"The 'Pro-US Skepticism One-Stop Industrial Chain' and its Red-aligned media alongside their favorite pro-CCP 'Washington' think-tank scholars—the exact same 'American scholars' spurned even by the U.S. frequently appear in the narrative reports of Chinese and Russian state media, and it's all just such a coincidence"

The video analyzes a report by the American think tank "Defense Priorities" regarding the First Island Chain, the Second Island Chain, and the Taiwan issue. It points out that the report advocates for the U.S. to reduce security commitments to Indo-Pacific allies, abandon the First Island Chain, and argues that the CCP's control of Taiwan would not seriously harm U.S. interests. The video questions the report's arguments concerning South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan point by point, suggesting that the report lacks sufficient background information and evidence, carries tendencies of American isolationism as well as pro-China and pro-Russia biases, and calls for Taiwan to strengthen communication with different U.S. political groups and allies such as Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea.

Video link:

Full text:

Today we have arrived in beautiful Berlin. This is my favorite place in Berlin because there is a concert hall here, and the Taiwan representative office is nearby. The topic I want to discuss with you today is related to Taiwan and also to the United States.

Currently, the Blue-White camp likes to use articles published by a Washington think tank called "Defense Priorities" to criticize Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party and the government, while simultaneously spreading anti-American sentiment. The message they convey is: defense is impossible, the U.S. is already unreliable, no matter how much money Taiwan spends it is futile, so Taiwan needs to consider this issue directly. They also claim that the U.S. will abandon Taiwan.

On September 24, as the meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping approached, the whole world was watching the situation in the Taiwan Strait. A report released by the U.S. think tank "Defense Priorities" suggested that the U.S. should shift its military strategic center from the First Island Chain to the Second Island Chain, and further pointed out that the U.S. position on Taiwan should shift from strategic ambiguity to a policy of non-intervention. This means that if a conflict occurs in the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. military will not intervene. All of this stems from a report by a small think tank.

Regarding "Defense Priorities," first, I must introduce the background of this think tank. There are many different think tanks in the U.S., and generally speaking, the articles and reports they publish are related to the interests of different groups. "Defense Priorities" is no exception. Some are more inclined toward the Republican Party, some are more inclined toward the Democratic Party, some are more inclined toward specific factions within the Democratic or Republican parties, and some are non-partisan but represent certain specific viewpoints.

"Defense Priorities" represents the isolationist faction in the U.S. Within this faction, there is a foundation called the Quincy Institute, and a representative figure named Rand Paul, who is a congressman from Kentucky. "Defense Priorities" has a very close relationship with them, so when looking at their reports, one often feels that they are to some extent guiding public opinion, and this public opinion often tends toward the viewpoints of Russia or China.

About a year or two ago, I analyzed a staff member at Defense Priorities named Lyle Goldstein. Goldstein is a professor at Brown University who speaks Russian and Chinese. You can find his articles in Russian media, and he frequently appears in Russian and Chinese state media, always portraying himself as the only American expert who truly understands China and Russia. If you are interested in Lyle Goldstein, you can check out the video I previously made about him.

This time, the article was not written by Goldstein, but by someone very close to him in the same think tank—Jennifer Kavanagh. After graduating from Harvard University, she went to the University of Michigan for her doctoral studies and currently holds a Ph.D. in political science.

In her article published by Defense Priorities, she focuses on the second island chain, arguing that the United States should not over-engage in the affairs of the first island chain, and should even withdraw the 90,000 troops stationed in first island chain countries and relocate them to the second island chain. Furthermore, she argues that the United States should recognize the reality that China is already a hegemonic power, and that the United States should not be responsible for its allies in the Indo-Pacific region.

Isn't this outrageous? Doesn't this sound like content that Russia or China would want to write? I think it certainly is. Yet, she has no connection to Asia whatsoever. The language she studied at Harvard was Russian, and she has never conducted any Asia-related research. At least Goldstein speaks Chinese. An article he previously published in Time magazine criticized President Lai Ching-te, but to say the least, he understands what is happening in the Indo-Pacific region. As for Jennifer Kavanagh, regarding matters concerning Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China, I believe she is completely clueless.

Why say she is completely clueless? If you read the content of that article carefully, this becomes very clear. The article targets different countries such as the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, explaining why the United States should not participate in their security systems and why the United States should withdraw from the Indo-Pacific region.

Interestingly, if this article were a submission from a reader, I think it might be acceptable, but it is not. It is packaged as a professional analytical report, a report or analysis from a think tank. Its background analysis and even data sources are extremely scarce and insufficient, and many arguments are merely statements of her own thoughts without explaining why she thinks that way.

For example, let's look at South Korea. She says the United States should not station troops there because it is not in the interest of the United States. Even if North Korea and South Korea go to war, it is not that important to the United States, and the United States should not care. Most absurdly, she claims that if South Korea is defeated and North Korea occupies the entire Korean Peninsula, China will be unhappy because North Korea will become too powerful.

On what basis? What is the basis for this kind of argument? Hasn't China always been supporting North Korea? Hasn't China constantly instigated North Korea to conduct military exercises and missile launches? During the Korean War, the Chinese Communist Party directly sent troops to join North Korea in an attempt to annihilate South Korea.

As for what she wrote about Japan, it is even more absurd. She accuses Japan of being overly dependent on international trade. Ms. Jennifer, you certainly didn't study high school history well, because it was the United States that prevented Japan from having its own military, and it was the United States that pushed Japan into its current predicament. Japan has to rely on the United States because Japan is not even allowed to build its own military.

