Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

I am 90% certain if China provides all sorts of missiles and drones to Russia, Russia could take half of Ukraine right now. China's missile program comprehensively speaking ranks first place in the world.

Russia has a few very fast hypersonic weapon and U.S has the LRASM, that's it.

bebops said:

I am 90% certain if China provides all sorts of missiles and drones to Russia, Russia could take half of Ukraine right now. China's missile program comprehensively speaking ranks first place in the world.

Russia has a few very fast hypersonic weapon and U.S has the LRASM, that's it.

Click to expand...

The fascinating thing is that they did something to make them so easy/inexpensive to make. Possibly because they applied the same 5G factories that were shown commercially towards military supplier needs?

It's not just a small lead but a pretty damn great one. To put it in perspective, consider that 1 T90M costs as much 3 DF17s.

The tech lead in platform quality is one thing but there's also a large if not massive tech lead in the way the platforms are built.

Biscuits said:

China would not let Russia use nukes except if something so horrible is done by Ukraine first that using nukes would be seen as less escalatory than what the Ukrainians did first. For example, if Ukraine committed nuclear terrorism, or shot down Russian civilian airliners.

With the current trajectory of economic power between the East and the West, MAD is the only non-fringe scenario where China wouldn't be a clear winner. Why would China not fight tooth and nail to preserve their lead instead of going together with the west to zero?

They will sooner physically send troops to halt NATO on the ground than tell Russians to launch strategic nuclear strikes. But before that, they can just give huge amounts of advanced equipment for the Russians to operate so that they can make a solid defensive line combined with inevitable Russian mobilisation if NATO attacks with full strength.

Click to expand...

gelgoog said:

If NATO intervened there is a high chance escalation with nukes would in fact happen. That meets Russia's parameters where they would be used in case of threat to existence of Russian state. No matter what conventional equipment they send into Ukraine though, Russia has same or better.

Click to expand...

There are no scenarios under which China would allow Russia to use nukes, not that China has a veto in that regards. I think the deal is, China would ‘ask’ that Russia call them first should the Russians ever feel desperate enough to serious consider doing so and China will make them an offer for them not to.

If Ukraine commits some 9/11 style and scale atrocities, I think Russia would take all the advanced Chinese weapons they would need over lobbing some nukes, as such an outrage would give China sufficient diplomatic cover to set aside its current stance of neutrality.

If NATO goes overtly and fully into Ukraine, then so will the PVA 2.0.

China has been equally vocal in asserting its neutrality on Ukraine and its unprecedented closeness with Russia. That’s clear and consistent messaging that China is a responsible world power for the other neutral parties, but also a thinly veiled threat to the US and NATO not to overstep as China has Russia’s back whenever Russia needs it.

tphuang said:

I would think that after listening to this clip, China will definitely assist Russia if it gets into serious troop in the current conflict.

Click to expand...

What does "assist" mean? Alibaba dual-use consumer goods, US-style weapons transfer, or PVA 2.0?
What does "serious trouble" mean? Feb 24th border restored, NATO entrance in war, or Moscow under threat?

tphuang said:

But bringing back to the topic, it makes me again wonder if there is an under the table mutual defense treaty where China can call for help from Russia in time of need. I mean simply request would be to using Russians ports and Russian air bases or just even allowing PLA brigades to move into Russia for certain operations.

Click to expand...

It should work both ways, if Russia requests China to allow Russian bombers to attack US military bases in Asia-Pacific using Chinese ports and Chinese airbases, China would have to allow that. Why would China be dragged into a war this way? China would automatically be considered an enemy combatant by US... unless China was already at-war with US, why would peace-time China allow that?

tphuang said:

If we look at the map, Vladivostok is under 1000 km from most of the northern part of Japan. It would allow Chinese aircraft with shorter legs like J-10B/C to more easily take off and launch missiles and bombs into Japanese military bases.

Click to expand...

Russia would be opening itself up to US/Japanese retaliation against Vladivostok in that case, what does Russia gain from this situation by allowing PLA to bomb Japan using it's territory (unless it was already at war with US/Japan to begin with)?

Phead128 said:

What does "assist" mean? Alibaba dual-use consumer goods, US-style weapons transfer, or PVA 2.0?
What does "serious trouble" mean? Feb 24th border restored, NATO entrance in war, or Moscow under threat?

It should work both ways, if Russia requests China to allow Russian bombers to attack US military bases in Asia-Pacific using Chinese ports and Chinese airbases, China would have to allow that. Why would China be dragged into a war this way? China would automatically be considered an enemy combatant by US... unless China was already at-war with US, why would peace-time China allow that?

Russia would be opening itself up to US/Japanese retaliation against Vladivostok in that case, what does Russia gain from this situation by allowing PLA to bomb Japan using it's territory (unless it was already at war with US/Japan to begin with)?

Click to expand...

