DECODING: Tanks in Taipei: the five-day exercise preparing for the unthinkable

Tanks in the streets of Taipei: a striking image

Military tanks patrolling the streets of Taipei. To an uninformed observer, the image might evoke a coup d'état or an occupation. In reality, it is exactly the opposite: a democracy of 23 million people rehearsing its defense procedures against a genuine external threat. The Washington Post of June 22, 2026 reported that Taiwan conducted a five-day "immediate combat readiness" military exercise, a direct response to what Taiwanese forces describe as a PLA "toward real war" drill by the People's Liberation Army.

These five days of exercises are not an isolated incident. They are part of a dynamic of military intensification in the Taiwan Strait that is increasingly alarming strategists across the region and worldwide. The week of June 21–27, 2026 was particularly charged: the Taiwanese exercise, the launch of RIMPAC 2026 with 40 ships and 31 nations, a tabletop exercise simulating a maritime quarantine by China, and a rare warning by European powers about the Chinese threat to Taiwan.

The PLA's "toward real war" exercise: what did it signal?

The phrase "toward real war" used by the PLA to describe its own exercises is itself a rhetorical signal. This is not a routine exercise — it is an exercise explicitly presented as a simulation of real combat scenarios. The PLA seeks to demonstrate, simultaneously to its own troops, to the Taiwanese population, and to international observers, that its military capabilities are ready for a real operation.

Faced with this deliberate provocation, the Taiwanese response was immediate and visible. Tanks in the streets of Taipei. Urban defense exercises. Simulations of coordination between the armed forces and civilian authorities. This is not posturing. It is serious preparation that sends a message in return: Taiwan is ready, and any potential invader will face organized resistance.

Tanks in Taipei — it shocks, even for the right reason. That shock is useful. It reminds Taiwanese populations and the world that the threat is not abstract. That it is there, a few dozen kilometers away across the strait. That exercises are not military theater but survival preparation. This shock is necessary to sustain attention and support.

The components of the Taiwanese exercise

A five-day "immediate combat readiness" exercise like the one described by the Washington Post of June 22, 2026 generally encompasses several dimensions. The purely military dimension: deployment of armored units, live-fire exercises, coordination between different military branches. The civil-military dimension: evacuation procedures, activation of civilian shelters, crisis communications between military and civilian authorities. And the psychological dimension: acclimatizing the population to military presence in an urban environment, reducing potential panic in the event of a real crisis.

The presence of tanks in the streets of Taipei responds specifically to an urban defense scenario — the situation in which enemy forces would have succeeded in establishing a foothold in Taiwanese urban areas. This scenario, considered unlikely in the first phase of a conflict, is nevertheless integrated into Taiwanese defense planning since the strategic overhauls that followed Ukraine. Ukrainian urban resistance in Kharkiv, Kherson, and other cities demonstrated its effectiveness.

Ukrainian lessons applied to Taiwan

Ukraine's resistance since 2022 has provided a defense manual that armies worldwide are studying. Taiwan has drawn several specific lessons. First lesson: territorial defense at fine granularity — every neighborhood, every street is defensible. Second lesson: short-range anti-armor capability changes the dynamics of urban combat. Third lesson: civilian resilience — maintaining essential services, information, communication — is a military component in its own right.

These lessons have directly influenced Taiwanese exercises. The integration of civilian militias, the reinforcement of reserve formations, the distribution of light defensive equipment to territorial units — all initiatives directly inspired by what Ukraine did, often at the last minute, and that would have been far more effective if prepared in advance. Taiwan does not want to make the same mistake.

The war in Ukraine has changed the way Taiwan prepares for its own defense. This is one of the least visible but most important consequences of the conflict. Zelensky showed that resistance is possible even against a superior military power. Taiwan is studying and adapting that Ukrainian manual. And it should give Beijing reason for pause.

The world's largest naval exercise

RIMPAC 2026 — "Rim of the Pacific Exercise" — began on June 24, 2026, running through July 31, according to ThinkChina of June 25, 2026. Approximately 40 ships, 25,000 personnel, 31 participating nations — this is the world's largest multinational naval exercise. Its geography and composition send an unambiguous message to Beijing: American naval power is not alone — it is accompanied by an extensive network of alliances and partnerships.

The participation of 31 nations is itself revealing. These countries are not all formal allies of the United States — some participate simply to maintain interoperability with the American navy and its allies. But their presence at RIMPAC means that in the event of a conflict in the Pacific, they have the capacity to operate alongside American forces. This is precisely the kind of network that China cannot replicate — it has no allies worthy of the name capable of deploying significant naval forces at its side.

Valiant Shield 2026: the airborne component

The Valiant Shield 2026 exercise, which took place on June 22 according to the same source, represents the air-naval component of American presence in the region. It typically involves aircraft carriers and long-range aircraft, testing the capability for air power projection in the Western Pacific. This capability — striking targets at long range from distant launch points — constitutes one of the most significant American military advantages vis-à-vis China.

The simultaneity of RIMPAC and Valiant Shield with Chinese exercises and the Taiwanese readiness exercise is probably not coincidental. It creates a density of military activity in the region that compels all actors to maintain a high state of readiness and sends an unmistakable presence signal to Chinese observers.