Japan's pacifist constitution was also imposed on them by the United States, only allowing the establishment of the Self-Defense Forces. So now you say Japan is overly dependent on the United States, but isn't that something the United States caused itself? Is your attitude toward allies extremely irresponsible? Is that what you mean?

When talking about the Philippines, they say the Philippines is taking advantage of the United States, and even say the United States should not sign a security agreement with the Philippines.

But the most crucial point is Taiwan, which I believe is the issue Taiwanese audiences care about the most. Their argument contains several key points, which can be looked at one by one.

One view suggests that if the Chinese Communist Party controls Taiwan, it actually will not harm the interests of the United States. They provide evidence from two aspects. First, many strategic analysts currently share a consensus: if the Chinese Communist Party controls the east coast of Taiwan, it could deploy warships and radar systems, making it very difficult for the United States to predict where and how these Chinese warships will be deployed.

Now, Jennifer and Kevin say time is not an issue, but where is the evidence? Where is the proof? Who knows? They did not specify. They simply asked, what is the primary goal of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? The answer is to break through the First Island Chain. If breaking this chain is not important to the CCP, why would they be so persistent in doing so? Why would they be so eager to occupy Taiwan?

In fact, occupying Taiwan, setting aside its historical status and those myths and legends, is about projecting influence into other parts of the Pacific. The CCP feels trapped and surrounded by the First Island Chain, so it wants to reach the Second Island Chain.

Jennifer Cavallari believes that the United States should abandon the First Island Chain and let the CCP occupy it without any cost. This feels like an article that only a Chinese person would write.

Furthermore, they stated that the United States could choose other countries to produce semiconductors, or produce them domestically, but how long would that take, and what would the cost be? If the CCP occupies Taiwan, how much sensitive U.S. data and semiconductor-related technology would they seize?

In such a highly competitive environment, if the United States abandons Taiwan, it simply cannot compete. Do you really want the United States to abandon Taiwan and hand it over to China? They also did not mention what Taiwan's security means for U.S. allies such as Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, but they did mention that these countries should accept China as the hegemon of the Indo-Pacific region and try their best to develop a balanced relationship.

It is clear that this think tank wants the CCP to dominate the Indo-Pacific region and have the United States withdraw. But they will not tell you what is wrong with the Second Island Chain. Because if the United States retreats to the Second Island Chain, you can see from the map that the forces there are very dispersed. If the CCP military truly breaks through the first line of defense, the second line of defense would effectively be unable to stop them. CCP submarines and warships could head directly to California, and they would be difficult to detect.

The convenience of the island chain, or more precisely, the focus of the island chain's power projection, lies in the fact that it tightly surrounds China, preventing the CCP from expanding outward. Once the island chain is breached, the CCP will use it as a springboard to influence other countries in the Indo-Pacific region, and even the entire vast Pacific region.

Ironically, Ms. Cavallari says the CCP only wants Taiwan and does not need other countries or regions. Then what is the CCP doing in the South China Sea? Why does it constantly claim that the territories of the Philippines, Vietnam, and other Indo-Pacific countries are its own? The CCP has even recently claimed that the Ryukyu Islands should belong to China. The CCP's ambition for external expansion does not stop at Taiwan.

Ms. Jennifer, if you could understand a little Chinese and read a little Chinese, you would not say such stupid things. Moreover, the current U.S. strategy has been built up step by step over decades by countless experts, politicians, the State Department, and even the Department of Defense. You American isolationists want the United States to abandon decades of hard work, forget everything, and just say "the U.S. should abandon it" based on an article without any evidence or analytical value.

Shouldn't the people of Taiwan feel worried? This article is meant to express exactly that. Actually, there is no need. There are many think tanks in the United States, and many people representing different group interests. Some think tanks even stand on the side of the CCP, while others support Russia.

What we should be worried about is this type of report and this type of analysis. Although this concern lacks substance, what is worrying is that this situation is becoming more and more frequent. For Taiwanese, there might be several articles promoting this narrative every year, so what has Taiwan done about it?

Because of this, Taiwan's academic circles and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should strengthen communication with different groups and factions in the United States. Because although Rand Paul received votes, and this Kentucky representative does have the support of his constituents, those who voted for him do not necessarily fully accept his views, nor do they necessarily accept all his ideas.

Taiwan should take U.S. support for Taiwan as the greatest common denominator. That is the current situation. I think this is precisely the strength of Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. U.S. support for Taiwan is a bipartisan consensus, but voices opposing Taiwan are also starting to increase. How should we face this situation?

We must increase various channels of communication with more Americans to help them understand Taiwan's current predicament and its importance to the United States. This importance is not just about semiconductors or democratic values; most crucially, it is about geopolitics.

At the same time, we should also encourage more allies to support Taiwan, including important defense partners such as Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea.

In fact, very few people actually read the conspiracy theories that appear in Russian or Chinese media. I don't think that people like Livingston or Jennifer Kavan would write an article devoid of analytical value and Trump or Pompeo would suddenly change their policy toward Taiwan—that is simply impossible.

We should care and pay attention, but there is no need to be nervous. Furthermore, everyone should realize that the increasing frequency of such articles is due to the promotion by groups and individuals associated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This proves that Taiwan is indeed too important, and some people want to change U.S. support for Taiwan.