# Is Reuters' Taiwan Nightmare Scenario Realistic > On July 3, 2026, Reuters published an exclusive investigation titled "Inside Taiwan's nightmare scenario," describing an internal exercise run in front of - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Analysis - Published: 2026-07-05 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-scenario-cauchemar-de-taiwan-devoile-par-reuters-est-il-realiste ## Introduction: what is this Taiwan doomsday scenario really worth ### An exclusive investigation that traveled the world On **July 3, 2026**, **Reuters** published an exclusive investigation titled "Inside Taiwan's nightmare scenario," describing an internal **exercise** run in front of more than **370 government and military officials** in **Nantou**, central **Taiwan**. The scenario simulated a **Chinese blockade**, a **6.8-magnitude earthquake** exploited by Beijing, infrastructure **sabotage**, a bank run, civil unrest, and ultimately a **full-scale invasion**. I am going to verify, fact by fact, what this investigation actually claims, what it does not say, and what other independent sources confirm or qualify. That is the very principle of a **fact-check**: nothing is taken for granted, even when the source is as credible as **Reuters**. *A simulation **exercise** is not a prophecy, but the fact that Taiwan takes it seriously enough to mobilize 370 officials deserves attention, without giving in to either panic or indifference.* ## Claim 1: the exercise really happened with exclusive Reuters access ### What the report **confirms** **TRUE, WITH NUANCE.** Reuters says it obtained rare, exclusive access to a closed-door exercise held over several days in **Nantou** county. The exercise began with a seven-hour tabletop simulation, followed by field maneuvers including the simulated interception of a **Chinese drone** threatening a power plant and the setup of food rationing stations. This part of the account is corroborated by video published by Reuters itself, showing footage shot on site, which reinforces the credibility of the access claimed by the newsroom. ### What remains unverifiable from the outside As a columnist working remotely, I cannot independently confirm the exact scope of this journalistic access. I am relying on the reputation of **Reuters**, a news agency whose verification standards have been documented for decades, but I honestly note this methodological limit. *I trust Reuters because its track record justifies it, not because I could personally verify every detail of a closed-door military exercise held on the other side of the world.* ## Claim 2: the scenario combines **blockade**, earthquake, **sabotage** and **invasion** ### A threat combination consistent with documented Chinese doctrine **PLAUSIBLE AND DOCUMENTED.** According to the American think tank **CSIS**, Chinese **military doctrine** does indeed treat a **naval blockade** as a preferred option ahead of a direct **invasion**, precisely because it can break Taiwanese resistance without necessarily committing ground troops right away. Adding an earthquake to the scenario is not gratuitous: Taiwan sits in an active seismic zone, and a natural disaster combined with a military crisis is a classic **stress-test** scenario in civil defense planning. Reports from the **Institute for the Study of War** published throughout 2026 document a real intensification of Chinese aerial incursions into Taiwan's **air defense identification zone**, which makes the sabotage-and-blockade scenario less speculative than it might appear. ### What the scenario may be exaggerating Some analysts cited by the American **intelligence** agency **ODNI**, in its annual threat assessment published in March 2026, believe China is not planning a fixed invasion for 2027, contrary to the famous "Davidson window" often cited in media coverage. The Nantou scenario therefore remains a maximalist preparedness exercise, not a prediction of imminence. *Preparing for the worst is not the same as announcing the worst will happen tomorrow morning, and that is a nuance too many sensational articles forget to make.* ## Claim 3: China is genuinely intensifying military pressure around Taiwan ### The numbers that confirm the trend **TRUE.** According to data compiled by the **Institute for the Study of War**, Chinese military incursions into Taiwan's air defense zone have exceeded an average of **300 sorties per month** since President **Lai Ching-te's** inauguration in May 2024, more than double the average of the previous two years. In December 2025, China's "Justice Mission 2025" exercise included **274 sorties** in a single month, with 125 concentrated over two days of intensive drills. These figures are not vague estimates, they come from systematic tracking by **Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense**, cross-checked by several independent Western research centers. ### The often underestimated role of the Chinese coast guard Beyond military aviation, the **Chinese coast guard** is stepping up incursions into waters administered by Taiwan, notably near the Kinmen islands. This "gray zone" dimension of Chinese pressure is documented by the **Japan Times** and by regular ISW updates, which describe a deliberate effort to normalize Chinese presence without triggering an open **conflict**. *Chinese pressure on Taiwan is not limited to headlines about fighter jets, it is also playing out patiently in territorial waters where coast guard vessels chip away at Taiwanese sovereignty meter by meter.* ## Claim 4: Taiwan is concretely strengthening its defense in response ### A historic increase in the defense **budget** **TRUE AND QUANTIFIED.** Taiwan has approved a **defense budget** increase that, for the first time since 2009, exceeds the threshold of **3.32 percent of GDP**, with an envelope of several hundred billion Taiwanese dollars for 2026, according to data reported by **Reuters**. President **Lai Ching-te** had explicitly set the target of surpassing 3 percent of **GDP** as early as summer 2025. This increase is funding, among other things, the acquisition of American anti-ship **Harpoon missiles**, with a target of more than **1,800 missiles** deployed by 2029, combined with domestic production of **Hsiung Feng II and III missiles**, according to **Asia Times**. ### An asymmetric strategy inspired by Ukraine Analysts cited by Asia Times explicitly note that Taiwan's strategy draws on **Ukrainian successes** against the Russian **fleet** in the Black Sea, favoring precise asymmetric strikes over a frontal **confrontation** with the Chinese navy. It is a lesson imported directly from the **conflict** in **Ukraine**, and it deserves to be highlighted. *Watching Taiwan study Ukrainian naval drones to prepare its own defense **confirms**, once again, that Kyiv's resistance has become a reference manual for every threatened democracy.