In 2014 the US hadn’t pulled out of INF treaty yet. Russia didn’t yet have an existential need to positively keep Ukraine out of NATO.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
Mr Yang answered this in Alaska.
We have Mr blink, blinked, blinken in surprise & discomfort.
Talk a good look at the Alaska meeting what Mr Yang tells the American on their own land.
America can't be look after itself anymore. Its just causing distraction from its immediate internal problems.
And, that’s all some are!We are corporeal beings.
Nations aren’t corporeal!
So, if you’re simply a corporeal being, then what does the mental construct mean to you?
Come to America and have more stuff than you can ever need!
Regardless of INF, haven't it always been the case that Russia sees it as an existential need? At one point Putin jokingly (or maybe not) asked if Russia can join NATO and received a resounding "NO" as answer, it has been clear NATO will always be anti Russia. Ukraine joining NATO would be like North Korea joining the QUAD for China, even before 2014 Russia has said time and time again Ukraine is their red line with regard to NATO expansion.
Militarily speaking it also means NATO can field more numerous short ranged weapons in Ukraine against Russia, including ABM system that degrade Russian deterrence. INF treaty not withstanding.
Last edited:
The source is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, literally a CIA propaganda outlet.
If Russian casualties are even a fraction or remotely as high as Ukraine/U.S. says, the internet would be filled with pictures of dead Russian soldiers. The fact that the Ukrainian side continues to release and reuse the small handful of footage / pictures implies they have no real evidence of actual Russian losses to back up their claims.
If the EU did not want a war they certainly did a lot to precipitate one. Proclaiming Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO. Not enforcing Minsk agreements for almost 8 years. Not giving guarantees to Putin that Ukraine would not join NATO when he had almost 200,000 troops on Ukraine's border. Etc.
I agree with you that the main losers with the conflict will be the EU and Russia both.
They are that braindead. Sorry. It might not have happened with the previous leadership in France and Germany in the 1990s or even 2000s but the current leadership is pure braindamage. Especially the current one in Germany which is just out of its depth.
There are also next to zero chances of Franco-German economic or military integration. The Germans still think they dominate the EU economically and the French will be hard pressed to get military-technical cooperation with Germany to work. There is a huge stigma in Germany if you do anything related to the MIC or work in the armed forces.
Of course, this might change. If the US does manage to convince the EU to continue cutting economic ties with China I expect German industry to collapse. In that case they might find themselves forced to accept some sort of alliance with France.
The Drive fails as usual. Iskander does not have enough range to hit a target close to the Romanian border from Russia. It has 500km range. Khinzal has 2500km range. And Russia never claimed that video was of a Khinzal strike.
Like I said before. No. Shortage. Russia ordered over a thousand Kalibr missiles a couple years ago. Let alone missiles of other types.
China has no reasons to speed up taking back Taiwan. Or totally decoupling from the West. Taiwan for example provides China with no strategic advantage other than expanded access to the Pacific Ocean. Taking the semiconductor industry in Taiwan would provide no benefit since it is highly dependent on foreign supplies. At best taking Taiwan would deny the West access to its chip production output. For the US however it is in their interest to provoke a conflict with or within China before its economy surpasses that of the US.
The technological gap in civil aviation and semiconductors could easily take a decade to cover yes. And who knows which technologies will be of relevance in a decade.
China will find itself pushed into a situation where conflict will be almost inevitable just like Russia did just now. I think the current change of leadership in South Korea is a good indicator towards this. There will be multiple fires in China's periphery and perhaps even within China itself.
I expect the next leadership in both Russia and China to be way more assertive and militaristic than either Putin or Xi. So there should be tense relations over the next decade and a half. In the case of China the people behind the campaign for the pacification of Xinjiang will rise into power. The Russian leadership will have lost any illusions of cooperation with the US/EU and at best will have a policy of splendid isolation.
Russia will only need the military-technical support of China in case the conflict expands into a wider Russia-NATO conflict.
Exactly.
It is kind of a bad idea for Russia to send too many troops into Ukraine at the same time. You would risk NATO taking advantage of that to nuke large troop formations as was the NATO plan in the Cold War. It is way better to just rotate them. Which is what I expect will happen eventually.
I think at best the Russians would double the troops in Ukraine and they would not use nukes in Ukraine unless the Russian territory itself was being threatened by large NATO contingents inside Ukraine.
That guy is not part of the Russian government. He volunteered to join the fight in Donbass in 2014. He seems to be a Russian nationalist and monarchist. So do not expect his perspective to match that of the government or to reflect current conditions. I doubt the Russian government would not have all sorts of contingencies baked into the operational plan.
Last edited:
your rational analysis contains some fundamental flaws, on both China and Russia.
first on China: your core view is China must make concessions in exchange for time, and use the time to fill those gaps. the reality is C919 and Huawei, the West has blocked all meaningful tech transfer, China must develop everything on its own. the trade is mostly low end merchandise, benefits the West more. if they can find alternative they will curtail it anyway. there is no point to make any concession. did you mean if China refuses to make concession the West is going to declare war?
on Russia: Russia should keep credible threat to NATO, especially Baltic and Poland, till China broker a deal and all sanctions are lifted.
the bottom line for China and Russia is you must not sit back to let those sanctions to take effect. strike back, no concessions, large or small.
- Status