This sure feels like yet another sign that major global powers are all gearing up for war.
This could be as benign as a government ensuring that the 100 jobs aren't lost, but given everything going in in both Europe and the Middle East it sure seems like more than saving such a comparatively small number of jobs. They could have just signed large(r) contracts with the company to financially secure the company, acquisition is a stronger play when the government needs more direct (and more private/secure) control.
A credible deterrent is required in order to prevent the mighty from simply taking everything.
For the last few decades Western countries aside from the US have basically just sat on their laurels assuming that, well, we're in the end of history and nothing will ever go wrong again. A rude awakening.
A sure fire way to ensure that there _is_ war is to sit about and sing kumbaya around the fire until the invaders turn up.
If you've been watching the Russian invasion closely, you'll have noticed that while it's good to have friends and allies with necessary ingredients, it's even better to be as self sufficient as possible. Relying on a foreign orange cheeto might ruin your recipe for self defense.
Yeah. As a European I feel humiliating how fumbling the EU has been to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and feel glad that our American friends are around to pick up the slack even though I'd be happier if we didn't need them :-/ so thank you on behalf of my moronic continent.
It was tough watching European countries make cut after cut to their military forces, because without a military that's able to actually defend the country, there's a lot of expectations that the US will step in and do the job.
For the US, that has not been a great role to be in considering the recent past.
It's been a pleasant surprise to see European countries start to take their own defense seriously in the face of the invasion of Ukraine. When other NATO members can pick up their own slack, it makes it feel much more like an alliance of equals that can make solid contributions.
Off-topic as far as the article above goes, but do you think it's more likely for global(-ish?) war to erupt because of Europe/Middle East compared to Taiwan? A lot of the discussion around global war pre-2022 was for the late 2020s when China attempts to invade Taiwan. I personally doubt the major global powers will allow the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine to escalate to Western countries actually engaging in combat (but they do seem to want to personally defend Taiwan).
I have been expecting that, if another world war were to kick off, theaters of war would exist both in Europe/Africa/East Asia as well as the Pacific.
A big risk for Taiwan, at least in my amateur view, is China feeling emboldened both by seeing an anemic response to other major conflicts and a West that is already distracted by said major conflicts.
I grew up with the story that Hong Kong was just as off limits to China as Taiwan was. No one came to Hong Kong's defence though, even the British who should be on the hook for that situation just sat by in silence while the Chinese took complete control of HK and installed their own puppet government to manage the transition.
the brits gave up hong kong in the 90s. as soon as that happened no one was expecting them to back the case. however, i suppose the brits were optimistic so they didnt have to have regret about losing a colony.
i think taiwan might get some defense but only cause shit is made there and the west cant pretend the chinese wont flex their power
Some major global powers (i.e. China) have a vested interest in that escalation. Having the US tied down in two other conflicts means significantly less resources.
Which means Middle East and Ukraine are already part of a global-ish war. Proxy wars, so far, but in service of a larger goal. (No, I don't think China necessarily instigated, but they're sure supporting ongoing conflict)
As part of that, I'd also assume that the US nudged the UK to maybe consider their supply chain in case the US can't cover Europe's ass. (They can't, not if they expect a Taiwan conflict)
I'm under the impression that time is actually working for China and that they don't really require a war; they'll catch up economically soon enough (5-10y) that a war doesn't benefit them at all, and only the US would benefit from one right now, while they still have a chance of nipping their primacy in the bud.
I think we're currently starting to see behind the facade of Chinese economy news. It's not all rosy.
But also: For China, Taiwan is only to a very limited extent about the economy. It is about ideology. For the US, a war now would be a bad idea - only slightly better than it would be a little later. There's an increasing gap in naval abilities (that'll - so the Pentagon thinks officially - close in the 2030s)
That means that we're currently in an unstable time. War is possible, but not a given. Meanwhile, if war happens, the US can't fight on three fronts. And so both Ukraine and the mideast conflicts strengthen China's hand if it comes to war, and weaken the US's. Similarly, an independent EU with at least some manufacturing capability lessens US constraints.
At the moment, things are all about shaping the odds.
If Nationalism weren’t a factor, there is essentially zero reason for the PRC to ever invade Taiwan.
Nationalism is a factor and the PRC is a totalitarian dictatorship. They’re going to go after what they consider their “rogue province” sooner or later, and whether it benefits them economically or not is a footnote.
Them being a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. I doubt they would risk their economy just because of Taiwan. They may go after it at some point in the future when the odds are in their favor (because they're obviously not right now), but I doubt it'll be soon.
