> I'm a little perplexed because you seem to understand what's at stake, but you don't think the US would fight? All evidence points to the contrary. I mean not only is the US military present, the actual stakes are existential physical and economic security. If you aren't going to fight for those stakes I don't know what you do.

The US is talking the talk but won't walk the walk. There remains virtually no political will to fight other peoples battles. This is why politicians from both major parties have argued for leaving NATO. Americans are tired of endless wars and the prospect of another is unbearable. Moreover, a protracted war with China will bring the sort of economic discomfort to the american populace not experienced since world war 2. American's don't have the will for it.

> I think this remains to be seen. I'm curious about how well Ukraine will do under current operations. It's bewildering to me that Ukraine can just strike and blow up Russian targets with impunity, including in Belgorod which presumably had some sort of air defense capabilities. I don't think Russia wants a fight with NATO unless the goal is to make defeat easier to swallow, because engagement with NATO necessitates a nuclear response from Russia due to what would clearly appear to be a decisive victory for NATO based on Russian performance in Ukraine and I'm not sure Russia wants to use nuclear weapons either. Engagement with NATO seems to be a lose/lose.

Russia's war strategy is very different from the west. Where the west see's troop and equipment loses as a negative, Russia views them as a mixed bag. Sure, it sucks to loose hardware but armed peasants will fight harder with the clarity of what loosing means. It's the pattern that won them world war 2 and brought them success in Chechnya.

Now more strategically think about it this way: Russia has no worries about loosing territory in the current conflict with Ukraine. Even if tomorrow they, say, provoke a Nato member by invading it... Nato will respond only to push Russian forces from their territory. Nato will not use nukes fist. And Nato lacks the political will to invade Russia or impose regime change. Since that's the case, Russia can really do whatever they want. Russia's warning to the west remains. Touch our land and we'll nuke you. And given no credible counter to this threat, Western powers will remain very wary of provoking a 'miss-calculation' that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

The same rational exists in Taiwan. So, if China invades Taiwan, Western forces might have a few exchanges with them, but do you really see American boots-on-the-ground fighting and killing hundreds-of-thousands or millions of Chinese troops? When would American troops arrive even?
After China starts the war? Because that's what it will take to 'win' for Taiwan. Okay, maybe you think American would do that. That's just defense. Can you imagine American troops landing in China for the purpose of threat neutralization? It'll never happen. Since the west won't violate China's borders China is also secure.

Territorial security is a partial basis of external belligerence. This is the lesson America has been teaching the world for the last 70 years.