RIMPAC 2026 with 31 nations — this is the response to those who claim the United States is isolated in the Pacific. No. They are surrounded by democracies that have chosen sides. China, for its part, can line up Russia and North Korea. That is an alliance balance sheet that should give Xi Jinping pause — if rationality prevails over nationalist ambitions.

Why the European warning is historically significant

The warning issued by "European powers" about the Chinese threat to Taiwan, reported by Yahoo News of June 24, 2026, deserves particular attention. Five years ago, such a warning would have been politically unimaginable from European governments that cultivated the concept of "economic relations with China" as separate from security questions. That paradigm is collapsing.

Several factors have contributed to this evolution. First, Chinese support for Russia in the war in Ukraine made it impossible to maintain the fiction of neutrality. Then, growing Chinese military provocations in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea made the threat concrete even for European public opinion. Finally, the post-COVID revision of supply chains reduced European economic dependence on China.

The risk of signal escalation: a spiral no one wants

There is, however, a real risk in the multiplication of these signals. Each European warning, each American exercise, each designation on the 1260H list is interpreted in Beijing as an element of a "containment" and encirclement strategy. The national-populist propaganda of the CCP uses these elements to reinforce the sense of a China besieged by hostile powers — which, paradoxically, strengthens the regime's internal cohesion and creates pressures toward a show of force.

Managing this spiral is one of the most complex diplomatic challenges of the moment. Deterrence must be maintained at a sufficient level to keep the cost-benefit calculus of aggression against Taiwan unfavorable for Beijing, while not fueling an encirclement rhetoric that would push toward action. This is a delicate balance whose outcome remains uncertain.

The spiral of crossed military exercises in the Pacific reassures me as much as it worries me. It reassures because it means deterrence is working and Taiwan is not alone. It worries because an uncontrolled escalation of signals can create the conditions for an incident that gets out of hand. This is the paradox of deterrence: it demands firmness and restraint simultaneously.

Quarantine as a tool of graduated pressure

The tabletop exercise reported by Bloomberg of June 25, 2026, simulating a maritime quarantine imposed by Chinese forces, targets the scenario considered most likely for Chinese action in the near to medium term. A maritime quarantine — distinct from a full blockade or an invasion — would allow China to demonstrate its capacity to control maritime access to Taiwan without formally triggering an act of war.

Concretely, a maritime quarantine would mean PLA vessels intercepting and inspecting merchant ships destined for Taiwan, delaying or blocking imports deemed "strategic" by Beijing. China could present this as a "control" measure rather than an act of aggression, testing the American and international response before going further if resistance is weak.

How can Taiwan resist it?

Resistance to a maritime quarantine passes through several axes. First, strategic reserves: Taiwan is seeking to increase its stocks of energy, food, and critical materials to withstand a period of reduced maritime access. Then, alternative routes: developing air links and access points less vulnerable to maritime interdiction. Finally, international response: ensuring that the United States and their allies have prepared plans to break a quarantine, which makes this scenario more costly for China.

The tabletop exercise serves precisely to test these responses, identify gaps, and develop protocols. This is intelligent preparation. And the fact that Bloomberg reported its existence is itself a signal to Beijing: we are simulating your preferred scenario, and we are preparing our response.

Taiwan's maritime quarantine tabletop exercise — this is exactly the kind of preparation I would have wanted to see in Europe on Russian scenarios before 2022. Anticipate, simulate, prepare. Don't wait for the unimaginable to happen and then realize you were not ready. Taiwan learns fast. And this lesson costs far less simulated than under real conditions.

What China does for Russia and what that foreshadows

The Chinese threat to Taiwan cannot be analyzed without noting the growing interweaving of Russian and Chinese strategies. China is actively supporting the Russian war economy — by purchasing Russian oil and gas at preferential prices, by supplying dual-use components, and by offering alternative markets to entities sanctioned by the West. This support is not altruistic: it is a strategic investment in the destabilization of the West by proxy.

The longer Russia holds out in Ukraine, the more the West is distracted, exhausted, and resource-constrained. The more China has time to prepare its options for Taiwan and evaluate Western reactions. Strategic coordination between Moscow and Beijing is not a formal alliance — their interests diverge on many points. But on this precise point — weakening the West — their interests converge perfectly.

North Korea as the third actor

North Korea completes this picture by mobilizing its forces alongside Russia in Ukraine — according to confirmed information on the presence of North Korean soldiers in the conflict. Pyongyang marked in June 2026 the second anniversary of the mutual defense treaty with Russia by pledging "deeper ties," according to Ground News of June 22, 2026.

The convergence of Russia, China, and North Korea around a common strategy of destabilizing the West is one of the most dangerous geopolitical developments of the current period. They are not perfectly coordinated allies — their interests diverge on many points. But their convergence on the objective of destabilizing the liberal international order is coherent enough to represent a systemic threat.