* ## Claim 5: the United States remains a **reliable** partner for Taiwan ### What the facts show, without complacency **NUANCED.** Asia Times reports that Taiwan "is racing to arm itself as US reliability wanes," pointing to a suspension of American arms sales tied to capacity constraints after the conflict with Iran. This is a fact worth noting without conspiracy theorizing: the American military supply chain is under **strain** across several theaters at once. This does not mean Washington is abandoning Taiwan. Harpoon missile **deliveries** remain scheduled through 2029, and successive American administrations have maintained, at minimum, a strategic ambiguity that deters Beijing without formally committing to automatic intervention. ### Japan's role, a quiet but decisive actor **Japan**, through its prime minister as cited by the **Taipei Times**, has explicitly broadened the definition of a **situation threatening its national survival** to include a naval blockade of Taiwan, which would open the door to Japanese intervention as early as the blockade phase, without waiting for a full invasion. *I note with a degree of optimism that American uncertainty is pushing other democracies, like Japan, to clarify their own red lines, which seriously complicates Beijing's calculations.* ## Claim 6: this scenario is alarmist propaganda rather than serious assessment ### Why this accusation does not hold up against the facts **FALSE.** Contrary to what skeptical voices might suggest, this Nantou exercise fits into a civil defense preparedness policy documented since 2024, with the creation of a Taiwanese **civil defense committee**, the publication of official guides, and a growing number of similar exercises, such as the one simulating a maritime blockade reported by Reuters as early as June 25, 2026. The regularity and escalating sophistication of these exercises, year after year, suggest methodical planning rather than a one-off communications operation meant to impress Western allies. ### The real **risk**: Chinese disinformation, not the Taiwanese exercise Ironically, it is on the Chinese side that disinformation is documented: accounts based in **China** spread, according to **AFP** fact-checkers cited by the ISW, videos falsely claiming Taiwan would run out of liquefied natural gas within eleven days because of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by **Iran**, a claim fabricated to undermine Taiwanese public morale. *Accusing Taiwan of alarmism while Beijing funds calculated disinformation campaigns amounts to a reversal of responsibility I refuse to endorse.* ## Claim 7: the West is passively watching without learning any lessons ### What recent Western reactions show **FALSE, IN PART.** Several Western governments, including **Japan** and the **United States**, have already publicly adjusted their doctrine or their **arms** **deliveries** in direct response to rising tensions around **Taiwan**. This is not passivity, even if the pace of reaction remains, by the admission of several analysts cited by **Reuters**, slower than China's rising **power**. The European Union, for its part, remains more discreet on the Taiwan file than on the Ukrainian one, which illustrates an implicit hierarchy of Western geopolitical priorities that I choose to name without complacency. ### Why this hierarchy of priorities worries me Treating the Chinese **threat** to Taiwan as a secondary matter compared to the war in **Ukraine** would be a major strategic mistake, given how closely the two theaters are linked in the doctrine of authoritarian regimes that closely watch the Western response to each crisis to calibrate their own ambitions. *I worry that Western attention, rightly focused on Ukraine, is leaving Taiwan in a strategic blind spot that Beijing knows very well how to exploit.* ## Conclusion: a serious scenario, not sensationalist fiction ### The overall verdict of this fact-check Across all the claims verified, the picture drawn by **Reuters** holds up under scrutiny: the exercise really took place, Chinese military pressure is real and quantified, Taiwan's defense response is concrete and budgeted, and concerns about American reliability are documented without being exaggerated. Only the idea of an imminent 2027 invasion remains, to this day, unconfirmed by Western **intelligence** services themselves. This fact-check confirms one essential thing: Taiwan is not bluffing when it says it is preparing for a combined scenario of blockade, natural disaster, and invasion. It is a cautious assessment, grounded in trends observable for several years. *A fact-check only has value if it resists both the temptation of sensationalism and that of comfortable denial, and that is the balance I tried to strike here.* ### What this means for the West For the **West**, this Taiwanese scenario should serve as a warning rather than a distant anecdote: the combination of **hybrid warfare**, disinformation, and conventional military pressure being tested by **China** around Taiwan could become a model exported elsewhere, especially if Beijing draws lessons applicable to other sensitive theaters. **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### 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. ## Sources ### Primary sources - Reuters, exclusive investigation into the Nantou civil defense exercise — July 3, 2026 - Institute for the Study of War, China-Taiwan update — July 2, 2026 ### Secondary sources - CSIS, analysis of Chinese blockade scenarios against Taiwan - Asia Times, on Taiwanese rearmament and American reliability — June 2026 - Taipei Times, on Japan's position regarding a Taiwan blockade — April 2026 - Reuters, maritime blockade simulation exercise — June 25, 2026 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-scenario-cauchemar-de-taiwan-devoile-par-reuters-est-il-realiste