After the presidential and vice-presidential inauguration ceremony in Taiwan, the Chinese Communist Party launched a new round of intimidation against Taiwan on May 23-24. The Eastern Theater Command conducted military exercises in the Taiwan Strait with the goal of creating a show of force directly aimed at the new Taiwanese government.
On the 25th, the official WeChat account of the Chinese Communist Party’s Eastern Theater Command released a video outlining six steps for an attack on Taiwan, including “approach, surround, lock, strike, destroy, and cut off,” simulating an invasion and occupation of Taiwan. The video depicted missile attacks on Taiwan and even depicted the destruction of the island to sever its connections with the outside world.
For Chinese nationalists and those heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda, watching this seemingly confident video may provoke a sense of excitement, leading them to believe that Taiwan is already within China’s grasp and that the Taiwanese people should surrender immediately. However, this is yet another deception by the CCP to boost morale within its ranks and brainwash the Chinese people. The video purposely ignores Taiwan’s powerful air defense missile systems, the unwavering determination of the Taiwanese people to defend their homeland, and the formidable military power of the United States and its allies in defense of Taiwan.
Currently, Taiwan boasts one of the world’s highest density and most advanced air defense systems, with coverage across the entire island. The Taiwanese military is equipped with six sets of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) long-range air defense systems, which were introduced around 2012, including 253 PAC-3 interceptor missiles. Furthermore, the Taiwanese military has three sets of Patriot PAC-2 systems with a range of around 150 kilometers, as well as its own domestically developed Sky Bow series of air defense missiles.
At the end of 2022, the U.S. Congress approved the sale of $882 million worth of the most advanced Patriot air defense missiles to Taiwan, along with radar and support equipment, to enhance Taiwan’s air defense capabilities against military pressure from Beijing. This system is more advanced than the PAC-3 missiles.
Given Taiwan’s robust defense system, what is the likelihood of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) successfully launching missiles at the island? Would the U.S. and Taiwanese navies allow the PLA to surround and block Taiwan without any response? This is clearly implausible. Therefore, the real purpose behind the release of this simulated video of an attack on Taiwan by the CCP is not just to intimidate the Taiwanese public but also to boost their own morale and brainwash the Chinese people. Rational individuals will understand that this display is a reflection of the CCP’s empty threats. Despite their grand gestures and fierce rhetoric, it remains uncertain how they would fare in an actual conflict.
In addition to releasing this propaganda video showcasing the CCP’s bravado, on the 25th, Chinese military websites published an article under the title “Training Soldiers Without Hesitation, Fighting Wars Without Regard to Life,” emphasizing the need for PLA soldiers to dedicate themselves entirely to the CCP both during training and in combat, urging them to maintain a commitment to “fighting to the death.”
The article falsely claims that these ideals have enabled the CCP’s military to defeat powerful enemies and secure victories over the past ninety years. However, those familiar with history know that the CCP’s self-proclaimed victories are largely exaggerated; they stayed withdrawn in the northwest during the Anti-Japanese War, avoiding direct confrontation with the Japanese; during the Chinese Civil War, they infiltrated the Nationalist government and military through the “Fifth Column” to steal military intelligence and ultimately defeated the Nationalist forces; during the Korean War and the Vietnam War, Chinese troops suffered significant losses.
In reality, in modern high-tech warfare, victory is not solely dependent on soldiers being fearless or willing to sacrifice themselves; it is also about the deployment of cutting-edge weapons, advanced equipment, and comprehensive national strength. When it comes to cutting-edge weapons, advanced equipment, and comprehensive national strength, the PLA not only lags behind the Taiwanese military but also falls far short compared to the U.S. and Japan. Analysts point out that in terms of military comparison between the U.S. and China, in terms of concepts, principles, and weapon systems, the PLA significantly lags behind. For instance, aircraft carrier technology is about 15 years behind, high-tech integrated joint operations are at least 10 to 15 years behind the U.S., and advanced fighter jets lag behind by half a generation, also about 10 to 15 years. While China may boast more ballistic missiles and warships than the U.S., their performance falls short of American standards.
In February 2024, the U.S. and Japan conducted a joint exercise focusing on crisis management scenarios in the Taiwan Strait, aiming to improve their combined combat capabilities, enhance command and control procedures, and address potential “crises or contingencies.” Through this exercise, the U.S. and Japan were essentially sending a message to Beijing that China’s satellites, communication networks, and undersea cables would be monitored by the U.S. military, especially the Space Force. The demonstration of strength was also a warning to potential adversaries that with Space Force support, the PLA’s chances of success in launching a conventional war are low. Furthermore, the internal deployment of Xi’s Rocket Force has long been exposed by the U.S., not to mention the instability within the Rocket Force after Xi’s purge.
In terms of national strength, China and the U.S. are not in the same league. Would the risk-loving CCP dare to engage in a costly war during a period of economic decline? Would the CCP, which disregards the lives of its people, not fear internal unrest?
Moreover, the current PLA lacks combat experience, and due to China’s long-standing one-child policy, the PLA has become a force primarily composed of “only-child soldiers.” Over 70% of PLA personnel are only children, resulting in low morale among the troops. Expecting these soldiers to “fight without fear of death” raises questions about how many families and soldiers would willingly comply. How many citizens would be willing to sacrifice themselves for a regime that has never protected their rights?
In conclusion, the CCP’s rhetoric of soldiers being willing to sacrifice themselves is likely due to the lack of genuine devotion within the PLA ranks. Such slogans only breed resentment among soldiers and invite ridicule from the world. Modern warfare boils down to a clash between two systems, two civilizations. Under the authoritarian rule of the CCP, it’s challenging to cultivate soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves honorably, as valuing the lives of soldiers and the loyalty they inspire remain paramount.
Contrast this with the world’s most powerful military, the U.S., which never resorts to such slogans but rather emphasizes the value of life, even accepting surrender to preserve lives. Over the years, the U.S. has participated in numerous conflicts, yet its casualty rates have remained relatively low. One reason for this is the significant focus on individual equipment, including body armor, to safeguard soldiers’ lives. Behind this lies the evident economic might of the United States.
The leaders in Zhongnanhai must understand that unlike the situation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict where NATO forces refrained from direct intervention, in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. military would undoubtedly intervene to defend Taiwan. The competition between China and the U.S. is reflected in high-tech confrontation rather than the trench warfare of WWI and WWII seen in Russia-Ukraine. Does the CCP truly have a chance of success in such a scenario?