>2x what?

Sorry hastily constructed reply. Typo for 1/2x and instead of "in" East Europe I meant "for" East Europe. Was trying to convey is Russia has built superior posture relative to NATO considering US and EU (lack) of commitment.

>The Chinese airborne is not large enough to do the latter on its own, that means amphibious assaults and contested landings

PLA war planners have assumed to be able to secure air supremacy and (relatively) uncontested landing within few days with current force balance. Air supremacy + PLA airborne + helicopter transports is assumed to be sufficient to establish mass uncontested landing using civilian transport ships built to military standards. Many US war games seems comport, but even excluding wargames = worst case scenario for show argument, most new western think tank reports have similar conclusions, hence hard press for TW to adopt asymmetric doctrine = currently TW can't buy enough time.

Hard to say what actual US involvement will be, but IMO nothing substantial out of Japan (or within 1st island chain), and it takes time for other forces to break into SCS in detail considering SCS bases there to hinder.

> making more enemies in the world while losing former would-be friends,

I would say PRC has mostly successfully dismantled US political containment plans. Wolf warrior scared ASEAN, SK, perhaps JP into neutrality outside of military theater. AU too far to be relevant except for blockade. AUKUS is basically the weakest minilateral arrangement for PRC containment versus what think tanks thought possible. EU isn't commitmented to pick sides in TW contingency. They're not even pressing further sanctions after PRC counter sanctioned EU sanctions. PRC isn't making friends, but it's eliminating committed enemies. Which is more important for PRC goals. PRC has secured more impunity to pursue security goals than USSR at height of power. Of course USN remains the massive challenge.

> is in severe demographic decline, much like Russia.

Demographic decline works in PRC favor for security considerations. Less people = less resource = more security = more flexibility to actually pursue security objectives. And even with depressed >10M birth rate, Navy/Air war simply don't require much personnel, there's no shortage of bodies. Also consider PRC is currently only spending 2% on military, 6% is not uncustomary in times of extreme security competition. Even a demographically declining PRC can allocate resources to support military multiple times current size.

> Realistically there's no good option for China to take Taiwan, but the CCP can't admit that.

Military options for taking TW is largely forgone in PLA literature from last few years. The challenge is still aftermath with US, which CCP readily admits capability gap is large. But if/when PRC accumulates sufficient capabilities to deter US or establish PRC regional hegemony, taking TW is an afterthought. Last year was first time analysis from both US and PRC side is trending towards conclusion force balance will only favor PRC with time, unless tech develops can manifestly shift balance. Realistically no amount of US + co spending and acquisitions is going to match PRC concentrating force in one region. IMO, TW is a sideshow, setting for actual Sino-US security competition. PRC has options for taking TW at anytime, some for deterring US, and very little for defeating US.