Russia, China, North Korea — the axis of revisionist powers is consolidating before our eyes. This is not conspiracy theory. These are signed treaties, deployed soldiers, exchanged components, aligned UN votes. This axis has as its objective the dismantling of the international order built after 1945. And the West is still debating whether it is really a threat.

Global supply chains and Taiwanese vulnerability

Defending Taiwan is not solely a political or military stake — it is also a first-order global economic issue. The island produces the vast majority of the advanced semiconductors on which all modern economies depend. A disruption to Taiwanese production, whether by military action or a maritime quarantine, would trigger a global chip shortage with catastrophic economic consequences for all developed economies.

This economic factor creates a solidarity of interest around Taiwan that extends far beyond foreign policy circles. Industries as diverse as automotive, consumer electronics, medicine, defense, and aerospace — all depend on semiconductors produced in Taiwan. This interdependence is an additional deterrent factor: a Chinese military operation against Taiwan would inflict global economic damage that would also affect China itself.

The five-day exercise as a message to markets and investors

Taiwan's military exercises also carry an economic dimension that is often ignored. By demonstrating its defense capacity and preparedness, the island sends a message to international financial markets and investors: Taiwan is not an easy target. This confidence in Taiwan's resistance capability helps sustain the island's economic credibility and prevents the capital flight that geopolitical tensions could provoke.

Companies like TSMC, MediaTek, and other Taiwanese technology giants have maintained investment and growth trajectories despite Chinese military pressure. This economic resilience is itself a form of resistance — by showing that normal economic life continues despite the threats, Taiwan refuses to be psychologically paralyzed by Beijing's pressure.

The economic dimension of defending Taiwan — the semiconductors, the supply chains, the financial markets — may be the most universal argument for supporting the island. Even those indifferent to political or democratic stakes should understand that their smartphone, their car, their household appliances depend on Taiwan's freedom. This is an argument that does not get used enough.

How the North Korea and Taiwan crises feed each other

North Korea and Taiwan represent two distinct crises in the Indo-Pacific region, but their interconnection is real and growing. North Korea has sent soldiers to fight alongside Russian forces in Ukraine, consolidating its alignment with the Russia-China axis. It is simultaneously developing its ballistic and nuclear capabilities, maintaining constant pressure on South Korea and Japan — which are also Taiwan's closest allies in the region.

A crisis involving North Korea — a ballistic escalation, a major military provocation — could divert American military capabilities at precisely the moment China decided to act on Taiwan. This potential coordination between the two crises is a nightmare for American military planners. Maintaining sufficient presence on both fronts simultaneously is a genuine capability challenge.

Kim Jong-un and the rapprochement with Putin: what it means for Taiwan

The second anniversary of the Russia-North Korea mutual defense treaty was marked in June 2026 by declarations from Kim Jong-un pledging "deeper ties" with Russia. This consolidation of the Moscow-Pyongyang axis has direct implications for Taiwan's security. It means that any conflict over Taiwan could activate coordinated responses from multiple actors within the authoritarian axis.

For Taiwan's defenders, this reality strengthens the argument for extended deterrence. The coalition supporting Taiwan — the United States, Japan, Australia, European powers — must be sufficiently broad and prepared to respond to simultaneous crises on multiple fronts. RIMPAC 2026 with 31 nations is a partial response to this need for multi-front preparedness. It must be complemented by operational planning that explicitly integrates simultaneous crisis scenarios.

Kim Jong-un pledging deeper ties with Putin in June 2026 — this is the symbol of an authoritarian axis in the process of consolidation. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran — these regimes do not form a perfectly coordinated alliance, but they share a common objective: to weaken the liberal international order that the West defends. Against that, coherence and coordination in the democratic response is not an option. It is an existential necessity.

The strategic significance of the Taiwanese exercise

Taiwan's five-day exercise, with its tanks in the streets of Taipei, is not provocation. It is deterrence. It is a message to Beijing: we are preparing ourselves, we have drawn the lessons of Ukraine, and any attempt to subjugate us by force will encounter serious resistance. This message, combined with the presence of RIMPAC and the European warnings, forms a picture of credible deterrence.

Is it enough? No one can state this with certainty. Deterrence works until it does not. But not conducting these exercises — not preparing, not sending signals — would certainly be worse. Taiwan has chosen active preparation. It is the right choice.

What the West must take from this week in the Pacific

The week of June 21–27, 2026 in the Pacific must be read as a snapshot of the Sino-American competition at its current stage. An active economic competition via designation lists and export controls. A military competition via crossed exercises and presence demonstrations. A diplomatic competition via European warnings and alliance signals.

The West is engaged in this competition, whether it wants to be or not. The question is whether it is engaged with sufficient coherence, resources, and will. The Taiwanese tanks in the streets of Taipei are a partial answer to that question. The rest depends on us.

Five days of exercises, tanks in the streets of Taipei, a maritime quarantine simulation, 31 nations at RIMPAC — the week of June 22–27, 2026 in the Pacific looks like a dress rehearsal before an event whose date no one yet knows. I hope that event never comes. But I prefer a Taiwan that prepares for the unthinkable and never sees it arrive, to a Taiwan caught by surprise that regrets not having prepared.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.