A recent series of war games held in Taipei has cast a sobering light on Taiwan’s readiness to confront a Chinese invasion, exposing not just military vulnerabilities, but also strategic hesitation and fragile assumptions about international support.
On Tuesday last week, nine retired generals from Taiwan, Japan and the US took part in a tabletop exercise that simulated a potential Chinese invasion of the nation in 2030. The former military and government officials were tasked with reacting to a sequence of escalating provocations, from Chinese military mobilizations and propaganda to a full-scale amphibious invasion. The scenarios included missile strikes, naval blockades, information warfare and destabilizing actions from North Korea.
Taiwan’s response to initial provocations was notably restrained. As Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces crossed red lines, including seizing outlying islands and establishing beachheads, Taiwan hesitated. The Taiwanese team consistently delayed decisive military responses in favor of diplomatic or political solutions. When full conflict erupted, Taiwan launched asymmetric defense operations and air counterattacks, but the Chinese team already had the upper hand.
One of the simulation’s clearest messages was that Taiwan’s defense posture remains hamstrung by a deep-rooted fear of “firing the first shot.” This reluctance, born from decades of cross-strait “status quo” diplomacy and reinforced by concerns over international perceptions of “provocation,” gave China an advantage in “gray zone” conflict scenarios.
This cautious approach plays into Beijing’s hands. It allows the Chinese military to gradually test and expand into Taiwan’s boundaries while exploiting ambiguity to undermine allied support. The war game underscored a fundamental paradox: Taiwan’s decision to act militarily often hinges on whether the US and Japan are perceived to be ready to intervene. However, those allies are also watching Taiwan’s willingness to defend itself before committing to action. During the simulation, US participants made their position clear: Support for Taiwan would only materialize if it first demonstrated the resolve to fight. Without a strong, immediate show of self-defense, allied intervention becomes politically and militarily difficult to justify. Japan’s team also expressed concern about minimal communication from Taiwan, saying the team did not adequately convey what it wanted from Japan during the scenarios.
To be clear, Taiwan’s military is far from weak. Over the past few years, it has made measurable progress in building out its asymmetric capabilities, from long-range missile systems to special forces, drone units and battlefield digitization. If the PLA were to launch a traditional, high-intensity invasion of Taiwan proper, it would not be an easy target. However, modern warfare rarely begins with a blitzkrieg. Instead, it unfolds from “gray zone” tactics: legal ambiguity, psychological warfare, economic coercion and calibrated military pressure that blur the line between peace and war.
The simulation showed that Taiwan must urgently shift from a reactive posture to a proactive one. It needs to clearly define its strategic red lines and, more importantly, embed them into military protocols that enable swift, decisive responses. Whether it is the incursion of a Chinese warship within 12 nautical miles (22.2km) of its territory, the seizure of an outlying island or attacks on undersea communication infrastructure, Taiwan must have standing rules of engagement, warning procedures and escalation options that can be activated without delay. If red lines are repeatedly crossed without a response, Taiwan would lose not only tactical momentum, but also the credibility of its defense commitment in the eyes of the international community.
The lessons from this war game are timely and urgent. Taiwan cannot afford to continue hedging its defense strategy on ambiguity, hesitation or hope. Nor can it expect its allies to step in while it twiddles its thumbs. If the future of Taiwan as a democratic state is to be preserved, it must signal — not just to China, but to the world — that it is ready and willing to fight for that future.
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big