In the United States, China, and Taiwan, some policy elites, politicians, and many others have a dream that has been held for quite some time. China’s dream is the reunification of Taiwan. Taiwan dreams of independence. The United States dreams it can weaken or defeat China, its most consequential competitor. All of these parties have realized the difficulty of making these dreams materialize, but a likely option for this to be accomplished would be through a war between China and Taiwan. The war in Ukraine has been watched closely by all the three parties, and it has provided a full simulation and many key lessons for a potential conflict over Taiwan. However, there has been a terrible tendency for each of the three parties to take the wrong lessons from the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Indeed, as many authors have argued, many parallels can be drawn between Taiwan and Ukraine, especially in conflict dynamics and the sources of conflict. As a result of these similarities in both geopolitics and identity politics between the invasion of Ukraine and a potential war for Taiwan, many have begun to draw lessons from the Ukraine conflict. One, that war with China over Taiwan is inevitable, and two, that such a war would be winnable or controllable enough to mitigate the consequences. Russia’s poor performance in Ukraine has made many in Washington, DC see Ukraine as a direct model for how Taiwan’s defense in a war would create similar results, weakening or even defeating China. Russia’s possible failure has also emboldened some Taiwanese to believe that it could resist China or even defeat China in a war. On the other side of the Taiwan Strait, Chinese nationalists openly praise Vladimir Putin’s courage and determination to launch a war. Many Chinese nationalists believe that they have waited too long to act, and they believe the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is much stronger than the Russian troops. Taiwan is also much smaller and weaker than Ukraine, therefore it is believed that Taiwan can be “liberated” in a few days only and the dream will come true for China’s unification and national rejuvenation.

While these are attractive dreams for the dreamers, these lessons are grossly inadequate and especially dangerous to make considering the potential consequences a war between China and Taiwan would produce.

An Unaffordable War

Compared to the war in Ukraine, a war between China and Taiwan would have consequences that are much worse than is currently imagined. For one, any war between China and Taiwan would more likely involve an intervention by the United States, unlike in the Russo-Ukrainian War where it has simply supplied military equipment and resources. A direct confrontation between the PLA and American troops, two nuclear powers and the world’s two largest economies, would be both unthinkable and unpredictable.

As we have seen with the Russo-Ukrainian War, the war has had a large impact on the world economy and its markets, especially regarding oil and food. Yet a conflict between China, Taiwan, and the United States, would cause far greater disruption. China’s economy is the same size as the entire European Union, and China is also the largest trade partner with over 120 countries in the world. Furthermore, since China is a world factory, as its manufacturing output is larger than that of the United States, Japan, and Germany put together, any conflict would disrupt the trade of goods that many of its trading partners depend on to stabilize their society and feed their people. Disruptions to the supply chain from a country that serves as a factory for many of the world’s goods would be devastating. For example, China produces a big portion of pharmaceutical prescriptions and personal protective equipment (PPE) that the American people depend on. Any conflict with China would certainly disrupt this supply of needed medicine and medical supplies. Additionally, Taiwan is a leading producer of advanced chips globally; only one Taiwanese company—Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)— accounts for over 50 percent of the global chip market share. All of this makes it clear for rational people that a war between China and Taiwan should be avoided and actively prevented where possible.

Moreover, Taiwan is basically undefendable—many people would strongly disagree on this—but it is a sad reality, especially if one thinks of Taiwanese civilians and their welfare. Geography is Taiwan’s destiny. Compared with Ukraine, which is the second-largest country in Europe, Taiwan is just a little bigger than the size of Maryland and is seventeen times smaller than Ukraine. If Russia is having trouble supplying the war front in Ukraine, China will have no trouble doing so in Taiwan. Also, Taiwan would be very easy to isolate as it is an island. In the interest of the Taiwanese people, there are no readily available pathways to escape like Ukraine, as Taiwan is surrounded by water. Taiwan is also too close to Mainland China and the narrow 100-mile-wide strait makes effective missile defense for Taiwan extremely difficult. 

Compared to Russia, China is the second-largest economy in the world with plenty of human and material resources that would be all focused on a collectively accepted strong vision for reunification. It would be a war that China has prepared for since 1949. For instance, the PLA has built several one-to-one reproductions of its major military targets in Taiwan, such as a major military airport and even Taiwan’s Presidential Office Building, to conduct many military exercises during the past seven decades. Numerous public opinion polls have also indicated that the Chinese have a strong consensus on national reunification with Taiwan. With decades of education and propaganda, this has become a collective belief and a part of the national identity as a group-shared objective. In terms of the determination, motivation, and public support at home during wartime, Beijing will likely upset Taipei and Washington, DC.

For Taiwan, if the war happens it will experience the worst consequences and damages, and it will be the Taiwanese that suffer the most from the war. Therefore, it is essential for Taiwan to fight for peace. Taiwanese society needs to openly debate whether Taiwan should maintain a more balanced approach toward China, including whether it belongs to Taiwan’s long-term interest to reduce anti-China sentiments and increase its neutrality in foreign relations. Taiwan could learn from Switzerland and a few other countries that put neutrality as its main principle of foreign policy. Neutrality would increase Taiwan’s security and chances for long-term peace rather than reduce them.

For China, an important lesson from Ukraine should be that launching an invasion of another democracy is unacceptable to the entire liberal international community. An invasion of Taiwan would have long and large negative consequences rather than bring China what it really wants. China needs to seriously consider the long-term consequences of governing Taiwan as unavoidable rebellions and resistances from the Taiwanese people should be expected. Moreover, Beijing’s dream to become a respected world power requires functional relations with the West. It belongs to China’s principal interest to avoid full confrontation and hostility with the entire West over Taiwan. Self-sufficiency and deepening ties with the developing world are important, but not a substitute.

