The Managed Bluff: How China Wins the Taiwan Strait Without Firing a Shot

China’s sustained coercion against Taiwan increasingly functions as a “managed bluff,” generating strategic leverage without crossing the threshold into full-scale war, as the economic, political, and military costs of invasion outweigh its benefits. The central tension is not whether Beijing can seize Taiwan, but whether long-term pressure and grey-zone tactics can continue to shape outcomes more effectively than open conflict while structural deterrence and Taiwanese identity trends evolve.

For nearly half a century, the Taiwan Strait has existed in a condition that strategic literature still struggles to explain. Since diplomatic normalisation between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the United States in 1979 (BBC News, n.d.), the PRC has sustained pressure against Taiwan across military, economic, diplomatic, cyber, and psychological domains with remarkable consistency (Lee, Lague and Blanchard, 2020).

Yet no missiles have struck Taipei, no amphibious landings have crossed the Strait, and no major kinetic exchange has occurred between the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Taiwanese forces. The last direct military confrontation remains the 1958 Quemoy crisis (Halperin, 1966), fought before China’s economic opening, before Taiwan’s democratisation (Taipei Times, 2025), and before the emergence of today’s deeply interconnected global economy.

This record sits awkwardly beside the history of the power that presents itself as the principal guarantor of democratic order in Asia. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya demonstrate a strategic culture that has repeatedly translated perceived threats into military action, often at considerable cost and with uncertain outcomes (Bacevich, 2010). The comparison is not an exercise in moral equivalence, nor does it minimise the coercive reality of Chinese policy toward Taiwan. Rather, it establishes the ground on which questions of threat, deterrence, and restraint must be assessed.

China has grown richer, stronger, and militarily more capable over four decades, with its defence budget roughly quadrupling in real terms since 2000 and its naval and missile forces undergoing the most rapid modernisation of any major power (United States Department of Defense, 2025). Taiwan, meanwhile, has moved steadily further from the mainland politically and culturally, with exclusive identification as Taiwanese rising from 17.6 per cent in 1992 to over 62 per cent in the most recent surveys (Election Study Centre, NCCU, 2025).

If war were simply a function of capability and desire, the Strait should already have burned. Instead, pressure has intensified while war itself has remained absent.

Most contemporary analysis treats this condition as temporary. The absence of conflict is interpreted either as evidence that invasion preparations remain incomplete or as evidence that a narrowing window may eventually compel Beijing to act. Both interpretations assume that sustained coercion points toward military resolution. This article advances a different argument.

China’s campaign against Taiwan is genuine in intent, serious in preparation, and structurally self-deterring in its final expression. Beijing threatens because the threat itself generates leverage. It stops short of invasion because carrying out the threat would damage many of the political, economic, and strategic conditions the threat is designed to preserve.

The argument is not that war is impossible. It is that restraint, rather than invasion, remains the outcome most consistent with the architecture governing the relationship as it presently exists.

That claim is probabilistic, not absolute. The conditions under which it may fail will be examined later. For the moment, however, the central puzzle is not why China continues to threaten Taiwan. It is why, after nearly half a century of growing power and persistent pressure, it continues to stop short of war.

The Grammar Problem

For much of the past decade, Western analysis of the Taiwan Strait has operated within an increasingly compressed timeline. War games multiply. Carrier tonnage is tallied against missile inventories. The question is rarely whether conflict will occur, but when.

Colby (2021) frames Taiwan as the decisive test of American denial strategy in Asia, arguing that preventing Chinese hegemony over the region constitutes the organising imperative of United States defence policy. Yoder and Mastro (2025) argue that Beijing’s growing military confidence may narrow the window for effective deterrence, with each passing year of PLA modernisation potentially reducing the conditions under which American intervention could succeed.

Admiral Philip Davidson’s warning before the Senate Armed Services Committee of a possible contingency within the decade, widely condensed to a 2027 horizon, became less a speculative assessment than an organising date around which a substantial part of the policy conversation arranged itself (Davidson, 2021).

This body of work is serious and often persuasive. It identifies genuine military developments, coercive behaviour, and strategic ambition on the part of Beijing. Yet it rests on an assumption so embedded that it is rarely examined directly: that sustained pressure moves primarily toward war.

The analytical puzzle therefore becomes one of timing and deterrence failure. Why has conflict not yet occurred, and what combination of military posture, alliance credibility, or political signalling might delay it further?

Yoder (2025) correctly observes that much of this literature remains theoretically underdeveloped, proceeding through accumulated examples rather than through a coherent explanation of why restraint has persisted despite accelerating military imbalance. The central empirical fact of the Taiwan question is not Chinese pressure, which has been obvious for decades. It is the persistence of calibrated restraint across radically different political eras, military capabilities, and leadership personalities.

This article accepts Yoder’s diagnosis and proposes a different structural framework: one in which restraint, rather than force, is the phenomenon requiring explanation.

The dominant strategic grammar in Washington leaves little room for that possibility. Threat moves toward escalation. Escalation moves toward confrontation. Military preparation acquires meaning primarily through its eventual use.

Within this syntax, prolonged coercion without kinetic action appears unstable by definition. Analysts oscillate between two interpretations: either Beijing is bluffing, or Beijing is preparing to strike. The possibility that sustained coercion may itself constitute the intended equilibrium receives far less attention because it does not parse within the inherited logic of deterrence discourse.

The difficulty is partly civilisational. American strategic culture was shaped by industrial mobilisation, expeditionary warfare, and the expectation that military superiority should produce decisive outcomes (Bacevich, 2010). Build capacity. Establish dominance. Apply force. Resolve the question.

Chinese strategic traditions evolved differently. Sun Tzu’s hierarchy places direct military confrontation surprisingly low: the highest form of victory lies in constraining the opponent’s choices before battle becomes necessary, and siege warfare represents the exhaustion of superior options rather than their culmination (Sun Tzu, trans. Griffith, 1963).

