logo
China will invade Siberia, not Taiwan

China will invade Siberia, not Taiwan

The Hilla day ago
China's threats against Taiwan get a lot of attention. But a far more audacious plan is unfolding in Beijing. Emerging evidence — drawn from internal Chinese deliberations and a leaked Russian intelligence document — suggests that China's ambitions are pivoting north, to Siberia.
This shift — driven by Chinese resource hunger, geopolitical opportunism and Russia's weakening grip — could reshape the global order in ways the West has yet to fully grasp. Moreover, the staggering costs of invading Taiwan, and Siberia's role in fueling China's economic growth, make the northern pivot increasingly likely by 2027.
China's fixation on Taiwan, fueled by national pride and Xi Jinping's vision, remains a rhetorical cornerstone. However, a full-scale amphibious invasion would be a logistical and economic nightmare.
Hitler was stopped by the 22-mile gap ocean between France and the U.K. The Taiwan Strait is five-times wider, and the 100-mile-wide chokepoint is heavily defended by Taiwan's modernized military and backed by explicit and implicit U.S. and allied support.
A comprehensive 2023 war game conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that a Chinese invasion would likely fail and come at a staggering cost to all parties. The study projects that in a three-week conflict, China would suffer devastating losses, including an estimated 10,000 troops killed and the loss of 155 combat aircraft and 138 major ships.
The economic fallout would be catastrophic. A 2024 analysis by Bloomberg Economics estimated that a war over Taiwan would cost the world approximately $10 trillion, equivalent to 10 percent of global GDP. Taiwan's dominance in semiconductor production means any disruption would cripple global supply chains, including China's own tech sector. These prohibitive costs, coupled with the high risk of a broader, protracted conflict with America and its allies, make a near-term invasion of Taiwan increasingly improbable.
In contrast, Siberia offers a tantalizing prize with fewer immediate risks. Its vast reserves of oil, gas, gold, diamonds, rare earth minerals and fresh water are critical to sustaining China's resource-strapped economy.
China's arid northern provinces face chronic water scarcity. The North China Plain, an agricultural and industrial heartland, supports 20 percent of China's population with only 5 percent of its freshwater. Siberia's Lake Baikal alone holds 20 percent of the world's unfrozen freshwater, a resource that could be diverted to transform China's north.
This strategic calculus is underpinned by a growing sentiment within some Chinese circles that Russia is a power in decline, unable to effectively manage or defend its resource wealth. Siberia's resources could fuel China's projected GDP growth targets, addressing soaring energy demands — China is the world's largest crude oil importer — and securing critical rare earths essential for its dominance in green technology and advanced military industries. In 2023, China's rare earth mining quota surged to 240,000 tons, yet its demand continues to outstrip domestic supply.
Russia's weakening grip enhances Siberia's allure. A leaked document, purportedly from Russia's Federal Security Service, has detailed Moscow's deep-seated fears of Chinese demographic and economic encroachment in the Far East.
Russia's military, severely depleted by the protracted war in Ukraine, has reportedly diverted a significant portion of its eastern forces westward. This has left the vast, 6-million-square-mile territory of Siberia — home to 30 million people — dangerously under-defended.
The report, as described by The New York Times, notes an alleged increased in Chinese intelligence activity, including efforts to recruit Russian scientists, target military technology and subtly assert historical territorial claims, such as the use of the name 'Haishenwai' for Vladivostok on official maps. These actions tap into historical grievances over the 'Unequal Treaties' of the 19th century, through which Russia annexed vast territory from China during the Qing Dynasty.
Russia's eastern defenses are in a precarious state. A recent analysis by the Institute for the Study of War underscores the unsustainability of Russia's equipment and personnel losses. The report explains that the high rate of attrition and the finite nature of Soviet-era stockpiles will likely lead to a point of diminishing availability of crucial military hardware by late 2025 or 2026. This systemic weakness affects the entire Russian military, including forces stationed in Siberia, which have been drawn upon to support operations in Ukraine. Reports from the region describe garrisons stripped of experienced personnel, reliant on outdated equipment and undertrained conscripts.
In stark contrast, China's People's Liberation Army is a modern and technologically advanced force. It boasts hypersonic missiles, fifth-generation fighter jets and sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities that could quickly overwhelm Russia's depleted eastern defenses. Furthermore, Russia's economy, battered by Western sanctions and increasingly dependent on Chinese energy, lacks the capacity to meaningfully reinforce its eastern flank.
With Moscow's political, military and economic focus almost entirely consumed by Ukraine, it remains dangerously exposed to the strategic ambitions of its powerful neighbor.
The Chinese Communist Party has invested massively in military modernization with the stated goal of being ready for a major conflict by 2027. If Beijing concludes that a direct assault on Taiwan is too risky, the formidable army it has built will likely not sit idle. It will be a tool available to advance long-term Chinese strategic objectives elsewhere — and Siberia presents the most obvious opportunity.
Taiwan remains a long-term Chinese goal, but its conquest risks global isolation and economic collapse. Siberia, in contrast, is a stealthier, more pragmatic target. The West, distracted by the conflict in Ukraine and the persistent threat to Taiwan, is unlikely to intervene decisively in a region it has long deemed peripheral to its core interests. Russia, economically tethered to Beijing and militarily weakened, might be forced to limit its retaliation to avoid losing its most crucial trade partner.
China could frame an incursion as a 'limited special military operation' to secure vital resources and protect its economic interests, ironically mirroring Russia's own playbook in Ukraine. The dire warnings from within the Russian intelligence, reportedly dismissed by a Kremlin desperate to project an image of strength and unwavering partnership with China, suggest Moscow is dangerously unprepared for Beijing's audacity.
John Lonergan is a Harvard MBA with substantial international business experience and the author of two books about Russian biowarfare activities, 'Containment' and 'Outbreak.' The third in the series, 'Contagion,' will be released this summer and describes a possible invasion of Siberia by Chinese forces.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Putin's attempt to 'play Trump' on Ukraine will fail, former national security advisor says
Putin's attempt to 'play Trump' on Ukraine will fail, former national security advisor says

