Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
As if he cares what a bunch of non-Anglo inferiors responses to him are?
You’re beneath him! Which is why he comes here with his glib, one-line, Anglo-foolishness and gets y’all all riled-up! He’s proving his Anglo superiority and y’all accommodate!
What’s more telling, to me, is that he’s also got the moderators snowed. They’ll ban folks that post refutations of his, American-supremacist, behaviors, but let him slide, simply because he limits his provocations to one-liners, like a typical Vaudevillian (observe the reference) educated ‘Murican. I’m guessin’ that they missed the benefits of a (much derided, here) Liberal Arts education, which goes beyond bean-counting and seeking causal reactions and, instead, emphasizes investigations of (among other subjects) behavior, intentions, and communication.
But these are simply artifacts of the early-days of this site when the majority of the Senior voices, here, were Christian proselytizing, Conservative Republican, ultimately Drumpf worshiping, American apologists that all finally quit on the same day when one Moderator would no longer accommodate their supremacy-seeking behaviors.
Guess it’s back to the ban-box for me!
Last edited:
Well of course. They are politicians. Not analysts. This specific women previous job was a being a journalist. I am not saying it’s bad but it’s hardly someone you want to be leading you into a war regardless of military advisors lol.
Russia's nuclear arsenal is not as credible as the US's nuclear arsenal. They have a lot of warheads but have limited ways of delivering them to their targets. China has the same issue, which is why the US establishment does not fear nuclear war with either country. They know that in the end, they will win.
I watched this video twice....
China will likely be lukewarm and tepid support to Russia from now on. Anti-NATO/US in the conventional military sphere is all cool, but once you start talking about nuclear WW3, that's when China is going to peace out. If Putin crosses that line, it's all by itself. Not even China can save you.
The Russian Ukrainian war reminds me of Sino-Vietnamese war.
Not much talked about in English on the web, the only one I found is an article rejecting the comparison by the diplomat.
In the article, the author acknowledged that many Vietnamese see the comparison appropriate, but the author rejects it on the ground that USSR and Vietnam was in a military alliance like NATO that would oblige USSR to defend Vietnam by attacking China.
I looked around the internet and could not find the legal text of the treaty which is named "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation". However I found a research paper by US Naval Postgraduate School dated 1980 here
The paper does not list the legal text, but in page 75 it explained the concerned military natural of the treaty, article 6. Here I quote,
With regard to military assistance and presence, Vietnam's Army Chief of Staff, General Van Tien Dung stated that "the Vietnam-USSR treaty of friendship and cooperation has been developing its effect." Soviet Vice-Foreign Minister Nikolai Firyubin called the visit of Soviet warships to Vietnamese ports as "a duty of the Soviet-Vietnamese treaty." Both statements refer to Article 6 of the treaty that calls on consultations and appropriate measures to eliminate a threat to the security and peace of the two parties
These texts are similar to what Russian Chinese agreement today, calling for consultation and appropriate measure WITHOUT legally binding actions of direct military involvement.
These texts also reject the article from "thediplomat" that asserts that there was a legal obligation to USSR towards Vietnam. I think the author maybe need to really find the copy of the treaty.
So here is my thought, the two wars are very similar in many ways.
Vietnam and USSR was in a close relationship that was military alliance in effect but NOT in law. Ukraine is in advanced relationship (enhanced opportunity partnership), Ukraine has NATO military on its soil in another name just like USSR had soviet military advisers on Vietnamese soil and warship visits to its port.
China decided to "teach a lesson" and called the USSR bluff of its commitment by an invasion. Russia decided to draw the red line for Ukraine and call NATO bluff.
Some people including the article argued that China refrained her scope because of fear of USSR attack to the north due to the treaty which is different to today because Ukraine is not NATO member. But the fact is that neither Ukraine is NATO member nor was Vietnam a Warsaw Pact member. So China's preparedness for potential USSR intervention wasn't because of some paper. So is Russia's nuclear "threat" to NATO a sincere sense of potential intervention, unrelated to any legal wording on a paper.
Similar to China's move back then, there is a very high chance that Russia's action is not total annihilation and occupation of Ukraine as a country, but a move with limited objective focused on preventing Ukraine's NATO membership (like Vietnam becoming a Warsaw pact member).
The only difference is that today, Russia does want to break Donbass region away from Ukraine due to its ethnic composition while China couldn't.
However high similarity is not exact mirror, so I will not go any further in details.
A funny fact is that, in case of Sino-Vietnamese war, most western countries were "Neutral" like China today by calling both China to withdraw from Vietnam and Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia. The Soviet block only called on China to withdraw from Vietnam. History just repeat itself but swapping actors and changing stage.
Not much talked about in English on the web, the only one I found is an article rejecting the comparison by the diplomat.
In the article, the author acknowledged that many Vietnamese see the comparison appropriate, but the author rejects it on the ground that USSR and Vietnam was in a military alliance like NATO that would oblige USSR to defend Vietnam by attacking China.
I looked around the internet and could not find the legal text of the treaty which is named "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation". However I found a research paper by US Naval Postgraduate School dated 1980 here
The paper does not list the legal text, but in page 75 it explained the concerned military natural of the treaty, article 6. Here I quote,
With regard to military assistance and presence, Vietnam's Army Chief of Staff, General Van Tien Dung stated that "the Vietnam-USSR treaty of friendship and cooperation has been developing its effect." Soviet Vice-Foreign Minister Nikolai Firyubin called the visit of Soviet warships to Vietnamese ports as "a duty of the Soviet-Vietnamese treaty." Both statements refer to Article 6 of the treaty that calls on consultations and appropriate measures to eliminate a threat to the security and peace of the two parties
These texts are similar to what Russian Chinese agreement today, calling for consultation and appropriate measure WITHOUT legally binding actions of direct military involvement.
These texts also reject the article from "thediplomat" that asserts that there was a legal obligation to USSR towards Vietnam. I think the author maybe need to really find the copy of the treaty.
So here is my thought, the two wars are very similar in many ways.
Vietnam and USSR was in a close relationship that was military alliance in effect but NOT in law. Ukraine is in advanced relationship (enhanced opportunity partnership), Ukraine has NATO military on its soil in another name just like USSR had soviet military advisers on Vietnamese soil and warship visits to its port.
China decided to "teach a lesson" and called the USSR bluff of its commitment by an invasion. Russia decided to draw the red line for Ukraine and call NATO bluff.
Some people including the article argued that China refrained her scope because of fear of USSR attack to the north due to the treaty which is different to today because Ukraine is not NATO member. But the fact is that neither Ukraine is NATO member nor was Vietnam a Warsaw Pact member. So China's preparedness for potential USSR intervention wasn't because of some paper. So is Russia's nuclear "threat" to NATO a sincere sense of potential intervention, unrelated to any legal wording on a paper.
Similar to China's move back then, there is a very high chance that Russia's action is not total annihilation and occupation of Ukraine as a country, but a move with limited objective focused on preventing Ukraine's NATO membership (like Vietnam becoming a Warsaw pact member).
The only difference is that today, Russia does want to break Donbass region away from Ukraine due to its ethnic composition while China couldn't.
However high similarity is not exact mirror, so I will not go any further in details.
A funny fact is that, in case of Sino-Vietnamese war, most western countries were "Neutral" like China today by calling both China to withdraw from Vietnam and Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia. The Soviet block only called on China to withdraw from Vietnam. History just repeat itself but swapping actors and changing stage.
Both countries have roughly the same number of strategic warheads loaded on ready to launch platforms, ~ 1500. These are sufficient to render each county back to the 19th century!
Anybody that believes that there will be re-loads after the first 1500 impacts is smoking a mixture of opium, hash, crystal-meth, AND crack!
Last edited:
Wrong! It will be the US, UK or France who will be committing mutual suicide if they decided to nuke Russia in retaliation to a legitimate Russian special surgical nuclear strike on Ukraine and Poland. They can choose the peaceful path by ignoring article 5, or get exterminated by Russian nukes. So why risk complete annihilation if they can just sit down and let Russia take care of its neighbors. Just let Russia swallow Eastern Europe. This is the most sensible and mature course of action.
Ukraine is trying to start WW3 because they view that as their only way of recovering their territorial integrity. They have no intention of letting go of eastern Ukraine and intend to recover Crimea. This is only possible in a WW3 scenario, where NATO comes in to help them, which is why they have gone all in and will do everything they can to bring NATO into the conflict. The people running the Ukraine show are nationalists, which gives Zelensky almost no room to maneuver. The moment he agrees to cede a bit of territory, they would assassinate him. The same people in the room would blow his brains out.
USA has way more foreign target outside of CONUS than Russia.
Say Russia has Tartarus, USA has only in Japan at least half a dosen good and fet (regards of number of USA military personal) targets.
So, in a tactical shooting war I can't see how the USA could win.
Personaly, I don't think that they would be brave to use nukes for any other reason than attack on CONUS.
But I can be wrong, sadly.
- Status