The concept of shì concerns the cultivation of favourable conditions over time so that outcomes emerge from accumulated pressure rather than from singular acts of decision (Jullien, 1995). Modern Chinese policymakers are not ancient philosophers in uniform, and classical texts are not operational manuals. Yet strategic cultures leave residues in institutional instinct, political language, and the boundaries of what states consider elegant or wasteful uses of power.

The 1999 publication of Unrestricted Warfare by PLA colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui reflected this sensibility in contemporary form, arguing that conflict between major powers would increasingly unfold across financial systems, information networks, legal mechanisms, and trade dependencies rather than through open battlefield confrontation (Qiao and Wang, 1999). Every ADIZ violation, blockade drill, and diplomatic isolation is consistent with this framework. The grey zone is not preparation for war. It is the performance itself.

That reframing matters because it changes what the coercion means. The pressure works precisely because it remains below the threshold that triggers a full military response while shaping political behaviour over time. Taiwan absorbs constant demonstrations of vulnerability without the clarifying effect of open conflict.

The United States must sustain vigilance indefinitely without the political unity that actual war would produce. Regional actors adapt to a permanent atmosphere of coercion that gradually becomes routine. The coercion is effective precisely because military force remains visible behind it: a bluff without capability collapses. The paradox is that the instruments of intimidation become strategically valuable partly because deploying them fully would destroy the leverage they currently generate.

Institutional incentives compound the analytical distortion. Defence establishments require visible threats to justify procurement cycles and forward deployments. Political leaders find urgency easier to communicate than ambiguity. Few institutions benefit from arguing that China’s coercion may be structurally constrained in ways that additional weapons packages alone cannot solve.

The result is a discourse that mistakes persistent tension for failed escalation. Beijing may not be struggling to cross the threshold into war. It may have concluded that remaining just below it yields greater strategic returns at lower cost.

The Cost Architecture

The Taiwan question is less a military problem than a cost problem. States act when expected political outcomes justify aggregate costs; and the closer one examines the conditions surrounding invasion, the clearer a paradox becomes: the act itself would destroy many of the strategic advantages China has spent four decades accumulating.

The first layer is economic. TSMC sits at the centre of the global advanced chip ecosystem, responsible for approximately 92 per cent of the world’s most advanced logic chip capacity and 64 per cent of global pure-play foundry revenue (Vision of Humanity, 2025). China’s technological ambitions depend heavily on this architecture, as does PLA modernisation (Center for Security and Emerging Technology, 2022).

The contradiction is structural: part of the capability required to take Taiwan is built upon an economic relationship that taking Taiwan would severely disrupt. Economists have estimated first-year global losses from a blockade scenario in excess of $2.7 trillion (SAIS Review of International Affairs, 2025).

The second layer is reputational. For three decades, Beijing cultivated an image of commercial pragmatism and political non-interference that found receptive audiences across much of the Global South (Roy, 2024). A large-scale invasion would force a reassessment of that image, extending damage well beyond immediate diplomatic fallout and undermining a significant source of China’s international legitimacy (United States Institute of Peace, 2025).

The third layer is domestic. The CCP frames reunification not as territorial recovery but as the completion of national rejuvenation after a century of humiliation (Lorenzo, 2024). Beijing does not simply need possession of Taiwan; it needs an outcome that validates its restoration narrative. Reunification achieved through large-scale destruction risks transforming a symbol of national revival into a lasting political liability.

The final layer is nuclear deterrence. Any Taiwan contingency carries the possibility of direct confrontation between the world’s two most powerful military actors. Beijing needs only to acknowledge that it cannot be certain Washington would stay out. Deterrence operates through consequence rather than probability (Lee, 2022), and the shared interest in avoiding nuclear exchange remains among the most durable structural features of the relationship (RAND Corporation, 2023).

These layers are structurally independent. The semiconductor constraint exists without American military commitments. Reputational costs arise regardless of U.S. intervention. The domestic legitimacy problem is self-generated by the CCP’s own framework. Removing any single layer including the American commitment does not remove the architecture. A China capable of conquering Taiwan militarily may still conclude that conquest would damage Chinese power more than leaving the problem unresolved.

The behavioural record suggests successive Chinese leaders have reached precisely that conclusion. Five generations of leadership, under vastly different domestic conditions and military balances, have sustained pressure while avoiding war. Grey-zone activities consistently stop short of thresholds likely to trigger direct military confrontation (Kardon and Kavanagh, 2024). Together, these signals point toward a leadership that views coercion as useful and invasion as prohibitively costly.

The Hong Kong Lesson

The strongest objection to the argument presented here arrived not in the Taiwan Strait but in Hong Kong.

In 2020, Beijing imposed the National Security Law unilaterally, bypassing Hong Kong’s legislature and terminating the political assumptions governing the territory since 1997 (Council on Foreign Relations, 2026). What had been presented as a fifty-year accommodation became a twenty-three-year experiment ended early (European Parliament Research Service, 2020). Any argument suggesting that Chinese restraint toward Taiwan reflects cultural affinity or civilisational patience collapses under that record.

A legitimate challenge follows from Hong Kong’s experience. If Beijing accepted the reputational costs of imposing the National Security Law and dismantling the territory’s political autonomy, why assume Taiwan presents a different calculation? The answer lies in the structure of the problem rather than the temperament of the regime.

Hong Kong presented Beijing with a strategically permissive environment. It had no military, no external security partner, no treaty architecture capable of producing great-power confrontation, and no semiconductor concentration whose destruction would destabilise the global economy. The costs were reputational and financial. They proved manageable (International Society for Human Rights, 2025).

International condemnation faded with predictable speed (American Enterprise Institute, 2020). Governments protested while maintaining commercial engagement (United States Department of Commerce, 2024).

Taiwan exists within a fundamentally different escalation structure. Seizing the island by force would require an amphibious assault across one hundred miles of open water against a defended coastline (Center for Maritime Strategy, 2025). The Taiwan Relations Act preserves ambiguity over American intervention, but ambiguity is not the same as absence (American Institute in Taiwan, 1979).