Fox News

time34 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Putin's attempt to 'play Trump' on Ukraine will fail, former national security advisor says

Russian President Vladimir Putin is intensifying his assault on Ukraine, despite previously signaling to President Donald Trump that peace might be on the table. But one former Trump advisor says Putin's strategy is unlikely to succeed. "I don't think he can play Donald Trump," retired Gen. H.R. McMaster, who served as Trump's national security advisor from 2017 to 2018, told "The Brian Kilmeade Show" on Wednesday. "You saw what happened with the Iranians. He gave them 60 days, right? And they went to 61, and he acted." Russia launched its largest aerial strike on Ukraine since the start of the war this week, marking an escalation in the conflict. McMaster said this is part of a calculated attempt by Putin to project power and reshape his image. "This is Putin's ruse. He's trying to look strong," McMaster told the "Brian Kilmeade Show." "He's throwing it all in right now because he thinks we don't have the will to support Ukraine." The increase in Russian aggression comes as the Pentagon has paused some weapons shipments to Ukraine. The scrapped deals included Patriot missile interceptors and artillery shells. U.S. officials have justified the delay by blaming it on dwindling stockpiles and concerns the United States could need them to defend itself. While Putin is projecting strength, McMaster argued the Russian leader is far weaker than he appears. "Putin is really in a hurt, in terms of his economic situation," he said. "He's not pulling as much out of the ATM as he's been able to pull," noting that declining oil prices and skyrocketing military expenses have taken a toll on Russia's economy. According to McMaster, these developments could push Trump to take a firmer stance if peace talks continue to falter. "President Trump is [going to] come to the conclusion it's time to put more pressure on Putin, and that includes sustaining support for the Ukrainians." Last month, Trump proposed taking a step back in ceasefire negotiations, likening Russia and Ukraine to two children fighting. He suggested the U.S. take a step back in negotiations until both countries are willing to come to the table. "Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart," remarked Trump in early June. Some leaders have countered the president's strategy, saying U.S. support is critical to the Ukrainian resistance. On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte emphasized that Ukraine cannot win without American aid. "A secure Europe also means a secure U.S.," Rutte told "Fox & Friends." The Dutch leader also noted that a larger Russia that's closer to Europe could pose more of a risk to U.S. interests.

