Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Lapin said:
Your 'whataboutism' is misplaced.

As far as I can recall, there are NOT 'many writers here'--in this forum--who have expressed pro-NATO or pro-US positions on this war.
There might have been a few writers who did so. In this forum, the critics of Russia's war seem about as marginalized (at best)
as the supporters of Russia's war would be in almost all forums in the USA.

"Is Russia getting some more of the Donbass going to seriously weaken western Europe or US?"

That's disingenuous. Few Westerners care much about Donbas; most of them could not have located it on a map.
Western security concerns are about Russia's conquest of *all, or at least most*, of Ukraine.
(Russia's conquering all Ukraine may seem like a fantasy now, but it was a serious concern until recently.)
Obviously, a Russian conquest of all Ukraine would put Russian armies at the borders of NATO members.
Even a Russian conquest of all Ukraine east of the Dnieper (plus Kyiv or Odessa perhaps) could project Russian
military power significantly further westward.

If Russia and Ukraine can cut a deal whereby Russia gets some of Donbas, few Westerners will object that much,
apart from some rhetoric to reassure the Ukrainians that the West did not sell out their interests.
Click to expand...
Russian armies are already at the border with NATO in the Baltics.

Ukraine clearly doesn't want to give up the Donbass which is why they were shelling them for 8 years. But Russia has a legitimate claim on Donbass too. Whose to say that Russian claim is less valid?
 
L

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Overbom said:
China needs Russia for its rise against the West.

As such, Russia isn't allowed to (which it won't) fail on this war. If that happened, it would destabilise Russia, with a possibility of a Western puppet taking power. If that happened, this would be the greatest strategic catastrophe for China in a century and possibly derail its efforts for rising as a world power.

As such, contrary to Western delusions, China will never ever abandon Russia. The only question for the West (EU) is to what they can offer China to moderate its support for Russia. Ofc all this has to happen because the EU has increasingly taken a hostile stance towards China. If the EU had demonstrated a sincere attitude for good relations with China and being an independent power, China would be invested in taking into account EU's interests.

Unfortunately this hasn't happened, and instead has continued following US orders. All in all, this is more of a EU diplomatic failure than anything else. And as such, Xi is more comfortable to watching the EU burn down than being genuinely worried about helping the EU.

Summary:
Contrary to many people's belief, people here are actually very pragmatic and always take into account the wider geopolitical environment before start saying stuff. We support Russia because ultimately this means supporting China
Click to expand...
"China needs Russia for its rise against the West."

I already understood that.

But what kind of Russia does China need?
China does not need a nakedly imperialistic expanding Russia (which has become a pariah to much of the world).
China would have been fine (better, in my view) to have Russia as an ally before this ill-conceived 'war of choice'.
China's security does not depend upon how much Russia can conquer and occupy in Ukraine.
Whether Donbas is ruled from Moscow or Kyiv has no effect upon China's security.

Again, China should not 'burn its bridges' to Ukraine.
China should aim for a postwar world where it's well-respected by both Russia and Ukraine.
If China were to declare its unconditional support for Russia's conquest of Ukraine, it would be a huge blunder.
China's government has pragmatically declared its neutrality, though it may help Russia behind the scenes.
At the same time, China has claimed to offer humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Many Chinese writers here apparently believe that China's security depends upon saving face for Russia, really just for Putin.
China would be extremely foolish to tie itself so closely to the political fortunes of one foreign leader.
China's government has been managing this situation much better than some Chinese writers here would prefer.
 
Last edited:
L

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
Russian armies are already at the border with NATO in the Baltics.

Ukraine clearly doesn't want to give up the Donbass which is why they were shelling them for 8 years. But Russia has a legitimate claim on Donbass too. Whose to say that Russian claim is less valid?
Click to expand...
"Russian armies are already at the border with NATO in the Baltics."

I already have pointed out that Russia has not regarded NATO in Baltic countries as an 'existential threat', which
many writers here absurdly believe was the pre-war case about Ukraine's *potential long-term* joining NATO.

"But Russia has a legitimate claim on Donbass too. Whose to say that Russian claim is less valid?"

Another distortion of context. I wrote nothing about whose claim to Donbas was more legitimate.
I pointed out that it's disingenuous to claim that NATO or the USA have an obsessive security concern about Donbas
falling into Russian hands. Again, NATO's real security concern is about Russia conquering all or most of Ukraine.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Lapin said:
But what kind of Russia does China need?
China does not need a nakedly imperialistic expanding Russia (which has become a pariah to much of the world).
Click to expand...
China doesn't care if Russia is imperialistic in the European theater. Even better if that makes the EU in a more vulnerable position regarding China. China will care only if the EU shows that it has a sincere attitude towards China and wants to become an independent power

Lapin said:
China would have been fine (better, in my view) to have Russia as an ally before this ill-conceived 'war of choice'.
Click to expand...
We are not allies. We are partners. Our relationship with Russia has no limits, no boundaries, no forbidden areas of cooperation. This means that we don't have to be shackled to everything that Russia does and vice-versa

Lapin said:
Again, China should not 'burn its bridges' to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
We didn't burn anything. It was Ukraine which did that some time ago with their Motor Sich betrayal

Lapin said:
If China were to declare its unconditional support for Russia's conquest of Ukraine, it would be a huge blunder.
Click to expand...
We don't declare anything. We do business with everyone. If Ukraine/EU/US/etc wants to have the same relationship with China that Russia has, this isn't impossible to happen, its up to them.