Any scenario that introduces U.S. military involvement also introduces the possibility of nuclear escalation. Taiwan’s central role in the global semiconductor supply chain means China would not experience the economic consequences of conflict as an external observer; it would bear them directly (Vision of Humanity, 2025). Where Hong Kong’s absorption reinforced the CCP’s domestic narrative of authority and national unity, a devastated Taiwan would undermine it.

The more revealing lesson from Hong Kong is narrower and colder. Beijing acts with restraint when restraint is structurally advantageous and abandons it when the cost calculation changes. That single observation explains both cases.

Hong Kong also disclosed a strategic preference now shaping Beijing’s Taiwan approach directly. The National Security Law achieved political submission through law, economic pressure, and institutional redesign rather than military force (Congressional Research Service, 2023). International outrage proved containable. No alliance system activated. The objective was secured at a fraction of what a military operation would have cost (American Journal of International Law, 2021).

Beijing learned from Hong Kong that coercion succeeds most cleanly when the target continues to function while gradually losing the capacity to resist (Global Taiwan Institute, 2021). The desired end state across the Taiwan Strait is absorption without rupture, compliance without the spectacle of conquest. A state preparing for imminent war does not invest in political architectures designed to make war unnecessary. Hong Kong suggests many things about the CCP. Recklessness about costs is not among them.

Forty Years of Evidence and Where They Lead

The behavioural consistency across leadership generations is the empirical fact that contemporary strategic analysis still struggles to absorb.

Mao Zedong shelled Quemoy in 1958, the last kinetic exchange across the Strait (Halperin, 1966). Deng Xiaoping prioritised economic modernisation over coercive timetables (Vogel, 2011). Jiang Zemin presided over the 1995–96 missile crisis (Global Taiwan Institute, 2017). Hu Jintao advanced peaceful development (Hu, J., 2008). Xi Jinping has centralised authority, accelerated military modernisation, and elevated reunification as an unswerving historical task (Jamestown Foundation, 2023).

The differences between these leaders are profound. The outcome is not. Capability cannot explain this continuity. China’s defence budget has nearly doubled since Xi assumed office, while Taiwan’s relative position has weakened correspondingly (United States Department of Defense, 2025).

Yet the strategic outcome has remained stable. The more persuasive explanation is that successive leaderships arrived at the same conclusion: military conquest threatens to damage the political, economic, and international objectives that reunification is supposed to secure.

The coercion campaign reflects that logic. Median line crossings occurred on 209 days in 2024, against 62 in 2023, representing the deliberate normalisation of the operational baseline (Jamestown Foundation, 2026). Since President Lai’s inauguration, more than 300 sorties per month have crossed the median line on average (TaiwanPlus, 2025).

Large-scale exercises since 2022 have progressively integrated naval, air, and coast guard assets in simulated blockade configurations (Global Taiwan Institute, 2026a), with the December 2025 Justice Mission covering a larger area than any prior exercise since August 2022. Economic coercion follows the same pattern: pineapples were banned in February 2021, sugar apples and wax apples in September 2021, and grouper fish in June 2022, with subsequent rounds targeting seafood, pastries, and beverages (Global Taiwan Institute, 2023). Pressure is applied forcefully enough to shape behaviour but carefully enough to preserve the relationship being manipulated.

Beijing is not preserving the status quo indefinitely. The campaign moves toward a political destination: narrowing viable options inside Taiwan, deepening constituencies that benefit from stable cross-strait relations, and reinforcing the perception that Taiwan’s international space contracts regardless of electoral outcomes.

The KMT’s ambition to return to power in 2028 on the 1992 Consensus platform represents the most visible expression of this pathway (CommonWealth Magazine, 2026).

Yet the strategy contains an unresolved contradiction. Survey data shows identification as Taiwanese rather than Chinese rising from 17.6 per cent in 1992 to over 60 per cent by the mid-2020s, accelerating among younger cohorts (Taiwan News, 2024). Beijing’s preferred route to reunification runs through Taiwan’s democratic institutions. Those same institutions may be producing an electorate progressively less willing to accept the premises on which accommodation depends.

China is betting that political influence, economic integration, and strategic patience will narrow Taiwan’s choices. Taiwan’s identity trajectory suggests the opposite: that time may be reducing, rather than expanding, the political space available for reunification.

The Summit Sequence

The strategic logic described thus far rarely announces itself plainly. States reveal priorities indirectly, through sequencing, symbolism, and the allocation of political effort. Three events between late 2025 and early 2026 compress Beijing’s preferred operating method into an unusually legible period. Their significance lies in what they collectively suggest about where Beijing is investing its political capital.

On 30 October 2025, Xi Jinping and Donald Trump met for roughly one hundred minutes at Gimhae Air Base in Busan (Czin et al., 2025). Taiwan was not formally raised (Atlantic Council, 2025). The summit produced no clarification of American commitments and no public reaffirmation of the framework undergirding Taiwan policy (Brookings Institution, 2025), with Chinese readouts framing the outcome as managed stability rather than unresolved tension (Hu, R., 2025).

Whether that reflected genuine diplomatic accomplishment or careful narrative management is difficult to establish. What is inconsistent with that interpretation is the behaviour of a government treating military action as imminent.

The November 24 phone call was less consequential operationally but revealing in a narrower register. China’s foreign ministry framed Taiwan’s status as an integral element of the post-war international order, a residual civil war territory rather than a functioning democracy of twenty-three million people (Foreign Policy, 2025).

Trump’s public account made no mention of Taiwan (Al Jazeera, 2025b), while Taiwan’s deputy foreign minister described the omission as the best possible outcome for Taipei (Bloomberg, 2025). Each ambiguous formulation from a major interlocutor accumulates as archival material, layering into background assumptions that shape how the question is eventually framed internationally. The call mattered less for what it produced than for what it continued.

The most analytically interesting episode came on 10 April 2026 with the Xi-Cheng summit at the Great Hall of the People, the first formal CCP-KMT leader meeting in almost a decade (Sung, 2026). The date, on the forty-seventh anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, carried obvious symbolic freight (The Diplomat, 2026c).

