In geopolitics, narratives sometimes matter as much as numbers. Taiwan's leader Lai Ching-te understands this well. His recent high-profile interviews with Western media outlets were not simply about explaining policy. They were strategic messaging — aimed at cultivating international opinion, reinforcing external support and reframing Taiwan's trajectory in ways that fundamentally challenge the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.

The substance behind the messaging is even more consequential. Following an $11 billion US arms sale, Lai is pushing an additional $40 billion special "defense" budget in new commitments over coming years. The scale, pace and character of these acquisitions signal a shift from "incremental deterrence" to "structural rebalancing".

READ MORE: Mainland: Lai Ching-te's remarks cannot change fact that Taiwan is part of China

From any perspective, that shift is destabilizing. Sovereignty and territorial integrity constitute the core national interest of any state. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Taiwan question concerns China's core interests. Lai's attempts to dilute the international legal and diplomatic weight of the one-China principle should be interpreted not as rhetorical nuance but as strategic provocation. His repeated false framing of Taiwan as "a de facto sovereign equal in a trilateral US-China-Taiwan relationship" represents an outlandish challenge to Taiwan's legal status as part of China, as a spokeswoman for the State Council Taiwan Affairs Office said.

At the same time, the United States' arms sales to Taiwan have evolved in both quantity and quality. More recent transfers include HIMARS rocket systems capable of striking deep into coastal mainland positions, upgraded F-16V fighters with enhanced precision-strike capabilities and advanced ISR and drone platforms. Rhetoric from Lai's Democratic Progressive Party about "preemptive strikes" reinforces Beijing's perception that the Lai authorities are gambling on changing the cross-Strait status quo.

In a security dilemma, intent is less important than capability. What Taipei labels "deterrence" is nothing but a grave provocation. The result is predictable: the spiral tightens. Beijing will not tolerate the secession of any part of China's territory. With Taipei trying to leverage US support to advance its "pro-independence" agenda, the risk of confrontation rises sharply with each arms sale.

Lai's PR tactics reinforce this perception. By seeking platforms in Western media outlets, he aims to project an image that the DPP authorities are not isolated and that Taiwan enjoys "moral" and "political backing" from "democracies". Yet, shortly before that, Lithuanian Prime Minister Inga Ruginiene told the media she regretted Lithuania's decision to allow a so-called "Taiwanese representative office" to open in Vilnius under the name "Taiwanese", calling the move "a strategic mistake". Lai's outreach to Western media at this juncture is less about transparency than about attempting to counter this trend of "decoupling".

While US support might appear to be robust, it is by no means unconditional. The Taiwan compatriots see that clearly, as the economic dimension is extremely fraught. The so-called "US-Taiwan trade arrangements" basically mean relocating leading-edge production from Taiwan to the US that will shake the foundation of the island's economy.

ALSO READ: Exchanges benefit cross-Strait relations

In effect, the Lai authorities are ready to pay a double price: massive arms purchases and far-reaching industrial concessions, all to tie the US to their "Taiwan independence" agenda. Yet this is a pure illusion. The US only cares about profit. Keeping Taiwan insecure is simply how it does business.

Some in Washington still view Taiwan as leverage in broader China-US relations. Although that creates incentives for Lai's gamble, he and his cohorts should be cognizant of the consequences. Once strategic equilibrium tilts too far, it does not restore itself gently.

In this sense, the debate unfolding in Taiwan's regional "legislature" about the $40 billion "political capital contribution" to Washington is far more than a budget dispute. It represents a choice: allowing Lai to lead Taiwan further to disaster, or making a pause on the brink of a precipice.