Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lube

Junior Member
Registered Member
gadgetcool5 said:
If I may talk about the broad geopolitics of this war for a moment...

First of all the war isn't really between Russia and Ukraine, it's between NATO and Russia. That's a big part of the reason why Ukraine has held up so well. It's not just because their "oh so plucky fighters" are so great. It's because the West has provided massive moral, intelligence, material and manpower support to Ukraine, not just since February 24, but for the last eight years. If you look at NATO with its massive population of 950 million and huge economy of US + EU, and compare it to Russia, it's clear that Russia with its 145 million people is actually the underdog in this fight. Sure NATO troops aren't directly involved, but the support they are providing is making a decisive difference in keeping Ukraine alive.

In my view, for NATO, they don't really care about Ukraine, they see it as an opportunity to bleed Russia and ultimately destroy Russia as an independent great power. It's all about Russia.

Which leads us to... IMO if you're China, Russia cannot fall no matter what. If Russia returned to the complete abjection of the 1990's and Yeltsin-style politics, it could be forced to host Western bases on its territory. In other words, China could potentially face Western bases not only in places like Japan, Guam, and South Korea, but in Vladivostok and Irkutsk, and even in places like Kazakhstan. That's the dream of the Western strategists. In such a case, China would be completely encircles in all directions with a hostile India.

Supporting Russia will be painful for China, unfortunately it has no choice if it wants to be entirely encircled. Therefore China's going to have to take significant pain and risk further Western sanctions in order to provide aid for Russia. IMO even if that means transferring lethal weapons to Russia.
Click to expand...
There's no need to risk sanctions or give them weapons.

I'll argue that 'supporting' Russia is going to be much less costly than you think. It's not North Korea and China isn't doing it alone. It's a strawman to assume any sort of cooperation with Russia is going to bring the full wrath of Europe on China.

The best way forward is for China is to work with other neutral countries to continue trade with Russia.
Get India on board, get Pakistan on board. Russia can't be cut off in the long run. There's too many countries that rely on its exports.
This massive sanctions war against Russia probably shaved off a few years in the development of alternative supply chains too.
 
J

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
Aegis21 said:
I’m not saying that Russia will lose as much as the rough start and lack of a “blitzkrieg” has hurt Russia. It doesn’t hold the leverage a swift victory would’ve provided. The image of the Russian military has been degraded on the world scene. I think the US and EU actually levied more sanctions than they would’ve j itislly planned because of the unexpected resilience of Ukraine. All of this is to say that a prolonged war will be more damaging to Russia. The war will go on but Putin’s initial calculus has failed.
Click to expand...
True, but it has to happen. Real professional Western analysts has long been predicting the sharply declining Russian conventional military capabilities as a result of lack of funding. This war simply made the rest of the world, outside of professional circle, realize just what those analysis means.

For those who thought Russia could have done much better, the Russian performance just pull them back from fantasy to reality. And if you look at reality carefully, you will see that there is nothing extraordinarily unexplainable about Russian performance. Everything is as how any qualified analyst would have believed and predicted. There is NO mystery, NO unfathomability, NO illogic. Like I said earlier in reply to @Maikeru, if it was the US military under the same material and funding constraints as well other objective conditions, they would only perform just a lot better than the Russians, but nowhere near the type of one sided tactical supremacy as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

In fact, I would say that the Russians were very very lucky to have performed this well, under the type of constraints and deficiencies. In my Chinese language, it would be 瞎猫遇到死耗子 for Russia.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
Except the figures are from NATO, not Ukraine. That's the NATO that has dozens of spy-planes, UAVs, satellites and other assets monitoring the whole area 24/7. And your assets are? Cope harder.
Click to expand...
Hmm US claimed 400k Chinese PVA killed in Korea. China claims 198k going by who got paid out military pensions. China was the one advancing in Korea so there was no capability for US to do accurate battlefield damage assessment.

According to your logic though US count is right because muh spy planes, muh UAVs, muh satellites.

How about Galwan? India claimed 30+ PLA killed, US agreed. PLA was advancing, Indians got a colonel captured, no capability to do battlefield damage assessment. muh satellites tho?
 
G

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
lube said:
There's no need to risk sanctions or give them weapons.

I'll argue that 'supporting' Russia is going to be much less costly than you think. It's not North Korea and China isn't doing it alone. It's a strawman to assume any sort of cooperation with Russia is going to bring the full wrath of Europe on China.

The best way forward is for China is to work with other neutral countries to continue trade with Russia.
Get India on board, get Pakistan on board. Russia can't be cut off in the long run. There's too many countries that rely on its exports.
This massive sanctions war against Russia probably shaved off a few years in the development of alternative supply chains too.
Click to expand...

The main thing is to avoid a color revolution in Russia itself. IMO that's the main dream of the West and the biggest danger to China.

One of the major reasons why the West failed to deter Putin or treat him harshly in the past is that they hoped that he would join in an all-white northern alliance spanning the globe, i.e. Russia as a part of NATO. People like John Mearsheimer keep apologizing for Russia because in his view, Russia is part of "our alliance to counter China." Unfortunately for them Putin is not a white nationalist, he's a Russian nationalist. But their goal has not changed.