More notable than Xi’s standard reunification remarks was Cheng Li-wun’s language, which reproduced formulations including “one family,” “community of common destiny,” and the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” (New Bloom Magazine, 2026). These phrases recurred throughout CCP-controlled media and aligned closely with Xi’s reunification framework (Global Taiwan Institute, 2026c).

Their precise reproduction signals, at minimum, a willingness to operate within CCP conceptual frameworks, which is qualitatively different from a willingness merely to negotiate (The Diplomat, 2026b).

Concurrent PLA live-fire drills in the Yellow Sea appeared to some observers as contradicting the diplomatic signal (AEI/ISW, 2026c). The more parsimonious reading is that they were consistent with it: pressure establishes the cost of permanent separation, while the diplomatic channel offers a route by which those costs might be reduced (The Diplomat, 2026a).

Taiwanese security officials warned that Beijing was using Cheng’s outreach to portray Taiwan as politically divided ahead of the Trump-Xi summit, while the legislature simultaneously passed a defence package cut by roughly a third. These are diplomatic and legislative tracks operating in parallel reinforcement (CNN, 2026).

The summit sequence is consistent with the managed bluff thesis. It is also consistent with a Beijing running parallel tracks without strong central coordination, pursuing opportunistic openings as they arise. Distinguishing between these interpretations from open sources is not possible with confidence.

What the evidence does support is the narrower claim: that the allocation of high-level political effort in this period reflects a leadership that has not yet concluded political pathways are exhausted (The Diplomat, 2026d). A state that had reached that conclusion would be conserving diplomatic capital rather than spending it.

Democracy as Battlefield

The most revealing evidence in Taiwan’s political struggle does not come from Chinese white papers or PLA exercises. It comes from parliamentary procedure, procurement votes, judicial paralysis, and the accumulation of institutional choices inside Taiwan’s own democratic system.

The KMT is behaving like a political actor that genuinely believes the military threat from Beijing remains bounded and manageable. Under democratic accountability, with real electoral consequences and full public visibility, that belief constitutes a revealed preference. Political parties reveal their assumptions about risk through the costs they are willing to accept and the vulnerabilities they are prepared to tolerate.

The defence budget fights are the clearest example. In November 2025, the Lai administration unveiled a proposed NTD 1.25 trillion supplemental defence budget directed at asymmetric combat capacity, including unmanned systems, the T-Dome missile defence architecture, Harpoon coastal defence integration, and long-range precision strike (State of the Strait, 2026).

KMT resistance has been selective rather than wholesale; it concentrated precisely on the asymmetric systems designed to make Taiwan uniquely costly to attack, with analyst assessments of the opposition’s motivations ranging from fiscal scrutiny to partisanship to a preference for Beijing engagement over deterrence.

The legislature ultimately passed a package cut by approximately one-third (NPR, 2026). These are not prestige platforms at issue. They are the systems intended to turn a successful landing into a prolonged and politically costly campaign. A party convinced invasion risk was imminent would accept considerable political pain to accelerate them. The KMT has not.

The constitutional and institutional record reinforces this reading. Taiwan’s Constitutional Court drifted into functional paralysis after the legislature raised quorum thresholds in December 2024 while blocking all presidential nominees for new justices, leaving the Court incapable of oral arguments, injunctions, or merits decisions for the better part of a year (Verfassungsblog, 2025a).

The Court struck down the procedural amendments in December 2025, but the legislature has continued blocking new appointments, leaving it understaffed and its authority weakened (Focus Taiwan, 2025a). Civil society recall campaigns failed to unseat any of the twenty-four KMT legislators targeted in July 2025, nor the seven targeted in August; under Taiwan’s electoral law, survivors are protected from recall for the remainder of their term to 2028 (Focus Taiwan, 2025b).

The language of cross-strait engagement completes the picture. When senior KMT figures invoke “community of common destiny” or “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” in Beijing, they are not engaging in diplomatic courtesy (New Bloom Magazine, 2026). These phrases are ideologically coded within the Chinese system and signal a willingness to operate within CCP conceptual frameworks rather than alongside them (Global Taiwan Institute, 2026c). The legislature’s broader silence is equally revealing.

Despite near-daily ADIZ incursions averaging over three hundred PLA sorties per month since May 2024 (AEI/ISW, 2026a), large-scale blockade simulations (AEI/ISW, 2026b), cyberattacks averaging 2.4 million daily in 2024 and 2.63 million in 2025 (Reuters, 2026), and PRC influence operations including a database profiling 170 Taiwanese politicians (AEI/ISW, 2026c), no sustained parliamentary response proportionate to the scale of the activity has emerged. Silence, like rhetoric, communicates priorities.

The electoral qualification remains important. The KMT secured its legislative plurality with roughly 34.6 percent of the party-list vote in a three-way contest (Taipei Times, 2024), while longitudinal data from the NCCU Election Study Centre shows sustained growth in exclusive Taiwanese identification across three decades.

The KMT’s risk calculus reflects a substantial constituency, but not a national consensus. Beijing does not require majority support for unification. It requires sufficient political fragmentation, sufficient economic interdependence, and sufficient uncertainty to prevent decisive movement toward formal independence. Democratic division is not incidental to the strategy. It is the environment in which the strategy operates.

Legislative resistance to defence spending can be framed as fiscal scrutiny rather than strategic complacency, and judicial disputes can be read through domestic constitutional politics rather than cross-strait competition.

Yet taken together, the pattern points in a consistent direction. The KMT is acting as though the danger lies less in imminent invasion than in mismanaging a relationship that still permits accommodation. What matters analytically is that this reveals a significant segment of Taiwan’s political elite operating on assumptions very different from those that dominate much Western strategic commentary.

The future of the Taiwan Strait may depend less on what Beijing says about its intentions than on which of these competing assessments of risk proves closer to reality.

Where The Bluff Breaks

An argument that cannot identify its own failure conditions is advocacy rather than analysis. The preceding sections have argued that Beijing’s campaign against Taiwan is coercive, intentional, and constrained by a cost architecture that has held across five leadership generations. Yet no architecture is permanent. Political incentives change, economic conditions deteriorate, and strategic assumptions age. The present equilibrium deserves confidence only insofar as its foundations remain intact.