Just like how Poland is automatically considered a combatant in Ukraine for their version of the PVA; how about UK and US for flying ISR assets directly controlling Ukrainian artillery and being essential parts of the kill chain?

As for what Russia gains, well aside from China making it worth their while, getting some payback for all the Russian soldiers the US is helping to kill in Ukraine would be some pretty powerful motivation.

But if Russia was to allow China to use its bases during active combat operations, I think it might be a little more circumspect, where non-lethal assets like AWACS, recon drones, tankers and the like would be able to operate directly while outbound strike forces may need to go directly from Chinese bases but can land at Russian bases on the way back for a top up.

plawolf said:

Just like how Poland is automatically considered a combatant in Ukraine for their version of the PVA;

Click to expand...

Yes, worked for China too in the Korean war. What is your point?

plawolf said:

how about UK and US for flying ISR assets directly controlling Ukrainian artillery and being essential parts of the kill chain?

Click to expand...

Sharing intelligence assets is very different from allowing bombers to use your ports/airbases to attack. I'm pretty sure China is providing commercial satellite access to Russia, due to plausible deniability. There is no plausible deniability with letting others use your ports/airbases for attacking other countries. That's the difference...

plawolf said:

As for what Russia gains, well aside from China making it worth their while, getting some payback for all the Russian soldiers the US is helping to kill in Ukraine would be some pretty powerful motivation.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it's fair game for Russia to supply arms to China against US, just like US supplying arms to Ukraine against Russia. Let me know when Ukraine lets NATO use ports/airbases to attack Russia, then maybe Russia would let China uses ports/airbases to attack US. These are apples-to-oranges comparisons...

plawolf said:

But if Russia was to allow China to use its bases during active combat operations, I think it might be a little more circumspect, where non-lethal assets like AWACS, recon drones, tankers and the like would be able to operate directly while outbound strike forces may need to go directly from Chinese bases but can land at Russian bases on the way back for a top up.

Click to expand...

Russia allowing China to use airspace for flying non-lethal ISR/logistic assets is pretty plausible....I don't think they will host any strike forces (empty or otherwise) without a formal mutual defense treaty or mutual transit treaty. Those (empty) strike forces are fair targets.

In reality it is more expedient for Russia to not directly join the war unless they're attacked.

If the war is fought mainly along China's Eastern border, Russia cannot safely project independent wartime forces all the way to the straits.

But if Russian planes, Russian awacs, Russian drones, fly out from vladivostok into international airspace and share their findings with China, they will act as a second opinion to PLA's own ISR at very low risk to themselves.

Plus, China can "sell" advanced recon drones to Russia that will fly under RUAF colors from RU bases but in reality be linked directly to joint operational commands.

This is the key strength of an informal pact which a binding alliance does not have, something also rather well demonstrated by NATO through its informal pact with Ukraine.

Phead128 said:

What does "assist" mean? Alibaba dual-use consumer goods, US-style weapons transfer, or PVA 2.0?
What does "serious trouble" mean? Feb 24th border restored, NATO entrance in war, or Moscow under threat?

It should work both ways, if Russia requests China to allow Russian bombers to attack US military bases in Asia-Pacific using Chinese ports and Chinese airbases, China would have to allow that. Why would China be dragged into a war this way? China would automatically be considered an enemy combatant by US... unless China was already at-war with US, why would peace-time China allow that?

Russia would be opening itself up to US/Japanese retaliation against Vladivostok in that case, what does Russia gain from this situation by allowing PLA to bomb Japan using it's territory (unless it was already at war with US/Japan to begin with)?

Click to expand...

Have you listened to that clip. Can you listen to it carefully? Guancha folks are normally quite dismissive about Russia capability, but they spoke very clearly about the need for greater cooperation and training between the two forces in the event of a contingence. They also spoke about the need to carry Russia in the event it cannot carry its end. Now, I don't know what they are hearing from people in PLA, but you can make your own assessment on what they are thinking.

There has been a recent Xi/Putin call and this is very unusual (specially at a time when Russia is deeply in a conflict with NATO now)

Now, Russia already considers itself to be at war with America, so I don't think it will mind getting involved in a proxy war where it can take revenge on the West.

As for your other question, what kind of scenarios do you think China would get involved? Do you think China would risk having Russia getting so desperate that they'd use nuclear weapons. Do you think they'd standby if NATO turn this from a proxy war into a real war? We are getting close to the 2024 to 2026 timeframe when Patch said America would be in the most trouble vs China in a westpac conflict. China is getting ever closer to having full build up of its missiles and completing its military re-organization. Are there non-Taiwan scenario where China might pre-emptively attack America in PacRim region and force America to withdraw attention from Eastern Europe?

Difficult to confirm the veracity of the claim

Taiban said:

Difficult to confirm the veracity of the claim

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

No, it's probably real, but it's the article and western media that stamps it as being propaganda, rather than news or social content.