By Vlad Green, Op-Ed
I smell a rat—and history tells us we should take that instinct seriously.
China’s muted response to the U.S. embargo on Venezuela is not restraint rooted in principle. It is restraint rooted in calculation. Beijing does not walk away from strategic opportunities unless it believes a far more valuable prize lies elsewhere.
That prize is Taiwan.
What China did to Hong Kong should have erased any remaining illusions. Under the “one country, two systems” promise, Beijing guaranteed autonomy and freedoms. Once it concluded that the West would respond with words rather than consequences, it moved decisively—silencing dissent, dismantling democratic institutions, and shredding international commitments.
Hong Kong was not an exception.
It was a test.
Taiwan is the objective.
Today, China is closely watching a United States led by a president who treats alliances as disposable and diplomacy as transactional. Donald Trump has repeatedly shown that loyalty to allies is conditional and that commitments are negotiable. His treatment of Europe and NATO—threats, tariffs, and open contempt—has weakened the credibility of Western unity.
China is also carefully watching how Donald Trump responds to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Trump’s posture sends a troubling signal: he appears to show more respect—and patience—toward Vladimir Putin than toward Ukraine’s democratically elected leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. When an aggressor is indulged while the victim is pressured, authoritarian leaders take note. For Xi Jinping, the lesson is unmistakable: territorial conquest may be negotiable, alliances may be conditional, and democratic partners may be expendable. If Russia can invade Ukraine and still command deference, Beijing may conclude that Taiwan—like Ukraine—could be pressured into submission rather than defended outright.
For Beijing, this is not noise. It is opportunity.
China’s behavior toward Venezuela fits this pattern perfectly. Beijing voiced rhetorical support but avoided meaningful economic or strategic intervention. That is not solidarity; it is selectivity. Venezuela is expendable. Taiwan is existential.
This danger does not require a signed deal between Trump and Xi Jinping to be real. The real threat lies in ambiguity. When red lines blur and alliances appear negotiable, authoritarian powers test limits.
China does not need a green light.
It only needs uncertainty.
Hong Kong demonstrated what happens when democracies hesitate and divide. Taiwan will demonstrate what happens if they miscalculate again. If deterrence erodes and alliances are treated as bargaining chips, Beijing will conclude—as it did before—that the cost of action is manageable.
The world ignored the warning signs in Hong Kong. It cannot afford to ignore them again.
Because if Taiwan falls, it will not only mark the loss of an island’s freedom—it will signal the collapse of global deterrence itself.