The first failure condition is miscalculation, the most common route into major conflict and the least reassuring because it requires neither ideological zeal nor deliberate aggression.

Since July 2023, Xi Jinping has purged approximately fifteen military and defence industry officials connected to the PLA Rocket Force (War on the Rocks, 2024), with subsequent removals reaching into the force’s newly installed leadership within months of appointment (Breaking Defense, 2026).

The purge exposed a system compromised by corruption, false reporting, and patronage: American officials cited intelligence suggesting some missiles had been filled with water instead of propellant, while silo fields had reportedly been fitted with faulty lids preventing effective launch in a crisis (Observer Research Foundation, 2024).

By early 2026, the anti-corruption drive had extended to long-term nuclear-weapons researchers and key figures within the defence industrial base (Observer Research Foundation, 2026a). The consequence extends beyond institutional embarrassment. Decisions at the apex of the Chinese system may rest on distorted assessments of readiness, logistics, and escalation risk.

Authoritarian systems are particularly vulnerable to this problem because political survival often shapes what information reaches senior leaders. Rational decisions made on inaccurate premises can produce disastrous outcomes.

Argentina’s junta expected Britain to accept the occupation as a fait accompli. This was not a reckless gamble so much as a misreading of British intentions. The assessment drew on signals that appeared reasonable at the time, including the planned withdrawal of HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic and years of sovereignty negotiations. It proved badly wrong when London responded by dispatching a thirty-warship task force within days (Cattroll, 2024).

Russian planners in 2022 expected Kyiv to fall within days and the Ukrainian government to collapse (Atlantic Council, 2022); the expert community, including Western intelligence agencies, systematically overestimated Russian capability while dismissing Ukrainian resistance (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2025). Neither leadership sought catastrophe. Both operated within imagined realities. The managed bluff depends upon accurate calibration, and calibration depends upon truthful information.

The second failure condition lies within China’s domestic political economy. The CCP’s legitimacy rests on an implicit exchange of political monopoly for rising prosperity and national restoration. That bargain is under increasing strain. A prolonged property downturn is estimated to have reduced annual GDP growth by roughly two percentage points in both 2024 and 2025 (World Bank, 2025).

Demographic pressures are also intensifying, with China’s newborn population falling in 2025 to its lowest level since records began in 1949 (CNBC, 2025). At the same time, GDP growth is projected to slow to 4.4 per cent in 2026 amid persistently weak household confidence (Atlantic Council, 2026).

None of this points to imminent regime collapse. Such predictions have repeatedly proven misplaced. Yet regime durability should not be confused with political confidence. A system can remain stable while becoming increasingly anxious about the foundations of its legitimacy.

Taiwan occupies a unique place within the CCP’s narrative of national rejuvenation. As long as restraint appears compatible with eventual reunification, the cost architecture remains intact. If restraint begins to resemble permanent failure, the political calculation changes. Leaders confronting mounting domestic pressures sometimes accept external risks not because war appears attractive, but because inaction appears increasingly costly.

The third failure condition concerns semiconductors. The CHIPS and Science Act may represent America’s most significant investment in Taiwan’s long-term security while simultaneously weakening one of the strongest structural deterrents against conflict (Chen and Hsiao, 2022). TSMC’s expansion into Arizona, Kumamoto, and Dresden, supported by approximately US$4.71 billion in international subsidies and a broader US$165 billion American commitment, gradually reduces the geographic concentration that has made Taiwan economically indispensable to the global technology ecosystem (Harit and Budania, 2026).

As advanced semiconductor production becomes more geographically distributed across the United States, Japan, and Europe, the economic costs associated with a Taiwan contingency become less concentrated and potentially more manageable. The uncomfortable implication is that policies designed to reduce the world’s vulnerability to a Taiwan crisis may also weaken one of the strongest incentives for avoiding such a crisis in the first place.

The fourth failure condition is Taiwan itself. The managed bluff assumes that time favours political penetration, economic integration, and gradual accommodation. Taiwan’s identity trends point in the opposite direction. Data from the Election Study Centre at National Chengchi University, tracking public opinion continuously since 1992, shows exclusive identification as Taiwanese rising from approximately 18 per cent in 1992 to over 62 per cent in the most recent surveys (Election Study Centre, NCCU, 2025). That transformation has been particularly pronounced among younger generations who did not inherit the political assumptions of earlier cohorts (Milwaukee Independent, 2026). If that trajectory continues, the democratic pathway through the KMT may narrow before the structural deterrents identified earlier begin to erode.

This does not make war inevitable. It may simply produce a prolonged stalemate. Yet stalemate creates its own pressures for a political system that has tied part of its legitimacy to resolving what it regards as the unfinished business of the Chinese Civil War.

The probability assessment should remain modest. Through 2028, deliberate military action appears unlikely. The cost architecture remains largely intact, diplomatic channels remain open, and political pathways short of war continue to function. Between 2028 and 2035, risk rises as semiconductor diversification advances, domestic pressures accumulate, and Taiwan’s identity trajectory continues to harden.

Beyond that horizon, confidence gives way to uncertainty. The managed bluff survives because Beijing still believes it can obtain more through sustained pressure than through force. The greatest risk emerges when that belief erodes, not because China’s power has transformed, but because time no longer appears to favour patience.

Conclusion

The managed bluff is holding because the underlying logic remains intact. For four decades, Beijing has refined a form of coercion that relies on pressure without terminal escalation. The campaign has never depended on goodwill or confidence-building. It rests on a simpler calculation: the costs of taking Taiwan by force remain higher than the costs of leaving the question unresolved.

Much of the contemporary debate treats restraint as temporary hesitation before an inevitable military act. The historical record suggests something more deliberate. Five generations of CCP leadership, operating under vastly different domestic conditions and military balances, have arrived at the same conclusion. Pressure can be sustained. War cannot be controlled once begun. This does not make conflict impossible, nor does it eliminate the risks of miscalculation. It suggests only that, under present conditions, Beijing appears to believe it can achieve more through coercion than conquest.

