year journey to colonise Earth. Warned about their intentions, Earth is left to contemplate life under the threat of certain civilisational collapse. Not today, not in a billion years, but in the excrutiating length of only a few generations’ time.
The novel flashes back to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 as a symbol of the impending civilisational upheaval. Another interesting allegory is the space elevator, a futuristic structure extending from Earth into space, a strategic gateway for transporting materials, people, and weapons into the vast battleground. Perhaps an allusion to the strategic importance of conquering Taiwan.
Almost like in real life, China in The Three-Body Problem is a perfect prediction of Marxism. Building the space elevator, akin to ‘reuniting’ with Taiwan, becomes an inevitable historical step.
The ‘rules-based’ international liberal order has lost the bet on China, the plot on Russia, and the bluff in the Middle East. Liberalism, lacking solutions, has seen its strategies unravel. The One China Policy, the Two-State Solution, and NATO expansion are failed answers to the core issues in Taiwan, the Middle East, and Ukraine, respectively.
More importantly, while indulging in the low-hanging fruits of the tree of knowledge, we forgot how to build cathedrals, and ask little questions even as they burn before our eyes. China, one of the longest continuous civilisations, understands this. Like the terracotta warriors, they aim not just for omnipotence but for immortality.
Demographic and economic challenges might derail their plans, but it is clear the Liberal order is doing nothing to help. It’s time for Liberalism to yield. Hopefully not to the machinations of China, Russia, or Iran.
Populism, beginning with the migration of the traditional middle class and blue-collar workers away from leftist social engineering towards common-sense policies on the right, may be our most promising bet to break the West’s death spiral. However, there are other post-Liberal theories worth exploring.
Einstein’s grim prediction of a nuclear WWIII followed by a “sticks and stones” WWIV is no longer the most daunting prospect. The realisation that the West, for the first time, might lack the means or the will to engage in an existential war, is even more frightening.
By the way, what happened to the ‘experts’ who advanced the ‘Doomsday Clock’ every day under Trump? They’ve been notably silent lately.
Some of us may face the twilight blissfully absorbed in our iPhones, while others will not. Luckily, future archaeologists — unlike with gender — won’t be able to tell who’s who just by examining our charred bones. Says study.
Don’t forget to read this week’s column on Newsmax: Hunter Biden - In the Name of the “Troubled” Father.
I wrote a similar article. 30% of the trade decrease was between the US and China, and the US did this deliberately, and "encouraged" allies to follow suit.
We have dominion over the trade routes, and that's unlikely to change. We were and are in the Middle East primarily to keep those routes open, not only to feed and supply the world, but to supply an army if necessary.
I knew once the Houthis started targeting cargo ships, the US would get directly involved.
I wrote this after Crimea, and again when Russia invaded Ukraine.
We could end the war in Ukraine and crush Iran and Palestine tomorrow, but as you pointed out, to a lesser degree, too many liberals here are idiots, hypocrites, and racists.
If everyone is supposedly "equal", they're all capable of the same atrocities as everyone else, and Israel, and now the US, have been directly attacked. While most liberals (and for the record, I consider myself a liberal) buy their food and phones, they have no idea how much they've benefited from US dominance.
If we had put our foot down hard in Crimea, the conflicts today probably wouldn't have happened, and if a region has been fighting for 2000 years, blaming it on the US doesn't hold water, and maybe it's time for a major intervention.
We should crush Iran and Palestine now, definitively, because as ugly as that sounds, it will prevent future wars, and the world has enough problems.
The Pentagon stated over 20 years ago that climate change is the single biggest threat to national and global security, but after 9/11, we became even more dedicated to the idea that having the biggest guns would matter the most, or that intent means nothing without power.
The US isn't clean, but we aren't as dirty as China and Russia, and a fun fact: we didn't invade Iraq until they started dealing in oil with their own currency. The US dictates that all international oil trade or sales have to be done with US currency.
People criticize the US, but a lot of countries don't have to invest in a Navy because of our control of those trade routes, and every empire since Rome or before recognized the importance of being able to control trade or at least stabilize it. I think Rome was the first to invest in a Navy to control trade overseas, but I could be mistaken.
US military doctrine is to be able to defeat Russia and China at the same time if necessary, but we care more about stability than ideology, which is why we pay countries in the Middle East billions a year, regardless of how corrupt or fascist their regimes are.
Taiwan is a different animal, because it would make the US look weak if we gave it up, but if we work out a deal with China and sell it, we wouldn't care, Despite the trade drop, we're still entwined with China, and the US and China ultimately just want to do business,
In this case, liberals would be outraged. Attacking Israel is somehow justifiable, because their the "oppressor," despite the fact their next to 500 million Arabs who want to obliterate them.
Over 90% of the wars in the last 40 years have been in the Middle East and involved Islamic fanatics on either one side or both. Uneducated religious fanatics cause the most major conflicts, even in the US, but too many liberals ignore this, or don't apply to the same standard to the Middle East, which again, is hypocritical and racist.
If a culture subscribes to marrying 9-year old girls, raping and killing civilians, and oppressing women by law, why the fuck should should we respect that culture? The idea of respecting any culture disgusts me.
Again, the US is ugly, but we aren't that ugly, and while most of the world rightfully fears the US, they would rather have us running the show than Russia or China.
Apologies for the length of this comment, and thank you for the thought provoking article. Maybe you lean more to the right than I do, but I think in the end we're both pragmatists, and as bad as war is for everyone, we should go in to win and prevent future conflicts. These wars are brutal and horrifying, and I'm sick of the US being hamstrung by politics.
We should go in and stop this, because if we don't, more wars will start, and these wars will drag on interminably, and the US should do this while we can, or before there are a dozen more conflicts to deal with.