It is basically the U.S.'s manifest destiny for the 21st century. In the 19th century the manifest destiny was for the U.S. to conquer north America all the way to the West coast. In the 21st century they want to conquer Russia and bring it into the Western alliance as a subservient member. This would complete the Anglo "conquest" of Europe from west to East, once again to the Pacific. Since Russia has nukes, the only way they can do this is to foment a color revolution within Russia, and currently they see the best means of doing this is to bleed Russia in Ukraine. If they were to succeed in this, it would be a strategic disaster for China.
 
L

lapain

New Member
Registered Member
Jingle Bells said:
True, but it has to happen. Real professional Western analysts has long been predicting the sharply declining Russian conventional military capabilities as a result of lack of funding. This war simply made the rest of the world, outside of professional circle, realize just what those analysis means.

For those who thought Russia could have done much better, the Russian performance just pull them back from fantasy to reality. And if you look at reality carefully, you will see that there is nothing extraordinarily unexplainable about Russian performance. Everything is as how any qualified analyst would have believed and predicted. There is NO mystery, NO unfathomability, NO illogic. Like I said earlier in reply to @Maikeru, if it was the US military under the same material and funding constraints as well other objective conditions, they would only perform just a lot better than the Russians, but nowhere near the type of one sided tactical supremacy as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

In fact, I would say that the Russians were very very lucky to have performed this well, under the type of constraints and deficiencies. In my Chinese language, it would be 瞎猫遇到死耗子 for Russia.
Click to expand...

We are clearly exagerating the so-called Russian deficiencies when in reality, those are primarily the result of several restrictions, lack of understanding of local morale and assumptions of the early phase of the operation, for example the idea that civilian casualties could be avoided.

Add to this the prospect that the special operation can be acheived using the Syria op minded process of minimal forces applying maximum pressure (reports say a force of merely 200,000 including naval and support personnel against the second largest army in Europe), using legacy equipment mostly (we have yet to see Mi-28s being deployed, heck not even RuAF Su-24s seem to have been pressed over Ukraine).

The overall objectives still stand, which are to demilitarize Ukraine, destroy "Nazi" battalions and give even more creedence to the Donbass and Lughansk republics. So far, all those objectives are being consolidated, the more the Ukranian leadership props up delusional ideas of victory, the more the RF forces will gobble Ukraine, the leverage Kiev will have on its negotiations.

So in short, Putin's gamble is paying off, slowly but surely, despite the sanctions assaulting his country and people, but the end result look more and more like the invariable and permanent tilt of the geopolitical balance towards the East, which if true, would be yet another of the Kremlin's objectives.

1646885860483.png


https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1501664186207768584
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
You are aware that NATO and especially the USA has rather a lot of nuclear weapons, right? In fact the USA invented them...
Click to expand...
doesn't matter. Russia has far less to lose so it's not worth it for NATO to do a nuclear exchange. Same as French doctrine in Cold War.

Here's Russia testing salvo firing SLBMs at maximum range every year just as a reminder:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from SSBN Yury Dolgoruky
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from SSBN Prince Vladimir
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from SSBN Vladimir Monomakh
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from SSBN Knyaz Oleg
gadgetcool5 said:
The main thing is to avoid a color revolution in Russia itself. IMO that's the main dream of the West and the biggest danger to China.

One of the major reasons why the West failed to deter Putin or treat him harshly in the past is that they hoped that he would join in an all-white northern alliance spanning the globe, i.e. Russia as a part of NATO. People like John Mearsheimer keep apologizing for Russia because in his view, Russia is part of "our alliance to counter China." Unfortunately for them Putin is not a white nationalist, he's a Russian nationalist. But their goal has not changed.

It is basically the U.S.'s manifest destiny for the 21st century. In the 19th century the manifest destiny was for the U.S. to conquer north America all the way to the West coast. In the 21st century they want to conquer Russia and bring it into the Western alliance as a subservient member. This would complete the Anglo "conquest" of Europe from west to East, once again to the Pacific. Since Russia has nukes, the only way they can do this is to foment a color revolution within Russia, and currently they see the best means of doing this is to bleed Russia in Ukraine. If they were to succeed in this, it would be a strategic disaster for China.
Click to expand...
Color revolutions only work when there's a liberal figurehead to rally around, but there's none in Russia. 2nd biggest party is the Russian Communist Party and 3rd biggest party are nationalist socialists AKA Nazis. Russians simply aren't liberal even when given democracy.
 
A

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
China sending aid to Ukraine"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CCP clearly sensing the way the wind is blowing, Won't be long before Ukraine Army has thousands of HJ12s and UAF lots of WL-2. Wonder how many of the Putin fan-bois on here will change their colours too?
Click to expand...
@Maikeru bro don't want to be rude, BUT what weed are smoking , can I have one.
 
M

MortyandRick

Senior Member
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
China sending aid to Ukraine"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CCP clearly sensing the way the wind is blowing, Won't be long before Ukraine Army has thousands of HJ12s and UAF lots of WL-2. Wonder how many of the Putin fan-bois on here will change their colours too?
Click to expand...
Hahahaha

And if Ukraine in the end ceases to exist, would you change your colors? If NATO is sooo much stronger than the Russian army, why not go into Ukraine and beat the Russians back. It much be so easy for them to show a quick victory against the weak Russians. Wouldn't it elevate NATo even higher? But instead they are bickering about how to send planes and back end support. That's pretty chicken s*** of them. Even Ukraine is calling them out on it. I guess NATO is only strong again Syria Iraq Afghanistan, and even them they lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top