The deeper irony is that the strategy depends on preserving the very system it seeks to constrain. Taiwan must remain prosperous enough to attract integration, open enough to permit influence, and democratic enough to create political pathways unavailable through force. A shattered Taiwan would satisfy a nationalist objective while destroying the political value of the prize itself. Beijing’s preferred outcome is not military victory but managed accommodation achieved through cumulative pressure over time.

Whether that outcome remains attainable is the question that now matters most. The campaign assumes that time favours Beijing. Yet Taiwan’s identity has continued moving in the opposite direction, with each generation appearing more distant from the assumptions on which eventual accommodation depends. The future of the Taiwan Strait may therefore hinge less on military balance than on which trend proves stronger: China’s capacity to make unification seem increasingly practical, or Taiwan’s capacity to make it seem increasingly irrelevant.

For now, the bluff remains managed. The danger begins if one side concludes that time is no longer working in its favour.

Bibliography

• AEI/ISW (2026a) China and Taiwan Update, 2 January 2026, American Enterprise Institute/Institute for the Study of War. Available at: https://www.aei.org/articles/china-taiwan-update-january-2-2026/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• AEI/ISW (2026b) China and Taiwan Update, 20 March 2026, American Enterprise Institute/Institute for the Study of War. Available at: https://www.aei.org/articles/china-taiwan-update-march-20-2026/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• AEI/ISW (2026c) China and Taiwan Update, 17 April 2026, American Enterprise Institute/Institute for the Study of War. Available at: https://www.aei.org/articles/china-taiwan-update-april-17-2026/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Al Jazeera (2025b) ‘Trump says “very good” phone call with Xi builds on fragile trade truce’, Al Jazeera, 24 November. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/24/trump-and-xi-hold-very-good-phone-call-building-on-fragile-trade-truce (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• American Enterprise Institute (2020) Why the Hong Kong National Security Law Matters for Taiwan [Online]. Available at: https://www.aei.org/articles/why-the-hong-kong-national-security-law-matters-for-taiwan/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• American Institute in Taiwan (1979) Taiwan Relations Act: Public Law 96-8, 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq., enacted 10 April 1979 [Online]. Available at: https://www.ait.org.tw/taiwan-relations-act-public-law-96-8-22-u-s-c-3301-et-seq/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• American Journal of International Law (2021) ‘United States terminates Hong Kong’s special status due to national security law imposed by Beijing’, American Journal of International Law, 115(1) [Online]. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/united-states-terminates-hong-kongs-special-status-due-to-national-security-law-imposed-by-beijing/C531213A9AA887E14CAF3C5864D84DD0 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Atlantic Council (2022) 2022 Review: Why Has Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine Invasion Gone So Badly Wrong? [Online]. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/2022-review-why-has-vladimir-putins-ukraine-invasion-gone-so-badly-wrong/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Atlantic Council (2025) ‘Experts react: What does the Trump-Xi meeting mean for trade, technology, security, and beyond?’, Atlantic Council, 30 October. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-what-does-the-trump-xi-meeting-mean-for-trade-technology-security-and-beyond/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Atlantic Council (2026) ‘China’s property slump deepens — and threatens more than the housing sector’, Atlantic Council, 13 February. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/chinas-property-slump-deepens-and-threatens-more-than-the-housing-sector/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Bacevich, A.J. (2010) Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War. New York: Metropolitan Books.
• BBC News (n.d.) US-China Diplomatic Normalisation, 1979 [Online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn446nmjp1vo (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Bloomberg (2025) ‘Taiwan pleased Trump didn’t mention island in readout of Xi call’, Bloomberg, 25 November. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-25/taiwan-pleased-trump-didn-t-mention-island-in-readout-of-xi-call (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Breaking Defense (2026) ‘Why Xi Jinping has been purging China’s military leadership, and what may come next’, Breaking Defense, February. Available at: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/02/china-military-purge-why-xi-jingping-zhang-pla/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Brookings Institution (2025) ‘Beyond trade: Issues in a Trump-Xi summit’, Brookings Institution, 27 March. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/beyond-trade-issues-in-a-trump-xi-summit/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Cattroll, S. (2024) ‘How did Argentina lose the Falklands War?’, The Collector, 18 December. Available at: https://www.thecollector.com/how-argentina-lose-falklands-war/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Center for Maritime Strategy (2025) How Likely Is a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan? [Online]. Available at: https://centerformaritimestrategy.org/publications/how-likely-is-a-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Center for Security and Emerging Technology (2022) Silicon Twist [Online]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Available at: https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/silicon-twist/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Center for Strategic and International Studies (2025) The Russia-Ukraine War: A Study in Analytic Failure, 21 January [Online]. Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-ukraine-war-study-analytic-failure (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Chen, G.H. and Hsiao, M.E. (2022) ‘Semiconductor industry: a shield to Taiwan or the source of insecurity?’, Taiwan Insight, 18 November. Available at: https://taiwaninsight.org/2022/11/18/semiconductor-industry-a-shield-to-taiwan-or-the-source-of-insecurity/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• CNBC (2025) ‘China population decline is hurting its property market’, CNBC, 21 June. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/21/china-population-decline-hurting-property-market.html (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• CNN (2026) ‘Ahead of US-China summit, Taiwan’s opposition leader says island can embrace both powers’, CNN, 10 May. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/10/asia/taiwan-us-china-kmt-intl-hnk (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Colby, E.A. (2021) The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• CommonWealth Magazine (2026) ‘The KMT’s China illusion’, CommonWealth Magazine, 21 May. Available at: https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=4785 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Congressional Research Service (2023) Hong Kong Under the National Security Law, Report R47844. Washington, DC: Library of Congress [Online]. