Skywatcher
Captain
It would have worked in 2010, maybe even out to 2015.
Mr T
Senior Member
You mean at a time when the USSR didn't share a border with Germany and so could have largely stood back and let western Europe do the bulk of the fighting? Anyway, Appeasement wasn't a reason to carve up Poland.
You're completely missing the point. It's not about "who won the war", it's the fact it was a joint effort. Every convoy that was sent to the USSR meant Soviet troops that went home at the end of the war alive.
Stalin also wanted the US and UK to open another front up in western Europe to take pressure off the USSR even after the Germans started suffering defeats there. He continued to ask for more to be done even after Italy was invaded. Not because he was losing the war but because he wanted to avoid more casualties. Even prior to the Normandy landings had to keep hundreds of thousands of personnel permanently based in the region and even more in France, not to mention Italy. That was pressure kept off the Russian Front.
I know there's a view in some parts of the world that life is cheap, but in others every life saved is important. Hence the idea that "Europeans" invaded Russia when Europeans were also helping save it is barmy.
Honestly, I couldn't care less how competent the GRU are. An innocent civilian that had never done Russia any harm was killed due to the actions of the Russian agents (Dawn Sturgess). Even if we discount the suffering of the victims that recovered, the idea less importance on the incident because the intended targets were not killed is heartless.
Imagine if the US or Japan had released a chemical weapon in mainland China intending to kill a double-agent working for the MSS, but instead had killed an uninvolved Chinese citizen. Are you really going to tell me that Chinese people would have gone "oh well, there's 1.4 billion Chinese so let's not get too excited about this"?
First, Obama did not secure total destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. Regardless of what proportion were destroyed, Assad kept hold of some as can be seen by the chemical weapon attacks in 2017 and 2018.
Second, the invasion of the Crimea and eastern Ukraine has caused long-lasting problems over US-Russian relations that can't be resolved by nuclear arms agreements.
Honestly, I can't recall a single credible commentator suggesting that there was some sort of successful improvement of relations with Russia. The only question people asked was how far it was Obama's or Putin's fault.
Last edited:
While I broadly agree on your points I have to disagree on this
That the long lasting problems were caused over the invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is from an American/EU prospective.
If you go now and read any Russian sources, from Russia's prospective what caused all this was the "colour revolution"(CIA operation/encouraged) which happened in Ukraine. I mean everyone knew that if Ukrained decided to join NATO that Russia would intervene.
And if you remember during the "colour revolution" the West was very supportive of it and it was clearly aiming to draw Ukraine to its fold. Everyone who had basic geopolitical knowledge knew that Russia would not leave their Crimean naval base. It was fantasy for anyone in the West to think that Russia would abandon their only port there.
So in this case, I would bet 100% that the Americans knew about it and ultimately pushed through it regardless of the consequences.
Now you can talk about the Obama "reset" all you want but from my point of view that was mostly Obama sweet talking the Russians while carrying a knife on his back ready to stab them a couple of years later
That the long lasting problems were caused over the invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is from an American/EU prospective.
If you go now and read any Russian sources, from Russia's prospective what caused all this was the "colour revolution"(CIA operation/encouraged) which happened in Ukraine. I mean everyone knew that if Ukrained decided to join NATO that Russia would intervene.
And if you remember during the "colour revolution" the West was very supportive of it and it was clearly aiming to draw Ukraine to its fold. Everyone who had basic geopolitical knowledge knew that Russia would not leave their Crimean naval base. It was fantasy for anyone in the West to think that Russia would abandon their only port there.
So in this case, I would bet 100% that the Americans knew about it and ultimately pushed through it regardless of the consequences.
Now you can talk about the Obama "reset" all you want but from my point of view that was mostly Obama sweet talking the Russians while carrying a knife on his back ready to stab them a couple of years later
Last edited:
Russia was never going to allow NATO to hold Crimea. The base at Sevastopol allows them to basically control the entire Black Sea. You can blockade the Sea of Azov by controlling Kerch. The Sea of Azov is connected to the Don River. A large portion of the imports and exports of Russia pass through this region and through the nearby port of Novorossiysk including nearly all food imports and exports because it is close to Russia's farming heartland. It is also the only major ice free port Russia has. Russia is as likely to allow the Sevastopol to fall into NATO control as the US is to allow New Orleans to fall into foreign control and bottle up the Mississippi.
Last edited:
@
@gelgoog I think Russia made a mistake to restrain the Donbass army march to MARIUPOL, they are within reach of that city and is thinly defended.
Why do you believe so many lies? Poland was not a functioning state when the USSR crossed the border, the USSR asked for permission from the Polish state and received no response since the Polish government had fled like the pitiful racist cowards they were. Furthermore, Poland illegally occupied Belarus and Ukrainian land after the war in 1920, violating the Versailles treaty. The USSR liberated Belarusian and Ukrainian people from Polish oppression, correcting a grave injustice. Also Assad has never used chemical weapons in the civil war and it's quite obvious the Skripals were not poisoned by Russia, if they were poisoned at all. The British are still illegally detaining a Russian citizen (Yulia) to hide the truth of this case.
broadsword
Brigadier
Their discussion was about WWII.
"It is exporting surveillance tools, embedding technology in 5G communications networks , and using cyber-capabilities to both steal sensitive information and shape political discourse overseas. "
>>> There is no evidence of embedding backdoors despite 3 years of scanning and analysis, with source code in hand. All they can claim is that there are some inefficiency and sloppiness. So you are telling me no one can afford a firewall? What happened to Palo Alto Network?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"During the Cold War, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger cautioned against “ten-foot-tall syndrome”: the tendency among U.S. policymakers to view their Soviet competitors as towering figures of immense strength and overwhelming intellect."
