This is a very very charitable interpretation not least if which is because the White House walked this exact statement back only a few minutes after he says it. However because he says it this leaves us two specific choices in his to interpret what he said 1/n
First, he said the quiet part out loud maybe even as a signal to Beijing knowing his press people would walk out back. Possibly. Second, it was the standard Biden non sequitur his press people walk back shortly after he says something. I will generally leave the Rohrshach 2/n
Interpretation up to you as I leave the door open to either but will say my leaning is that he simply misspoke like the "agreement" about Taiwan he previously cited. However, let's assume for a moment he didn't misspeak and the (widely assumed though rarely spoken) assumption 3/n
The US intends to defend Taiwan is true. There is one key variable no one had spoken about. The depth of intent to defend. Does the US ship Taiwan done extra missiles and say we tried? Or do we mobilize troops from Japan and the Korean peninsula and go all in? Open question 4/n
Here's why this matters. Critics of Taiwan war simulations showing the US losing have said they don't matter as they are perky for educational purposes. However, those simulations where China wins frequently rely on the US exhibiting great restraint in a variety of ways 5/n
From not attacking PLA targets on the mainland to other willingness to impose mass casualties in Chinese troops. If one says, war games don't matter that requires not only a symbolic commitment to Taiwan to hold back China where they would stand a good chance of taking Taiwan 6/n
But a deep commitment to Taiwan willing to impose enormous costs in defense of the island. US policy has not made any commitment of that nature to Taiwan and the Biden adminstration has not changed UD policy to Taiwan. I personally lean yes, current administration would 7/n
Assist Taiwan in a conflict with Taiwan, but whether it would minimize the assets needed to defend the island remains a very open question. Done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Professors and universities like to think of themselves as the smartest people in the room but they unwittingly reveal their ignorance by saying "I'm just a professor my research is academic." Let's unpack this thinking how they are targeted for the EXACT reason they think 1/n
Acts as a shield. In other words, they are saying out loud, we have no idea what we are talking about. First, let's put to rest the idea that professors are not targeted. I won't detail how I know that but I do. It can be because of the university they work at or the type 2/n
of research or because of material you may have access to. There are a variety of reasons why. Second, China keeps very detailed records of professors, research, think tankers, with lots of scoring and information they want to obtain. In other words, China generates targets 3/n
I would disagree with the stay out of policy but the rest is totally true. They're are a couple things that are stunningly clear. Especially in China, the "data" academics and tankies dealing with is so old and top level as to be worthless stale and moldy. Any academic 1/n
Paper on China is probably five years out of date from release. The data quality academics and tankies use is really really poor. It is policy papers, official data, and top line data. This effectively makes "censorship" part of the data set. Academics and tankies are 2/n
Censoring on behalf of their funders or they are relying on effectively censored data to conduct studies. The sad part is they either don't understand this or they don't care. If you want to understand China watch ONLY how people behave. Words are very very poor signals 3/n
You've heard me say that the Galaxy Brains dealing with foreign policy are simply deeply unserious people and thinkers that if not for their influece should be ignored. Let me explain the reasons I say this. First, it is obvious their minds have been made up and no evidence 1/n
Or facts are going to change their mind. Pick any topic surrounding China and they cannot argue factually or empirically relying on data. So no matter what data or evidence you provide them, it is dismissed for increasingly creative reasons because facts don't matter 2/n
Second, their thinking is entirely inconsistent chasing straw men. Like theNYT Oped, "free market purists" will never be content with China. There is zero that the Chinese economy has been centralizing and shutting down markets. It is an invented straw men by a research firm 3/n
Since real estate tax in China has people buzzing let me explain why virtually everything you're reading is thimble deep & missing the enormity of the importance and risks it is exacerbating. This may be a long thread. I will try and include links and will use simple examples 1/n
Let's start by positing that as a method of financing government revenue a yearly tax based upon some pre-defined measure say assessed value of the property is a much better method than land sales. So I have no disagreement with others who say it is. It is. But..... 2/n
People are saying this should be done have really given no thought to a variety of the problems, complications, and risks. This is why they stand around looking puzzled why this wasn't done years ago. So let's try to lay out as many of these secondary issues as possible 3/n
I'm sitting in an airport with random observations and thoughts. Here we go: 1. Having driven across the US and having hit some major cities during that time, Manhattan is far and away the worst of the bunch I've seen. So many empty store fronts seeking tenants 1/n
2. "Infrastructure" problem in the US is generally confined to a couple of places
3. I'm so happy to be in airports again, they are calming and cathartic
4. I ordered bibimbap. The Asian man gave me a fork. As I took chopsticks I wanted to yell racism. I didn't. I'm normal 2/n
5. I find it unnaturally infuriating when Asian restaurants in the US serve the wrong type of rice for whatever food they are serving. I shouldn't get that cheesed
6.7. Media and social media wildly overstate problems. I witness people of all colors and creeds work together 3/n
So let's return to China energy and journalism and what is really the problem with journalism is that by providing bad information it provides distorted understanding of how to solve the problem. When the China energy issue first started coming out the two issues mentioned 1/n
Were this was because of Xi's deeply held environmentalism (ok little embellishment here) and those freaking Australians. Why those two? Well they were in the news and vaguely had some link to the problem so let's mention them as the reason why even though any basic 2/n
Research would have shown that Australia coal plays a tiny part of Chinese energy and the environment well let's not go down that smog lined road but that what journos said it was. Why does this matter? It provides a very distorted really false or inaccurate picture of the 3/n