Lapin said:
China's government has pragmatically declared its neutrality, though it may help Russia behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as I said, we do business with everyone.

Lapin said:
At the same time, China has claimed to offer humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually I wished China did more on this aspect.

Lapin said:
Many Chinese writers here apparently believe that China's security depends upon saving face for Russia, really just for Putin.
Click to expand...
We have a huge border with Russia. Its upon China's interests to have a good relationship with Russia at all levels. From the elites, to the people in power, to the common Russian people


Lapin said:
China's government has been managing this situation better than some Chinese writers here would prefer.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Have you seen anyone here criticising China's response? We agree that Xi is playing it smart
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Lapin said:
"China needs Russia for its rise against the West."

I already understood that.

But what kind of Russia does China need?
China does not need a nakedly imperialistic expanding Russia (which has become a pariah to much of the world).
China would have been fine (better, in my view) to have Russia as an ally before this ill-conceived 'war of choice'.
China's security does not depend upon how much Russia can conquer and occupy in Ukraine.
Whether Donbas is ruled from Moscow or Kyiv has no effect upon China's security.

Again, China should not 'burn its bridges' to Ukraine.
China should aim for a postwar world where it's well-respected by both Russia and Ukraine.
If China were to declare its unconditional support for Russia's conquest of Ukraine, it would be a huge blunder.
China's government has pragmatically declared its neutrality, though it may help Russia behind the scenes.
At the same time, China has claimed to offer humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Many Chinese writers here apparently believe that China's security depends upon saving face for Russia, really just for Putin.
China would be extremely foolish to tie itself so closely to the political fortunes of one foreign leader.
China's government has been managing this situation much better than some Chinese writers here would prefer.
Click to expand...
Ukraine already burned it's bridges with China when they sent fascists to support rioters in Hong Kong, nationalized Motor Sich after Chinese investors paid for it and supported foreign interference in Xinjiang.

Russia did none of the above.

It's not up to Chinese to beg Ukraine for anything. They need to make the concessions to repair relations, not Chinese. Russia isn't the one that went out of their way to specifically harm China.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Lapin said:
Again, China should not 'burn its bridges' to Ukraine.
China should aim for a postwar world where it's well-respected by both Russia and Ukraine.
Click to expand...
China is neutral because BOTH the Ukraine and Russia has China as its largest trading partners.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
N

nixdorf

New Member
Registered Member
reservior dogs said:
First, it seem likely that the Russians will leave a big part of Ukraine as a stand alone country. Which part of Ukraine will be left is determined by how long the war drags on. The Russians post demands of de-militarization. The sooner the Ukrainians agree to that, the larger the final piece of land left to Ukraine. As they negotiate, the Russians will take their time taking out one city at a time, until all the major cities on the East like Kharkiv and Sumy as well as cities in the South like Odesa will fall into Russian hands. Demand will escalate to have these conquered cities be either independent or join Russia. The Russians have strong memories of Afghanistan and will work hard not to step into another quagmire like that again by conquering all of Ukraine.

No matter which part of Ukraine is left, it will likely not be a viable economic unit and will rely on the West if the West is willing, or be left to wither if the West is not. Most of the economically viable parts of Ukraine are located in the South and East, where also the most Russian speakers are.

Russia will want a mechanism to enforce the demilitarization. This may mean that they have the rights to send in troops if needed to take away any substantial fighting equipment even down to IFV.

Certainly there will be a lot of anger, but if Ukraine is stripped of these equipment, it will not pose a threat again to the territories taken by Russia.

It is possible that this romp Ukraine will take out its rage on the Russian speaking minorities inside its control, in which case an ethnic cleansing and repatriation of Russian speaker to the conquered regions may happen.

At the end of the war, the Russian security situation will have vastly improved compared to before the war.
Click to expand...
It's improbable that the Ukrainians will surrender and give up territory. The people running the show are nationalists, extremists. Their game plan is to escalate this to World War III. That's how they intend to win, when NATO joins the fight. The more likely scenarios for Russia are total defeat or constant decades-long war until Russia is totally exhausted (and possible regime change in Moscow) and Ukraine is totally destroyed.

The chances of Ukraine signing anything that would give up even Crimea is very remote. They will fight to take it all back, and they will fight to the end. They will be constantly supplied by NATO so they're never going to run out of ammo or equipment. The numbers are in their favor as well, because the Russians are unwilling to draft more than the standard number of yearly conscripts. Russia is also going to bleed population almost as much as Ukraine as young people flee to avoid conscription and to seek better opportunities abroad. I would expect to see expanding colonies of Russian expats in places like Latin America, Central Asia and Southeast Asia.
 
S

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
So there is a report that Ukrainian forces are 20 km from Kherson ? I wonder. and there is other report that said Russia may pull out.

Kinda hard to believe, as Russia are said to set a new administration there. If the city fall back to Ukraine or abandoned, the city's inhabitatans may suffer reprisal or some of them would suffer reprisal for being considered "Pro Russians"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top