I'm somewhat disappointed that they could not find a way to use the agressor's own assets.
Perhaps it's true that laws would have to be changed and some treaties (with Russia) should be exited from. I hope this provides the incentive to change them and do that.
I think it should be a feature of international law: if one tries to conquer a country, one should be prepared to have assets confiscated and given to the target of agression to help them defend against it.
2.8 million human beings will never attempt an amphibious landing. Given the nature of landing craft, maybe 1000 craft per day, a team of 10 soldiers on each, so 10 000 soldiers per day. But for how long?
In reality, I suspect, if it happens even a few years into future - it will be robot vs. robot.
The outcome will be determined by the ratio of attacking / defending drones and robots maintaining a control link and achieving objectives.
Likely architecture: regardless whether the objective is Taiwan or a Chinese fleet or port - a submerged relay station will travel with fiber link trailing behind. Around the relay station, using short range comms - a swarm of sea drones (some on surface, some torpedos or mines), some transporting air drones to be launched in proximity of the target. Opponents will try to kill each others's relay station, EMP the swarm, air-drop a swarm of interceptor drones on them, do various other tricks.
In the air, most likely: a large stealthy cargo drone dropping a large swarm of cheap, autonomous strike drones, and another similar cargo drone countering it with a swarm of air-dropped interceptors.
I can't predict the outcome. The kind of war that China and Taiwan would fight has not been fought before, but it will 100% likely build on what is being done in Ukraine.
Large ships and stationary infastructure likely cannot be defended, in neither country.
Since seawater is radio opaque and visually not very transparent, a submarine meets 2/3 of the criteria of being invisible... which leaves sound and magnetic field (of which the latter is rather local).
So definitely a submarine, but how does it propel itself, and how does it avoid emitting and reflecting sound?
Or perhaps, no large crewed vessels at all, since it's unpopular to lose them to sea drones made with garage level tech.
Perhaps the art of fighting is turning entirely towards small systems, ones that carry just enough to hurt the intended target type badly, and not a kilo more.
China itself seems to be learning lessons. One of their concepts is an unpiloted cargo plane to deploy a drone swarm. Applied to sea and to a situation of projecting power to distance - an uncrewed submarine to deploy a torpedo swarm. It wouldn't return home, just deny a certain part of the sea to opponents. It could be slow, quiet and sleep at the bottom ahead of a conflict - and open up when needed.
An aircraft carrier was appropriate in its age - just like a tank was. But times have changed.
Regarding defense of Taiwan: it has to be mostly located on Taiwan, and has to be capable of taking out maybe 1000 vessels per day for 30 days, to defeat any hope of putting an occupying force on the island.
Lower capability may help achieve defense, but may not deter enough to avoid conflict.
Once the realization dawns that one will need (30 000 * factor of not arriving) guided weapons, so maybe around 100 000 guided weapons capable of taking out a vessel, the conclusion is obvious: if bad stuff happens, the Taiwanese will be using ground launched torpedos or maneuverable mines, and these will be literally made of "cheap IT supplies and plumbing components", because that's how you get quantity.
If the US gets involved, both sides will wreck each other's capital ships, because those cannot be hidden.
So what happens when an unnstoppable force meets an immovable obect?
I know the answer for that. A lot of shrapnel will happen - that will eventually hit and damage other spacecraft.
There's also a longer article that explains the background by BBC:
EU backs indefinite freeze on Russia's frozen cash ahead of loan plan for Ukraine
Context:
As for the concern about markets, I think it's exaggerated. Nobody in their right mind is expecting to keep their assets in foreign banks if they pursue a war of agression. A reasonable party to a conflict should expect their assets to be frozen and seized much faster than it's taken.
Also, this seems to reliably remove Russian incentive to threaten or persuade politicians in Belgium. If they no longer hold the keys, harming them won't get anyone any goods.
Just don't go there. There's no due process currently over there, at least for foreigners.
If you absolutely need, send a robot instead of yourself. Much less hassle. :)
Follow-up: thanks to everyone who did something. Today, I received an update from the Qasim Child Foundation (run by Mehdi Ghatei).
He informed that via several donation campaigns, both outside of Iran and inside, the sum of blood money to the family of Goli Kouhkan's husband has been raised - and during negotiations, they have agreed to drop their demand somewhat and grant forgiveness.
Mehdi mentioned that the goal had been reached without using the donations he gathered, and offered to refund my donation. Since my donation was small, I asked him to use it to help other people in unjust situations.
I hope Goli Kouhkan recovers from the traumatizing situations she has gone through, and manages to re-establish her life.
If you think of Kadyrov, he's visibly very unwell. Watched a video of him condemning a Ukrainian drone strike recently. Barely keeps his eyes open and reads like a robot.
In the first 2 years, we waited for use of armoured vehicles to hit their monthly rate of production. This has largely happened, the reserves of armour that USSR built up have been spent by Russia. Vehicles that still stand in parking lots require deep renovation (slow and costly). So this prediction has largely come true.
