Yes but not because of the chips

> We will give Ukraine to Russia if we can save Paris.

Only that you just taught the already aggressive ruling elite of a huge country with an abundance of resources who don't care about anyone including their own except that they need them for work and for the fighting that threatening use of nukes gets them anything they want. Moldova next - it's not EU or NATO, already very low risk for Russia, if they can get there. Which was (is) a stated goal for the current war, to get the entire south of Ukraine to take away their sea ports and to get to Moldova.

They'll try the Baltic states next. Not a full invasion, just lots of little aggressive actions. Even previously they did murders in the EU, financing of radical parties out to undermine current EU country governments, supported by propaganda. I don't know how much it actually influenced US elections, but I think it's save to say they at least tried.

Giving them Ukraine will be massive. They will also have lots more of the oil and gas reserves under Ukraine and around the Krim. They will also get tens of millions of new citizens, lessening the problems of a shrinking number of people available inside Russia significantly. There also are significant parts of former USSR production in Ukraine, which will all go to Russia. They will also own even more of the prime agricultural lands of Eastern Europe, which at least so far seems to suffer less than Western Europe (look at the heat maps of this summer) under climate change so it may become even more valuable than it already is. The land is some prime real estate - unlike Siberia, Ukraine is much better, you can't look at the map and think "it does not add all that much to Russia" because the value of Ukraine lands is much higher.

I have no idea how you get this idea. Giving up Ukraine is really, really massive in its long term consequences, greatly strengthening Russia directly as well as showing them that the means they use actually work. This would be a gigantic loss for the West.

I don't know where you got the idea that the US will not go to war to protect the US economy, national security, or military capacity, but you are severely misunderstanding the situation. That is why the military exists. We spend the amount we do on the military to support American economic dominance and define the rules on how world trade happens. The reason we are not doing more for Ukraine is because they are not very important to the US, outside of being a buffer against Russia.

Ideas like "protecting democracy" are used to sell citizens on wars they don't care about. The full destruction of TSMC is likely preferred over a Chinese dictated world technological economy. The truth is, if one side has TSMC chips and the other doesn't, what we're talking about may necessitate a total war.

The US is really not _that_ interested in protecting democracy from authoritarian regimes. If we were, we’d have boots on the ground in many African states.

While upholding treaties is vitally important, I think you’re underestimating the importance of chips(a rare occurrence on HN!).

Wars are generally fought over resources rather than ideas, and pretending that US is defending Taiwan to defend democracy instead of defending its strategic interests (access to vital resources — chips) is misguided.

> For China it's about nationalism, for US it's about protecting allies/upholding treaties and protecting democracy from the strongest authoritarian regime.

I doubt this is true for China (I very much suspect economic concerns trump any other concerns for them as well), but I am quite convinced you are wrong about the USA - one of the biggest supporters of non-democratic regimes in the world. There is little in US history to suggest they have any preference for a democratic regime over a subservient autocratic one. They are also extremely clearly uncaring of international treaties.

And make no mistake: the USA is coordinating Ukraine's defense because it sees it as a good chance to weaken Russia, not out of some deep care for the people of Ukraine.

I think that's true for some key components of the military, but for example, anything involving AI systems necessitate cutting edge chips. You can probably look to the effect chip shortages had on car manufacturers to see how much of this likely works. Cars manufacturing wasn't entirely halted in most cases, instead they had downgraded functionality. Less automatic windows, more window cranks. The totality of every military system isn't based off high end chips, but some of it certainly is.

Taiwan is also the center of a lot of specialist equipment (not the big swiss-watch ASML machines, but stuff like wafer transports, cleanroom gear, etc.) and consumables (chemicals, bunny suits, etc.). I don't know how extensive and fragile that ecosystem is but I live in eastern Michigan and it seems like every small to midsize town has some tiny automotive supplier that is somehow still in business even while the big plants have moved on. I suspect this is largely because they have no competitors and it is specialist work that doesn't really scale (meaning there is only so much of this work to go around, even if global auto sales 10x) so no one is really motivated to compete either. The result is that the GM and Ford plants leave the country, but still rely on a relatively small set of expertise and tooling that only exist in the rust belt. Presumably, a thorough nuking of the Midwest would (in addition to lots of other unpleasant effects, like the death and famine millions, perhaps billions) at least require the pause of the majority of auto manufacturing around the globe. Assuming people still wanted cars after such an event, it could be recovered, but it would take time.

I got a little carried away with the Michigan analogy, but IMO it doesn't go far enough: Taiwan is far more integral to the global semiconductor industry than Detroit is to the global auto industry.

I agree that this isn't an indefinite problem, but the current state of affairs is that TSMC is irreplaceable on the world's fabrication scene. The military definitely has some need for cutting edge process nodes, though I can't say how much. This is intentionally vague, but it seems safe to say there are a number of high end missile guidance systems, a variety of AI implementations, and drone systems that likely all have some dependence on high end chips. Not to mention the economic reliance on TSMC, Apple alone is ~7% of the S&P500.

I think if we fast forward 5-10 years, Taiwan will not be this much of an absolute, but it will take years for these new fabs to come online. Until there are viable alternatives, Taiwan is a massive risk.

Those fabs won't start producing for years.