This, and to reinforce this: two things tend to happen with dictatorships: they either face a succession crisis at some point which brings it to its knees, or the existing guy becomes less rational in his old age after a few decades of being surrounded by bootlickers.
The PRC has actually managed to successfully stave off a few leadership crisis’s already, but one of the ways they did so was by moving away from a dictatorship of one and establishing term limits and a model that encourages leadership to think about the next generation and ready a successor. Xi Jinping just re-established a dictatorship of one with an unlimited term length and will presumably serve as the PRC’s strongman dictator for the rest of his natural life creating new opportunities for a succession crisis or for himself to just fall prone to old age. He wasn’t shy about killing off anyone that could have challenged him during his initial election to Premier and associated offices, we have no reason to think he’ll be any different than any other tinpot dictator in history and kill off anyone that looks like they might be gathering too much influence under his rule or looking just a little too eager to be his successor.
War is momentum based. If the US gets dragged in a war with Iran and is also supplying Ukraine with weapons, China might perceive this particular moment as an advantage to start their Taiwan campaign. From there, more countries will see the chaos as an advantage to settle their border disputes. And there you have it, a global world war.
> From there, more countries will see the chaos as an advantage to settle their border disputes.
I doubt it. Look at what a "border dispute" did to Russia - they became a global pariah. And modern countries cannot really function in a vacuum, even most stupid/populist leaders know it. Local wars in Africa and the Middle East will continue, that's for sure, but they don't have the potential to become global, at least not now.
The most likely reason for war is to move the competition with China onto a military footing rather than an economic one. The US would win the first, and that result would help the second. If you’re seeing western powers gear up for war, it might be to secure their economic future rather than a just intervention
I think that’s the point. I’m old enough to remember Bush and Blair wanting UN support for Iraq but ditched the idea when they wouldn’t get it. And young enough that my parent’s generation have never seen a war and so don’t remember why the UN was created in the first place. We live in dangerous times with very poor leaders and politics
Ya just don’t buy EU or UK would start ww3. There are much smarter and better economics and influence strategies to play out that are much less bloody to its own population.
As someone who went through conscription in Germany, the last year to do so (I think), it's a huge relief to me. Almost three decades of neglect and naivete have made the world less safe, not more. Deterrence works.
Deterrence + autocracy is pretty unstable, because eventually the generalissimo gets to thinking that if he already has military capability sitting around...
Had, until July 2011. This isn't unique. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and others have something similar, varying in details. (I think it's more commonly called military service or equivalent.)
Based on contract ramp-ups from folks I know in sales having record years/quarters tied to the US DoD (while the rest of the sales divisions miss their numbers by huge margins) - I think that it's a foregone conclusion the powers that be expect a major uptick in hostilities sooner than later.
But that's just my opinion, man. Could also be the tail wagging the dog.
Either way, I think it's pretty clear we are moving from a unipolar world to at least a "more" multipolar world in the near to midterm future. Covid laid bare how utterly fragile the current supply chains are for almost everything from raw material to base chemicals to advanced chips and beyond in the western hemisphere - so it only makes sense for this to happen regardless.
Having access to chips independently has deep economic effects as well, and that was the trigger in most countries.
Defense though can be a much more easier talking point from a political and budgeting perspective, especially when trying to unlock an ungodly amount of money towards a potential risk.
Not an expert at all, but wasn't part of The Cold War playbook to outspend the USSR?
Investing in capability isn't necessarily a signal that we expect to deploy that capability. But it does force the enemy to level up, then when that enemy runs out of money, they tend to implode.
I literally have no idea, so more than happy to be educated!
Well I'm shooting from the hip here and sharing only my gut intuition, so welcome to the party!
In my opinion, governments buying (or taking over) producers that are necessary for the military feels like a drastic departure to how the military industry has operated for decades.
At least in the US, though I think also in Europe, governments have been happy to keep up the status quo of writing massive checks to military contractors that, at least on face value, provide military equipment and training at a massive markup. In the US that markup also tends to be shared with those in power writing the checks through "gifts", campaign donations, and high paying jobs.
Military contractors generally don't seem to be hurting for capital to pay employees, especially the actually vital contractors. If the government takes them over, the most likely motivator I see is for the military to have full control over production, projects, and information security.
Enacted in October 1939, and retroactive to 1 September, it was the final domestic coup-de-grace necessary to activate the Reich's war machine. Don't expect for a moment that it will be any different for the Allied powers.
This could be as benign as a government ensuring that the 100 jobs aren't lost, but given everything going in in both Europe and the Middle East it sure seems like more than saving such a comparatively small number of jobs. They could have just signed large(r) contracts with the company to financially secure the company, acquisition is a stronger play when the government needs more direct (and more private/secure) control.