That compact was broken once ... by the People. Tienanmen Square and the People were punished with a collapsed economy and bargain basement wages to recover their prosperity.
That's like saying that the US Government's legitimacy is based on economic prosperity (don't try that one on FDR); it isn't.
My comment wasn't about 'legitimacy' so much as staying in power. Sure, they won the war which entitled them to govern China but there's a big difference between 'governing' and governing well. It's the well but that concerns me because in this context it literally involves producing rising living standards for the Chinese people. That's been the 'deal' since China opened up to the world and started modernizing. Prior to then no such bargain was needed because the Chinese populous had no idea of what they were missing out on? Now? There's certainly no love lost by the citizens of China for the Communist Party, instead it's rule is tolerated in the proviso it continues to provide them with the living standards and opportunities they see the rest of the developed world enjoying.
Again, that pact was broken and broken by the People. Not only did the CCP clamp down and clamp down hard but there was no rebellion, let alone revolutionary response by the People.
True, but I believe the point still stands. In China's case 'prosperity' was and still is the opiate of the people. It can be argued that Tiananmen Square was a student lead outlier sparked by the fall of the Berlin Wall. If nothing else though it certainly proves that the CCP is hardly beloved by the people it rules.
I would think it means Xi won't tolerate anyone whose opinion or ideas differ one iota from his. Megalomania in action.
Understanding the whys and wherefores of Zhongnanhai has never been easy, but at least today we aren't examining old photos to see who's been "erased from history." Having said that, the odds of me -- or any outside analyst -- getting it right are pretty small.
My personal opinion is that Xi does and will, one day sooner or later, move on Taiwan but he won't attack the island. With the Navy he is building he will simply blockade Taiwan and starve them out while daring others to step in. He has, for all intents and purposes, made the South China Sea his despite International World Court (all talk) and U.S. Navy Freedom of the Sea passages. Should anyone step in to help I could see him pull an idea from the old Japanese playbook in regards to the first island chain for protection which would put the Philippines in play for seizure. Xi is a long way from the guys Nixon dealt with in the 70s in thinking.
Its a complex problem from both both the attackers and defenders view point with no easy answer largely due to the geography. In the scenario you outline yes, XI can blockade Taiwan but then America can also blockade China by which I mean China can dominate the waters around Taiwan but the US can dominate all the approaches to the Yellow and South China Seas etc and the western Pacific. The US can also utilize bases in Japan Korea and the Philippines while China has no allies in the region with ports or other other facilities that would help it's cause because again geography means Russia is equally 'hemmed in'. The whole thing sort of reminds me of the Siege of Alesia with Xi playing the role of Caesar this time round (although frankly while Xi might consider himself an Emperor he's no Julius and the Chinese armed forces sure as hell aren't battled hardened legionaries the commanded at the time).
When it comes to blockades I would have to say Taiwan would cave long before China would.
Actually, the Rocket Force was the one that really got reamed, not that rockets would be useful in a Taiwan war ...