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47844 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Council on Foreign Relations (2026) Hong Kong’s Freedoms: What China Promised and How It’s Cracking Down [Online]. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/hong-kong-freedoms-democracy-protests-china-crackdown (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Czin, J.A., Kim, P.M., O’Hanlon, M.E., Sisson, M.W. and Thornton, S.A. (2025) ‘What happened when Trump met Xi?’, Brookings Institution, 5 November. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-happened-when-trump-met-xi/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Davidson, P.S. (2021) Statement of Admiral Philip S. Davidson, USN, Commander, US Indo-Pacific Command before the Senate Armed Services Committee on US Indo-Pacific Command Posture, 9 March 2021. Washington, DC: United States Senate Armed Services Committee. Available at: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Davidson_03-09-21.pdf (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Election Study Centre, National Chengchi University (2025) Taiwanese/Chinese Identity (1992/06–2025/12) [Online]. Available at: https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/eng/PageDoc?fid=7800 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• European Parliament Research Service (2020) Hong Kong: A Beijing-Imposed Security Law?, Briefing PE 651.961. Brussels: European Parliament [Online]. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2020/651961/EPRS_ATA(2020)651961_EN.pdf (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Focus Taiwan (2025a) ‘Taiwan’s Constitutional Court strikes down amended court procedure act’, Focus Taiwan, 19 December. Available at: https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202512190020 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Focus Taiwan (2025b) ‘All 7 KMT lawmakers survive recall, opposition bloc keeps majority’, Focus Taiwan, 23 August. Available at: https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202508230014 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Foreign Policy (2025) ‘Trump-Xi call highlights Chinese concerns over Taiwan, Japan’, Foreign Policy, 25 November. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/11/25/trump-xi-china-united-states-call-diplomacy-japan-taiwan-takaichi/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Global Taiwan Institute (2017) ‘Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1995–1996: lessons learned for policy’, Global Taiwan Brief, 2(1). Available at: https://globaltaiwan.org/2017/01/taiwan-strait-crisis-of-1995-1996-lessons-learned-for-policy/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Global Taiwan Institute (2021) ‘Beijing ratchets up economic coercion against Taiwan with selective regulatory enforcements’, Global Taiwan Brief, December. Available at: https://globaltaiwan.org/2021/12/beijing-ratchets-up-economic-coercion-against-taiwan-with-selective-regulatory-enforcements/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Global Taiwan Institute (2023) ‘China ramps up economic coercion on Taiwan ahead of 2024 elections’, Global Taiwan Brief, 8(8). Available at: https://globaltaiwan.org/2023/04/china-ramps-up-economic-coercion-on-taiwan-ahead-of-2024-elections/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Global Taiwan Institute (2026a) ‘The PLA’s “Justice Mission-2025” exercise around Taiwan’, Global Taiwan Brief, 11(2), January. Available at: https://globaltaiwan.org/2026/01/pla-justice-mission-2025/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Global Taiwan Institute (2026c) ‘Cheng Li-Wun’s polarizing trip: the Kuomintang leadership’s April delegation visit to China’, Global Taiwan Brief, 24 April. Available at: https://globaltaiwan.org/2026/04/cheng-li-wuns-polarizing-trip/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Halperin, M.H. (1966) The 1958 Taiwan Straits Crisis: A Documented History. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM4900.html (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Harit, T. and Budania, A. (2026) ‘The global microchip conflict: the semiconductor fault line through Taiwan’, Observer Research Foundation, 15 April. Available at: https://www.orfonline.org/research/the-global-microchip-conflict-the-semiconductor-fault-line-through-taiwan (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Hu, J. (2008) ‘Let us join hands to promote the peaceful development of cross-straits relations and strive with a united resolve for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation’, Speech at the Forum Marking the 30th Anniversary of the Issuance of the Message to Compatriots in Taiwan, Beijing, 31 December. Available at: https://interpret.csis.org/translations/let-us-join-hands-to-promote-the-peaceful-development-of-cross-straits-relations-and-strive-with-a-united-resolve-for-the-great-rejuvenation-of-the-chinese-nation-speech-at-the-forum-marking-t/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Hu, R. (2025) ‘The Busan silence: how great-power pragmatism is rewriting Taiwan’s future’, Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore. Available at: https://ari.nus.edu.sg/app-essay-robin-hu (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• International Society for Human Rights (2025) UN Voices Unanimously Condemn Hong Kong’s New National Security Law [Online]. Available at: https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/un-voices-unanimously-condemn-hong-kongs-new-national-security-law/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Jamestown Foundation (2023) ‘Xi Jinping and Taiwan: change and continuity with past CCP leaders’, China Brief, 23(14). Available at: https://jamestown.org/xi-jinping-and-taiwan-change-and-continuity-with-past-ccp-leaders/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Jamestown Foundation (2026) ‘Military implications of PLA aircraft incursions in Taiwan’s airspace 2024’, China Brief, 26(2). Available at: https://jamestown.org/military-implications-of-pla-aircraft-incursions-in-taiwans-airspace-2024/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Jullien, F. (1995) The Propensity of Things: Toward a History of Efficacy in China, translated by J. Lloyd. New York: Zone Books.
• Kardon, I. and Kavanagh, J. (2024) ‘How China will squeeze, not seize, Taiwan’, Foreign Affairs, 21 May. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/how-china-will-squeeze-not-seize-taiwan (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Lee, S. (2022) ‘Towards instability: the shifting nuclear-conventional dynamics in the Taiwan Strait’, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 5(sup1), pp. 154–166.