Trump is crushing conservative anti-war dissent over his Iran strikes
Trump is crushing conservative anti-war dissent over his Iran strikes

The Hill

time39 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump is crushing conservative anti-war dissent over his Iran strikes

The rift within President Trump's MAGA movement over his decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is deepening. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) described the airstrikes as 'not constitutional' and denounced Trump's comments about regime change in Tehran, posting, 'This is not America First folks.' Trump responded with a broadside on Truth Social in which he described Massie as a 'simple minded 'grandstander'' who is 'disrespectful to our great military.' Trump has been sparring with the isolationist wing of his own movement over military action in Iran since Israel started bombing. In a conversation with Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson claimed that Trump's coalition is 'being blown up over this war on Iran.' Trump responded, 'Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!'' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) defended Carlson and complained that 'The Uniparty is out to politically destroy me for opposing regime change in Iran.' Pundit Charlie Kirk worried that the war will 'cause a massive schism in MAGA.' Conservative critics of the president's decision to join Israel's assault on Iran have long presented Trump as a courageous peacemaker standing up to a warmongering establishment in Washington. They celebrated when Trump declared that the U.S. would abandon Ukraine. Trump blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO for the Russian invasion and drastically reduced U.S. military support for Ukraine. He then attempted to force Kyiv into accepting a terrible deal that would end Ukraine's right to join the alliances of its choosing and consign millions of Ukrainians to permanent occupation, while asking for nothing in exchange from Putin. Massie boasts that he's the 'only member of Congress who never voted for Ukraine funding.' Carlson has openly declared that he supports Russia over Ukraine. Greene describes Zelensky as an 'actor wearing army green every day, fully funded by U.S. warmongers,' claims he controls a 'Nazi army,' regurgitates Russian propaganda and calls Zelensky a 'little dictator.' It is no wonder that Trump's most rabid 'America First' acolytes believed his absurd promises about ending the Ukraine war in '24 hours.' The tension between Trump and some of his loudest supporters over the Iran strikes is the result of shattered illusions across the MAGA-verse. Many Trump supporters really believed that the president had a principled opposition to war, but he has always been a simple opportunist who scored political points by attacking what he views as a hated 'neocon' establishment in Washington. While pundits within Trump's base are free to attack Trump for what they view as a deviation from America First orthodoxy, self-described anti-war members of the administration are in a trickier spot. Vice President JD Vance has spent years pouring scorn on what he regards as a sinister warmongering elite in Washington. But he has been reduced to cheerleading for Trump's latest military adventure, which he surely would have indignantly denounced if it was launched by a Democratic administration. 'We're not at war with Iran,' Vance recently said. 'We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' Vance would have mocked this sort of Orwellian doublespeak in any other context. In a lengthy post on X, the vice president attempted to reconcile Trump's belligerence toward Iran with his constant promises to end wars rather than start them. 'Of course,' Vance wrote, 'people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.' He continued: 'But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' In other words, Trump's attack on Iran is exactly the sort of foreign entanglement he has spent years decrying, but he's unwilling to say so because he is 'admittedly biased towards our president.' Vance isn't the only member of the administration forced to bend flimsy principles into an entirely new shape to fit Trump's latest diktat. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress that U.S. intelligence 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' Trump dismissed the assessment of his own DNI to reporters: 'I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.' Like Vance, hostility toward 'warmongers' in the 'elite' has long been a major feature of Gabbard's political career. She blamed the war in Ukraine on NATO and the Biden administration, which allegedly failed to acknowledge 'Russia's legitimate security concerns.' She has echoed Russian propaganda about Ukraine. Gabbard was fiercely critical of Trump's first-term decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, and she has spent many years attacking U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Vance and Gabbard have discovered the one iron law of contemporary American politics: Joining forces with Trump means discarding your deepest principles to remain in good standing with the boss. Those who have attempted to give Trump's movement some coherent intellectual and ethical shape have made a similar discovery. As Trump recently claimed, 'America First' means whatever he says it means. Either submit to the new orthodoxy, or get out. Matt Johnson is the author of the book 'How Hitchens Can Save the Left: Rediscovering Fearless Liberalism in an Age of Counter-Enlightenment.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store