The result might be close to two nodes behind, but the design and production cost might be higher since they don't have access to EUV machines. I'd say they're further behind than "two nodes". But still, pretty damn advanced.
If their process is essentially copied from TSMC, can they keep up with R&D though? China is becoming an increasingly less desirable place to live, so just poaching Samsung and TSMC engineers and copying the process might be increasingly difficult. And I doubt they'll be able to build the tight relationship with machine designers/manufacturers like ASML that TSMC has.
Of course it depends who you ask. Hypothetically, China could tomorrow claim ownership of Japan, and then the answer to the question of Japanese sovereignty would also "depend on who you ask."
This isn’t even that far fetched. The justification for the “nine-dash line” that claims all of the South China Sea in violation of international maritime law is based on some spurious claim like “China controlled this sea at some point in the past”.
It’s only a step from there to making Korea and Japan vassal states because they were at some point in the past.
It's exceedingly far fetched considering PRC claims have consistently reflected her inherited claims originally made by ROC (Taiwan) as determined by post WW2 treatises, no more, but frequently less. See PRC resolving 12/14 land borders with mostly concessions, reduced ROCs 11dash claim to 9dash for North Vietnam. PRC territory literally shrank under CCP whose settlement history has demonstrated the opposite of expansionism. The "spurious" history claim meme is ROC/TW legal rhetoric that PRC maintains for legal lulz but really it's ROC claimed this, so PRC gain ROC claims after UN recognition shifted to PRC and ultimately that's enough, no reason for PRC to concede on any claims it didn't make but again, inherited.
Also PH vs PRC Arbitral Tribunal ruling is NOT formally recognized by UN or UNCLOS therefore PRC's SCS claims is not in violation of any international law. As in actual international law per UN, not make believe, actually spurious, rules-based-order west likes to pretend is international law. UNCLOS does not supercede territorial disputes that predated it nor have legal authority to settle these disputes, especially when party of dispute (PRC) did not accede to the optional arbituation system.
There's a great scene in the book Shogun. Toranaga says "There is never any justification for a vassal to rebel against his master". Anjin San replies "There is my lord. If you win!"
It's really complicated regarding Taiwan, though. There are groups in both countries that say there is only one China and the other one is just occupied by an illegitimate government.
> It's really complicated regarding Taiwan, though
It’s a defacto independent country with 50% wanting to be independent, 25% wanting the status quo, and 10% wanting to be part of China. Not especially complicated.
I think that’s underselling it, no? The world’s most populous country has a breakaway state from a civil war a hundred years ago, both sides claim to be the rightful government of the whole country. The worlds dominant superpower both supports one side and has an ideological disagreement with the other (while being completely dependent on it for both industry and finance). Both sides of the conflict recognise that there is one China but neither can agree on who should be in charge and there is not even a remote hope a resolution, the most likely outcome is the status quo continuing on forever but diplomatic blunders from the USA have both stirred the pot locally and potentially caused a knock-on effect in the Ukraine conflict (with China recently announcing joint military ops with Russian forces)
And even then I'm simplifying it and omitting some other complicating factors. China/Taiwan issue is many things but straight-forward isn't one of them
