A few days ago, the Wagner mercenary group trained its guns away from Ukraine and moved into Russia, initially pushing on to Moscow before changing course. Its stated intention of seeking revenge on Russia’s military leadership commanded the world’s attention over the weekend. Even though the situation was resolved before a major conflict broke out on Russian soil, and Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin agreed to retreat to Belarus, the potential repercussions of this apparent attempted coup continue to command attention the world over — not least from within China.
After all, there is a high degree of similarity between the internal political power structures consolidated by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Both dictators have a firm grip on power, and during their respective periods in office have extended their hold on the reins of state; neither man has a designated or acknowledged successor waiting in the wings.
This extreme centralization of power means that as soon as the authority or security of the dictator is challenged, there is the potential for insurrection or a coup.
That is not to say it will happen this way. The abortive attempted coup by the Wagner Group serves to remind the international community that there are relatively few precedents that can be used as a basis for debate or preparedness for what might happen. That is, what would a Russia without Putin, or for that matter a China without Xi, look like?
Ironically, and precisely because Xi is a dictator with a firm grip on power, any discussion on this matter is very unlikely to be countenanced within China.
Putin’s travails — be they the military quagmire he has orchestrated in Ukraine, the international sanctions the invasion has brought on his head, or indeed the internal dissent the world is now seeing evidence of — are certainly being closely followed by Xi and weighing heavily on his mind. They are likely to give pause for thought in Beijing’s corridors of power about how it approaches the “Taiwan issue.”
Huang Wei-ping is a former think tank researcher and a Kaohsiung resident.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS