Getting a one week ban in this thread is a badge of honor!
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
That would also make Putin an american complicit, willing or not
I've said it before and I'll repeat it here. The fact that Putin pulled the trigger means he was out-maneuvered, I wish he'd have been able to find an alternative but he didn't and here we are.
And he had, several, alternatives!
You misunderstood what @vincent intended to mean, which is if Russia fails in this war (impossible but not improbable) then that means Putin falls, which in turn might usher a new "regime" that's more western oriented in it's over all outlook. Such an outcome or scenario would pretty much make it extra difficult for China being surrounded with enemies from the west, north, east, and south.
From our laymen viewpoint It might seem that way but who knows. My guess is that Putin assesses the timetable is not on their side, Ukraine's situation with NATO may deteriorate to a point of no return for Russia in the imminent future... and losing Ukraine permanently to NATO is not an option for Russia
Geopolitical competition involves multiple domains yes -- included in that are proxy conflicts and supporting one's own economic and technological growth/advancement, among others.
But the weighting of various domains is not always equal, and some domains (at any given point in time) may have significantly greater bearing on one's ability to wage geopolitical competition.
All of this, leads me to a few questions which I don't think have been addressed here by proponents of the idea of providing Russia with military arms/military support during active warfighting in Ukraine:
1. If Russia has requested -- or if Russia does request (in future) -- military arms from China, does such a request actually reflect on how Russia's current war in Ukraine is progressing in terms of Russia's political goals in waging this war, in terms of failure or success?
2. Does a Russian failure to achieve some or all of its political goals in Ukraine, pose an existential threat to Russia as a nation or security, and thus pose a risk to China's security?
3. Does a Russian success to achieve some or all of its political goals in Ukraine, significantly enhance Russia's security trajectory as a nation, and thus similarly enhance China's security?
Given the balance of power, it is impossible for Russia to "lose" a war against Ukraine through conventional military means -- it basically becomes a question of how many of Russia's political objectives in Ukraine can actually be attained.
My belief is that if Russia is unable to achieve all of its stated political objectives in Ukraine and have to settle for some sort of "negotiated peace," that Russia's overall security situation does not greatly change compared to if Russia was somehow able to achieve all of its stated political objectives in Ukraine.
This is because Russia's future national security and the threat to it as a nation is no longer whether Ukraine is or isn't going to be a major staging area for the US/NATO, but rather it is because of US, European and US client state sanctions against Russia, and the impact it will have on Russia's economy, and in turn its civilian and military technological industries -- and US/European/client state sanctions are going to continue against Russia regardless of how much Russia "wins" or "loses".
So, I would pose this set of counterarguments to everyone freaking out over Russia's war in Ukraine and saying that China needs to supply Russia with arms so Russia can "win" in Ukraine:
A) It is of significant interest to China to ensure that Russia remains a stable nation that is able to maintain a trajectory where its future as a nation is not under existential threat, and China should be willing to make proportionate sacrifices and endure proportionate pain to ensure that Russia is not under existential threat of collapsing.
B) Regardless of how much Russia "wins" in a war in Ukraine, its economic consequences from the US/Europe/client states is already sealed and unlikely to be lifted.
C) The greatest existential threat to Russia is not how much Russia "wins" in Ukraine, but rather the economic and technological threats that it faces going forwards. How much Russia "wins" in Ukraine will not change those aforementioned economic and technological threats.
D) If China did provide Russia with military arms in the short term, it will only influence how much Russia "wins" in its war in Ukraine, but it will not change the economic and technological threats that Russia faces. However, China providing Russia with military arms will almost certainly result in greater economic and technological decoupling from the US/Europe/client states, in a manner that may be sooner and more destabilizing than China wishes.
E) Therefore, because Russia not being able to attain all of its political aims in Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia, it does not make sense for China to provide military arms to Russia on the basis that China's interests for seeking Russia remains stable and not under threat of collapse. China providing military arms does not change Russia's own domestic stability.
F) Instead, the best thing China can do for Russia, is to provide Russia with economic and technological support in the short, medium and long term -- which China can best achieve, by further economically and technologically developing and advancing itself, which benefits from continued trade and somewhat stable relationships with the US/Europe/client states. China's trade and relationships with the US/Europe/client states therefore are only worth being degraded or sacrificed if there is a sufficient gain or risk that requires it to be done (for example, in event of a conflict over Taiwan).
Euro has reverting back to old ways post-Merkel. Is becoming too hostile to China and subservient servants to Anglo-supremacist. The facade of objectivity is off and this group cannot be trusted. Best to deal with the individually countries on a bilateral basis.
Russia is winning and there is no signs suggesting otherwise. Russia is still fully functional and Ukraine is becoming a basketcase every passing day. So essentially time is on Russia's side.
Russia will pursue all possible avenue to achieve it's long term existentialist goals. When Russian cats, Russian Husky dogs, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Yuri Gagarin, Russian ballet, Russian Swans have all been involuntarily invested in this struggle, there is no recourse other than achieving all strategic goals at minimal cost. Time here is not the constraint.
Rationality isn't always inherent in any form of government and democracies aren't necessarily meritocracy based.
My take:
EU's hands are essential forced right now by strategic concerns, old fears/enmity, public sentiment and the whole concept of one big united European family. EU is basically struggeling to find a meaningful way to respond in kind to the completely surprising Russia's invasion of Ukraine without actually having to declare war. Whatever sticks seems to be the current approach.
And also remember that EU isn't a singular entity but a coalesced voice of 27 different countries which sometimes can seem (and often is) pretty schizophrenic to those outsider and even to those inside.
I think a big mistake was associating NATO membership to EU membership. One is a military alliance, the other is an economic/political one.
A lot of the poorer European countries saw NATO as a stepping stone to EU membership. America was happy to go along because it meant more European influence. Even Russia didn't mind too much when US-Russian relations were good. It's only when relations soured that the danger of military bases and nukes getting closer and closer to Russia became apparent.
During the Cold War, all NATO members had a similar view towards the Soviet Union. It was a big threat, but they didn't want to do anything to provoke them. Today you've got a situation where Germany, France have no real problem with Russia (before the war) and just want trade and have good relations. But other countries dislike Russia for various historical or ethnic reasons and have scores to settle. To me it's not a recipe for a successful alliance.
- Status