• Lee, Y., Lague, D. and Blanchard, B. (2020) ‘China launches “gray-zone” warfare to subdue Taiwan’, Reuters, 10 December. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/special-report-china-launches-gray-zone-warfare-subdue-taiwan-2020-12-10/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Lorenzo, A. (2024) ‘Taiwan in the context of China’s national rejuvenation’, Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, May–June, pp. 35–52. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2024/May/07/2003458328/-1/-1/1/FEATURE%20-%20LORENZO%20-%20JIPA.PDF (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Milwaukee Independent (2026) ‘How generational differences within Taiwan influence evolving concepts of identity’, Milwaukee Independent, May. Available at: https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/explainers/generational-differences-within-taiwan-influence-evolving-concepts-identity/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• New Bloom Magazine (2026) ‘Cheng Li-Wun redefines 1992 Consensus, calls for united front against independence in Xi meeting’, New Bloom Magazine, 10 April. Available at: https://newbloommag.net/2026/04/10/cheng-xi-united-front/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• NPR (2026) ‘Taiwan president’s defense plan hits gridlock as China ramps up pressure’, NPR, 22 January. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/22/nx-s1-5683130/taiwan-defense-spending (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Observer Research Foundation (2024) ‘Corruption and purge in the PLA: apprehension and distrust’, Observer Research Foundation, 2 December. Available at: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/corruption-and-purge-in-the-pla-apprehension-and-distrust (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Observer Research Foundation (2026a) ‘Xi’s purges target China’s Rocket Force’, Observer Research Foundation, 27 March. Available at: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/xi-s-purges-target-china-s-rocket-force (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Qiao, L. and Wang, X. (1999) Unrestricted Warfare [超限战]. Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House.
• RAND Corporation (2023) Keeping a U.S.-China Conflict over Taiwan Under the Nuclear Threshold [Online]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2300/RRA2312-2/RAND_RRA2312-2.pdf (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Reuters (2026) ‘Chinese cyberattacks on Taiwan infrastructure averaged 2.6 million a day in 2025, report says’, Reuters, 5 January. Available at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/chinese-cyberattacks-taiwan-infrastructure-averaged-035835477.html (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Roy, D. (2024) ‘Why China remains unlikely to invade Taiwan’, The Interpreter, Lowy Institute, 17 April. Available at: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/why-china-remains-unlikely-invade-taiwan (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• SAIS Review of International Affairs (2025) ‘Strategic redundancy in semiconductor supply chains: how US-India cooperation transforms global chip resilience’ [Online]. Available at: https://saisreview.sais.jhu.edu/strategic-redundancy-in-semiconductor-supply-chains-how-us-india-cooperation-transforms-global-chip-resilience/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• State of the Strait (2026) ‘Taiwan’s defence budget drifts into the danger zone’, State of the Strait, 2 February. Available at: https://stateofthestrait.substack.com/p/taiwans-defence-budget-drifts-into (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Sun Tzu (1963) The Art of War, translated by S.B. Griffith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sung, W.T. (2026) ‘What the Taiwanese opposition leader’s recent China visit means for Taipei, Beijing, and Washington’, Atlantic Council, 14 April. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/what-the-taiwanese-opposition-leaders-recent-china-visit-means-for-taipei-beijing-and-washington/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Taipei Times (2024) ‘KMT wins 52 legislative seats, DPP bags 51 and TPP eight’, Taipei Times, 14 January. Available at: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/01/14/2003812069 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Taipei Times (2025) ‘Democracy: Chiang Ching-kuo’s gift’, Taipei Times, 13 January. Available at: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2025/01/13/2003830094 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Taiwan News (2024) ‘Taiwan’s preference for status quo with China continues to rise’, Taiwan News, 23 February. Available at: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/5101212 (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• TaiwanPlus (2025) ‘Why does China intrude into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone?’, TaiwanPlus, 21 October. Available at: https://www.taiwanplus.com/news/taiwan-news/military/251021002/why-does-china-intrude-into-taiwans-air-defense-identification-zone (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• The Diplomat (2026a) ‘China’s Taiwan drills are crossing a new line’, The Diplomat, 3 January. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2026/01/chinas-taiwan-drills-are-crossing-a-new-line/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• The Diplomat (2026b) ‘The domestic politics of Cheng Li-wun’s China trip’, The Diplomat, 13 April. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2026/04/the-domestic-politics-of-cheng-li-wuns-china-trip/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• The Diplomat (2026c) ‘China’s Taiwan calculus ahead of the Trump-Xi summit’, The Diplomat, 16 April. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2026/04/chinas-taiwan-calculus-ahead-of-the-trump-xi-summit/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• The Diplomat (2026d) ‘After Trump-Xi summit, Taiwan breathes a sigh of relief’, The Diplomat, 17 May. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2026/05/after-trump-xi-summit-taiwan-breathes-a-sigh-of-relief/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (2024) Market Challenges — Hong Kong and Macau [Online]. Available at: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/market-challenges-hong-kong-macau (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• United States Department of Defense (2025) Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025. Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2025/Dec/23/2003849070/-1/-1/1/ANNUAL-REPORT-TO-CONGRESS-MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2025.PDF (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• United States Institute of Peace (2025) Costly Conflict: Here’s How China’s Military Options for Taiwan Backfire [Online]. Washington, DC: USIP. Available at: https://www.usip.org/publications/2024/10/costly-conflict-heres-how-chinas-military-options-taiwan-backfire (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Verfassungsblog (2025a) ‘Taiwan’s Constitutional Grey Hole: the Constitutional Court in paralysis’, Verfassungsblog, 4 December. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/taiwan-constitutional-court/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Vision of Humanity (2025) ‘The world’s growing reliance on Taiwan’s semiconductor industry’, Vision of Humanity, 11 September. Available at: https://www.visionofhumanity.org/the-worlds-dependency-on-taiwans-semiconductor-industry-is-increasing/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Vogel, E.F. (2011) Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• War on the Rocks (2024) ‘Rocket-powered corruption: why the missile industry became the target of Xi’s purge’, War on the Rocks, 23 January. Available at: https://warontherocks.com/rocket-powered-corruption-why-the-missile-industry-became-the-target-of-xis-purge/ (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• World Bank (2025) China Economic Update: December 2025. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/600cd53e2bb24d516b8c3489e5d2c187-0070012025/original/CEU-December-2025-EN.pdf (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Yoder, B. and Mastro, O.S. (2025) ‘The Taiwan tightrope: deterrence is a balancing act, and America is starting to slip’, Foreign Affairs, 20 May. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/taiwan/taiwan-tightrope-mastro (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Yoder, B.K. (2025) ‘Will there be war over Taiwan? Structural stability and policy pitfalls in cross-strait deterrence’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, published online 26 November. doi:10.1177/13691481251391641.