What's happening is that the West sees that they are dangerously dependent on China, which as world's second largest economy is also diversifying outside of Western countries.
To some extent I think China would be willing to pay, and accept, a higher economic price than the West as long as Taiwan was seized. That's perhaps the same calculation Russia did with Ukraine, though, so they need to give a very hard look and consideration to this 'as long as', at this point it's not a given. The reason is that no-one cares about Taiwan in the West, it is a pawn against China. But for the Chinese it is very personal (which is not really the case for Russian in Ukraine, btw).
Russia exports fuel which they take from the ground. China makes goods from things they import using western know-how and sell them back to the west.
Everybody needs fuel. Rich countries need iphones.
When you are isolated you can still pump oil. You can't make iphones.
These are polar opposites when it comes to dependency on the west.
> The reason is that no-one cares about Taiwan in the West, it is a pawn against China.
I wonder what would be your prediction about the West caring about Ukraine in 2021 :) If anything - even fewer people cared about it than about Taiwan. Yet here we are.
There's 2 things so called "realists" and "geopoliticians" consistently get wrong.
The first is that the only things that matter are economies, armies, nukes, and geography. These people couldn't predict USSR falling, because they thought every culture and every system is the same and values are cosmetic. Meanwhile people like Giedroyć proposed a strategy for Poland after "inevitable USSR collapse and creation of independent Ukraine and Belarus" in 60s already. Look it up - google for "Giedroyć doctrine" and "Kultura paryska".
The second thing "realists" consistently get wrong is assuming democracies are weak and fickle and authocracies are strong and resilient. It's an easy mistake to make, because democracies are transparent about their weaknesses and authocracies hide them. But that's exactly why it's a mistake.
Democracies are actually surprisingly bloodthirsty once you persuade people something is worth fighting for. Much easier to change the mind of the leader than to change the minds of millions of people. And all wars are ultimately about changing somebody's minds.
No-one cares about Ukraine in the West. The current help the US provide to Ukraine is painless and in fact the US are benefiting from the war on a number of front (of course that's the actual reason for the support).
If the situation in Taiwan was painful in the West because of the economic impacy then Western public opinions would tire long before the Chinese do because, again, this would be nothing to them while for Chinese it would be a national cause.
Here in the UK many people are already unhappy that we're paying so much, including on our energy bills, for Ukraine. The situation in Europe is not painless and that puts a strain on public opinion.
This has nothing to do with democracies vs autocracies.
One thing that many get wrong about China is that reunification is not what the CCP wants to achieve it is what the Chinese people want to achieve. And the US do not want that no matter whose in charge in Beijing because their aim is to weaken China.
For Russia Ukraine is as personal for historical reasons but also for strategic reasons. Ukraine is the buffer state between nato and Russia and the access to the black sea.
If you asked Russians about that 20 years ago nobody would say that :)
The main russian propagandist - Solovyov - publicly argued that Russia cannot invade Crimea and should let Ukraine do whatever it likes like 15 years ago. Now he argues Russia should nuke the west because Ukraine must be russian.
Not 20 years passed. Watch the videos - they are hilarious when you compare to what they are saying now [1]
Russia is authocracy, they will say whatever putin wants them to say. If putin decides to stop the war and go home - the same people will say with 100% confidence that it's the best thing to do and Russia has no interest in internal Ukrainian affairs.
As for strategic reasons - Russia moved its soldiers from Finland border after Finland joined NATO. Russia knows perfectly well NATO does not want to invade it. They not only know it - they rely on it.
What historical reasons would justify invading and killing people who don't want to be part of russia?
As for buffer states, by attacking Ukraine they pushed Finland into NATO which the führer does not seem to mind. So we can easily call bullshit on this trope.
As for access to Black Sea, just look at the map. russia has plenty of access to it.
To some extent I think China would be willing to pay, and accept, a higher economic price than the West as long as Taiwan was seized. That's perhaps the same calculation Russia did with Ukraine, though, so they need to give a very hard look and consideration to this 'as long as', at this point it's not a given. The reason is that no-one cares about Taiwan in the West, it is a pawn against China. But for the Chinese it is very personal (which is not really the case for Russian in Ukraine, btw).
In any case, that wouldn't unleash WWIII.