I wonder if you could clarify what option 1.5 looks like. Are we talking enough capability for these states to defeat the PLA/PLA-N (or hold it off indefinitely)? Or are we talking improved time-buying capability for a US/International response?
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
I'd be interested to see. My gut suggests to me that countries motivated by revanchenist nationalistic claims are often irrationally loss-tolerant. And the PRC has, as I understand it, spent a lot of effort encouraging those feelings among its populace.
'irrationally' here not a pejorative, but in the sense of 'more loss tolerant than a realist perspective might suggest based on the concrete economic/security gains of the move.'
-
-
Eric knows this topic better than I, but asymmetric porcupine strategies may shift the balance of power a bit. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/16/asia-pacific/f-16s-trump-taiwan-looks-inward-deter-china-weighs-porcupine-strategy/ … That said, I think of that approach as a hope of maintaining the status quo re: Taiwan as China gains capability rather than a way to pull back.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.