In the first 3 years, we waited for Russia's sovereign wealth fund to empty, ending Putin's ability to shelter the economy against the cost of war. This now seems to have largely happened, as the central bank is selling reserves of gold. It follows that more appropriate things to sell are scarce.
We also waited for Russia's inventory of civilian planes and railway locomotives + carriages to degrade due to lack of spare parts. This has not fully come true. Planes fly less, railways transport less, but they smuggle spare parts from third countries.
We have waited for Russia's oil and gas revenues to fall, and they have fallen, considerably. At current levels, under Ukrainian "sanctions by drone", Russia has to cut other budget lines to finance the war - and it has cut or frozen other budget lines (social security, health care, education, almost everything - war makes up approximately 40% of the government budget).
We have waited for the wages of soldiers to drop, and for soldiers to understand that inflation will make the money they got worthless. This has only partly happened - several regions have announced that they cannot pay large one-time compensations to people going to war.
We have waited for a crisis in Russia's economy, and in some sectors there already is a crisis. Purchases of new cars, real estate and agricultural equipment have fallen sharply. Many companies have reduced work weeks (reduced pay), owe employees wages, or cannot service their debts.
If Putin overplays his hand and economy does collapse, this does not automatically mean his replacement. He's a dictator and has a KGB background, he knows to expect rebellions and can supress them. He knows to expect a coup and may prevent one.
Eventually he'll be replaced. We can't influence or predict the personal characteristics of his successor, but whoever replaces him will very surely want to end the war, and doesn't have to save face while doing that.
However, Levada's polls - arguably the only polls which could indicate the real state of Russian society - do not indicate the ground shifting yet. They indicate that people are universally tired of the war, but not yet willing to end it by returning land to Ukraine.
For example, the "country is going in the right direction" indicator currently stands at 65%. Surfing on waves of war propaganda, it topped at 75% last year (rising from a low of 48% before the war - explains why Putin needed the war - to secure his own power), but it's in a downward trend.
So, sadly, propaganda is still working, but it's not working as well as it used to. In the "battle of the fridge and TV" (for people's opinion) sadly the TV still prevails.
A few frustrated notes from Estonia. Not first hand information, but visiting Ukrainian soldiers noted at a militrary exercise: "why don't you have appropriate amounts of drones? if they attack you, they'll drone you to death".
One part of the answer honestly seems to be "we're dimwits, but trying already" and the other part seems to be "we don't want to buy the current generation of sports drones, and sincerely hope that the next generation of dedicated war drones [which a random person can fly with 15 minutes of training] will be ready really soon".
A few meta-notes about the note: the local defense ministry holds various development competitions. So poorly that if I was involved, I would hide my face and cry into a pillow. Yes, companies do participate and develop drones. Local companies make pretty nice drones, some quadcopters, some medium range surveillance aircraft, some combustion powered strike drones, but the ministry does poor work and is visibly overwhelmed. In recognition of them, I must say that recently their announcements have been emphasizing that they're looking for low cost, fast production and potential of mass production.
Not a small part of the nonsense that's going on is how funds may be granted for development. Current EU rules state that for a project to qualify for aid, relevant work may not be started. That's crazy. Companies don't request state aid to accelerate development because they looked at the blue sky and thought "at that point in future, we'll run short of something and request state assistance". They discover it first hand, so at that point, they are no longer eligible for assistance. It's a joke.
Regardless of this joke of a system, a few local companies have new air defense systems ready and capable of hitting targets.
As for the local military... well, we don't have strategic nuclear weapons here, just ordinary artillery and a few HIMARS-es here and there. They do seem to guard their bases because a few drones have been forced to land and their operators have been detained for questioning.
As for buying things from abroad, unfortunately I have to curse. Local idots have decided to buy so many things from a particular genocidal Middle Eastern country that I'm ashamed. The systems, if they arrive, will likely work, but we'll be paying through the nose and have a dependency on the good will of a wanted war criminal. If the war criminal doesn't approve export contracts, we'll cry a river. I hope things are much better in France.
The US and Russian nuclear postures are far more alarming.
China still has a "relatively small" nuclear arsenal (approximately 600 warheads, of which 24 used to be deployed in missiles - apparently it's 100 now). That is not enough for a counter-force strike (disarming strike) at either the US or Russia, just enough to credibly threaten with unbearably big casualties. It should be noted that the arsenal has been growing, and will likely keep on growing. :(
The US has 3700 warheads with 1770 deployed in weapons. About 17 times more. Enough to immediately wage a civilization-ending war.
And then there's Russia. Nobody knows if their weapons work, they no longer cooperate with weapons control, but they have approximately 4300 warheads and last time when things were counted, had 1718 deployed in weapons. Enough to immediately wage a civilization-ending war.
While I would prefer China to keep its warheads off weapons, I cannot currently point a blaming finger as others aren't doing that either. :(