>>> The Soviets were at their height, no more than ¼ of US GDP. USSR military expenditure were at one point 25% of their GDP.
China is the reverse of that. They have a larger GDP, a vibrant market economy that ties them to more nations and regions. The following is based on PPP GDP. Also, they spend somewhere around 2-3% of their GDP on defense. The Chinese spends 2X on education as they do on defense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"China is at risk of growing old before it grows rich, becoming a graying society with degrading economic fundamentals that impede growth. The working-age population is already shrinking;"
>>> US will have a ratio of 3 workers to 1 retiree by 2050.
Hass failed to account for the impact of technology. An economy is measured by its Citizen’s Productivity. While it would fall to about 1.3B by 2050, the productivity per citizen can be expected to be boosted by automation and urbanization.
All developed countries have a lower birth rate. The problem is the cost of healthcare. I can easily see where the cost of health care for 3 Chinese retirees be far cheaper than 2 Americans.
Also, does not all retirees are the same. The Chinese retirement age is 55, not 65.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Moreover, it has already squeezed out most of the large productivity gains that come with a population becoming more educated and urban and adopting technologies to make manufacturing more efficient."
>>> The best educated generation are those born after 2000 and 2010, they have just barely started to enter the work force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"China is running out of productive places to invest in infrastructure, and rising debt levels will further complicate its growth path."
>>> China is ~60% urbanized, there is another 20% to go. There is plenty to invest in, particularly with IOT revolution. Also BRI is aim at expanding development to Western China. China is building a HSR network to Vietnam and Thailand to link SE Asia to SW China. Hass is ignorant of development. These are the same people who said that there wont be enough HSR rider to make it profitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"China’s debt has more than doubled, from 141 percent of GDP in 2008 to over 300 percent in 2019."
>>> That a false figure, conflating domestic debt denominated in RMB and foreign debt. It also conflates private debt and public debt. China can out grow its debt, we might not. China’s debt ratio is in line with rest of the developing world. Coming from a US, which has the largest debt burden and social program obligations. It is us that print money out of thin air, not China.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ballooning debt will make it harder for China to buy its way up the ladder from low-end manufacturing to high value-added production, as South Korea and Taiwan did at similar levels of development."
>>> Is he really comparing a 50m (ROK) and a 23m (ROC) economy with a 1400m (PRC) economy? GTFO! Also ROK and ROC were dependent on US for market, China has its own market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Meanwhile, the political system is growing increasingly sclerotic as power becomes more concentrated around Xi. Once renowned for technocratic competence, the Chinese Communist Party is becoming better known for Leninist rigidity."
>>> BTW, how long was Angela Merkel in power? She’s been there since 2005. Xi took power in NOV 2012. Why isn’t Merkel labels as sclerotic? I would come back in 2029 (2013 + 16) and see if Xi leadership is sclerotic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space for local policy experimentation appears to be shrinking, as more decisions become concentrated in Beijing."
>>> In the early years of reform central government had very little resources. Today, with digital currency, tax regime is more efficient and the Central government as more resources and thus power to formulate and execute whole of nation long term policy. This has also cut down on local corruption and strife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The top-down nature of the system has also made it more difficult for officials to revisit past decisions or report bad news to the top."
>>> More tech adoption means that assessment can be made in real time based on big data, analytics and surveillance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From a strategic perspective, China’s military likely will remain relatively constrained for the foreseeable future in its ability to project force beyond its immediate periphery, let alone to marry power projection with political and economic influence on a global scale—definitional features of a superpower. "
>>> Sure, but it can project power based on trade policies. We can continue to be USSR in this match up by spending ourselves into oblivion if that makes us feel better. Go ahead, check back in 2035 and see how that will go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"These include an aging but wealthy Japan, a rising and nationalistic India, a revanchist Russia, a technologically powerful South Korea, and a dynamic and determined Vietnam. All these countries have national identities that resist subordination to China or its interests. And the United States maintains a constant forward-deployed military presence in the region, supported by basing and access agreements in countries along China’s periphery."
>>> 1. Japan is not wealthy, unless you count liabilities/debt as asset. 2. India is sinking and deteriorating not rising 3. Korea is not "technologically powerful", They are a crucial element of our supply chain, but I would hardly call that powerful. We balance them against Japan in the 1990s, that how they got to where they are today. I would hardly call a client state “powerful”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To compete effectively with China, Washington will need to focus on bolstering the United States’ domestic dynamism, international prestige, and unmatched global network of alliances and partnerships. These are the real keys to the United States’ strength, and China cannot take them away."
>>> China can take them away.
Alliance are a group that share a common interest. As long as their interest aligns more with us than PRC, we are cool. The problem is that there will be a day when they are a $35T economy and might pull on more interests.
This whole article is a feel good piece that brush over and expand on some potential issues, but fail to contrast these same issues in our end.
No, China is not ten feet tall, but if yo are 12 feet tall and going crazy with amputations, then pretty soon, they would be 10 feet tall.
Thanks for taking the time to compile and respond with carefully thought-out answers. I really think the US media and policy community can benefit from a FAQ list to dispel and debunk many of the misunderstanding, cliche, falsehood or sheer lies about China.
These dubious questions or myths are usually repeated often, and have increasingly become part of the common understanding without challenges about China in the US. Most people either are not equipped with the necessary knowledge or experience to appraise them or don't bother with investing the time and effort to judge them independently.
The above article is at best a recycled list of common cliche and myths, at worse a tactic to distract from domestic issues and weakness.