Bismarck would have already divested from Taiwan decades ago if he was in charge of US policy.
I say its a rock and hard place because unofficially speaking they are a US ideological ally. Granted, we ■■■■■■ them over back in the 1970s by supporting the UN seat change. But we probably should have divested right then and walked away.
We’ve tried to adhere so hard to the One China policy while still supporting Taiwan that we put ourselves into this uncomfortable corner. Considering American views on the PRC I don’t envy the eventual president who will have to make the decision to pull away from Taiwan completely. The populace will eat him or her alive.
Maybe. Bismarck also was a fan of assembling natural alliances against a common foe. HOWEVER, Bismarck would not have wanted the alliance to become a trip wire. I don’t believe we are there yet, but we are getting very close.
I think you are putting too much weight onto the opinion of American citizenry.
As an example, I will offer up Afghanistan. The GWoT was fought by a miniscule portion of the American population. Once the war was over and it became an occupation, Afghanistan was not on anybody’s mind. It almost literally disappeared from the American consciousness.
Compare to Taiwan, where our major contribution is arms sales, not occupation. Americans are simply not plugged in to the issue. Therefore, I predict that Americans will be just fine with the situation until China decides to invade Taiwan. At which point, Americans will decide that war with China is a bad idea, and even though it sucks, they will support a president who declined war on behalf of a non ally.
What happens if Beijing and Washington start sinking (in a public way) ships over Taiwan?
The US finds out that what’s good for Walmart, ConAgra and GE haven’t been good for the average American since Reagan rode in on dog whistles and fever dreams.
Also, SA won’t stay loyal for more than three hours.
Are you sure? I always thought the trade off was lower prices. It’s not a good deal, but the loss if manufacturing jobs in exchange for more purchasing power is real.
Saudi Arabia and the Emirates will shift towards China the moment it can be done. Beijing doesn’t present the moral problems the US does, and SA and the UAE already cooperate to send Uighurs into Xi’s camps.
Beijing respects and rewards the Sauds’ autocratic tendencies. The US merely tolerates them, officially and as a matter of culture.
As for the price drop - who cares? Wage stagnation erases those ‘gains’.
I’m not General Millicent. I don’t love communism.
The Chinese have already started a biological war against the US. Xiden is on their payroll. The US needs to wake up to the new reality and clip the dragon’s wings. I’d start economically. But that won’t happen with the present administration in charge.
Okay, so “three hours” was exaggeration for effect, but I take your point. I don’t disagree but I wonder: do you think they’d jump ship before the winner was certain? I don’t.
Also, if SA does decamp, but America prevails? Woe unto the house of Saad. I predict America would land on them with both feet. This is another reason for them to stand pat until the winner is more or less certain.
Wage stagnation: again, I don’t disagree, but I also think that concept is ephemeral to most Americans. Remember, wages were stagnating well before NAFTA or China’s entry into the WTO. Therefore, I think the average American might not make the connection beyond “where’s my stuff”?