For the United States, policymakers with a long-term strategic view should realize that to use Taiwan as a tool to contain or defeat China is desirable, but would be an extremely dangerous game to play as the consequences of such an action would be unpredictable. Rather than seeing its desired outcome, the United States would likely experience consequences that would be largely negative, deeply felt, and enduring. Even putting the economic consequences aside, one of the worst scenarios for the U.S. strategists would be for China to control Taiwan as this would break the first island chain of control and allow for China’s greater control of the Asia-Pacific. Moreover, even if there is failure and change in leadership as an outcome of a war, the best scenario for the United States, the next leader in line could be even more hawkish and nationalistic. History has shown how defeat and humiliation served by the West have motivated nationalistic responses in China and Russia in the past decades. Why would another war inspire anything different? Some strategists in the United States believe that providing arms to Taiwan could deter Chinese incursions. However, any arming of Taiwan could create a bad security dilemma, and could instigate and accelerate conflict between China, Taiwan, and the United States. China has been clear that its red line would include the arming of Taiwan with advanced offensive weaponry and the United States sending troops to station in Taiwan.

Concrete Measures for Making Peace

While the world has seen the consequences of the war in Ukraine, all three parties should realize that the war over Taiwan would be unpredictable and eventually unaffordable. Only after this is accepted can all three parties act to prevent war from breaking out. Promoting pathways for peace is the only way that we can all win. There are several concrete measures that the countries can take to facilitate peace rather than war.

First, the two ruling parties in China and Taiwan, the Chinese Communist Party and Democratic Progressive Party respectively, should establish communication channels as soon as possible. No communication between the two leaderships would only increase the risk of miscommunication and misjudgment. Similarly, the United States and China should establish a joint high-level committee to meet regularly regarding Taiwan. This is an essential measure for conflict management.

Another possible measure involves the past exploration of an interim agreement between China and Taiwan. The most important content of the interim agreement is that Taiwan would not seek independence and China would not use force against Taiwan. The current situation would make such an agreement more meaningful because this agreement would play a positive role in mitigating the security dilemma.

Identity is also important for both sides across the strait. Therefore, any peacemaking efforts should address identity-based issues. It is furthermore important to understand each society’s perspective in order to inform policies across the Taiwan Strait tensions. If both sides realize that a potential war over Taiwan would not be affordable and that Taiwan is not defendable, guiding strong nationalism away from the edge of war could be much easier.

Considering its identity, Taiwan feels threatened and marginalized. Any greater role of Beijing will be seen as pushing against Taiwanese freedom and sense of national identity. While Taiwanese politicians are trying to address this issue as that of a young democracy trying to get rid of an authoritarian, dictatorial bully, the true motivation behind Taiwan’s actions and behavior in the recent past has been its independence movement. This movement is a product of the rising nationalism and populism in Taiwan. The growth of Taiwan’s national identity will continue to press China to act more assertively, as China sees reunification with Taiwan as an essential part of its “national rejuvenation,” a non-negotiable national objective. Those focusing solely on geopolitical analysis might believe that, owing to the United States’ greater protection and further armament of Taiwan, China may choose to yield and give up its invasion plan. But if one considers reasons pertaining to identity, one will understand that deterrence does not work when it comes to identity. This is also true for the Taiwanese as China’s coercion in the past decades has failed to make the Taiwanese change their identity.

If there is one recurring mistake that the United States makes when dealing with the rest of the world, it is to overlook the powerful role of group identity, culture, and worldview. The U.S. foreign policy community seems to be mistaking the source of the conflict concerning Taiwan. Instead of the simple narrative that it is a struggle between a democracy and a dictatorship, the Taiwan issue is an identity-based conflict. What most current analyses fail to understand is the exact reason why Taiwan is so important for China, why China wants Taiwan so vehemently, and what is it that the people of Taiwan really want. A central element of effective foreign policy planning is the ability to put oneself in another person’s shoes. Americans must therefore try to put themselves in the shoes of the Chinese or Taiwanese people.

It’s also wrong to assume that a conflict between China and Taiwan is inevitable. There still remains a large space for peacemaking between the two parties as there has been no hatred or violence between the two societies. Additionally, Taiwan and China are deeply linked economically. In 2020, Taiwan’s trade surplus with mainland China and Hong Kong amounted to $86.7 billion. Over 400,000 Taiwanese are also currently working in mainland China, operating many successful corporations and small businesses. Furthermore, the two sides also share the same language and culture as over 95 percent of Taiwan’s 24 million people are Han Chinese, while about 92 percent of the population of mainland China are also Han Chinese. More importantly, China currently still operates under the policy of prioritizing a peaceful reunification with Taiwan and has the strategic patience to wait for this to occur. For the Taiwanese people, various national polls suggest that the majority of the population prefer the status quo stability rather than rushing for independence. Therefore, if we begin to prepare for war, we will lose the opportunity to make peace and avoid mutually undesirable violence. 

The Russo-Ukrainian War has brought down the curtain on the post-Cold War era. For the United States, Taiwan remains a central challenge in the post-Afghanistan and the post-Ukraine age. Instead of playing geopolitical thought exercises on how a war between China and Taiwan would serve interests, it is important to learn the right lessons from the Russo-Ukrainian War and recognize that there are no winners in war, and no losers in peace. Promoting pathways for peace is therefore the only rational choice for all the three parties.

Dr. Zheng Wang is the Director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPCS) and Professor in the School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University.

Image: Reuters.