Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It is the context that we differ on, a single snapshot on the ladder doesn't say if you are going up or down.
It is not risk free cost free situation for both sides, they too have an incentives to keep pushing and delaying the final showdown - case in point they haven't banned Russian oil yet - so you keeping on China's relative shortcomings at this current stage doesn't explain the whole picture, maybe more like a reflection of a sample bias. So who is more determined with a well prepared mindset in what he wants will get better shot at a chance to come out ahead, that's exactly where Russia as a strategic piece comes in, decoupling right now or not.

I am saying that it is in China's interest to delay an economic and technological confrontation more into the future than at present, because the more into the future such a confrontation happens, the better China will be prepared to weather it.

Please tell me why you think China should carry out actions without obvious geopolitical benefit (such as supplying Russia with arms in its war in Ukraine), which would result in a risk of bringing froward that economic and technological confrontation?

Or alternatively, tell me why do you think China should not seek to delay an economic and technological confrontation for the future.
 

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
It is not really a matter of sovereignty. It is all about costs/benefits analysis. What are the benefits to China if China provide military support to Russia and what are the costs imposed by the West when that happens, and whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
That might sound super astute; it’s not. It’s obvious!

Some see it as being about who does the cost/benefits analysis?
 

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
Well I'm not gonna pretend Putin is infallible or something, but I'd like to avoid getting into that kind of speculation..... before you know it we'd be discussing what's his favorite character in Star War....
Well, you were the one guessin’ ‘bout his assessin’? ;)
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
That might sound super astute; it’s not. It’s obvious!

Some see it as being about who does the cost/benefits analysis?
Well, different people place different values on the costs and benefits. People who argue against in the forum provided some very valid points. One can’t accuse them to be unpatriotic because of that.
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
The emphasis is on the specific point in time in question, ie, now. Both Russia and China said there wasn't any such request of that nature.
But, should such request does happen, it's worth pulling the pin out, as Russia wouldn't ask for something they don't need to achieve their goal, which perfectly lines up with that of China's.
If Russia would 'only ask for something they don't need to achieve their common goal shared with China' presumes Russia expended all domestic resources (e.g., calling up reserves, mandatory conscription, martial law, tactical and strategic nukes) to achieve their Ukraine objectives, still fail, and China is the last resort option, then we already in a nuclear WW3 scenario given Putin's threat of all options on the table (including nuclear).

In a nuclear WW3 scenario, YES, I believe China will definitely provide military help to Russia, because economic factors will be the least of our worries, the prospect of nuclear winter is bigger concern. It's not saying much to help Russia when we all going to die anyways.


Russian security is China's first line of defense as it turns out,
What does 'Russian security' mean exactly? Without NATO involvement and Kiev surrounded, how is 'Russian security' threatened to the point where Chinese military aid is required?

Providing weapons in case of Russian request and need is basically China's defensive offensive preemptive offshore strike of a sort,
That presumes Russia expended all domestic resources first (including mass conscription, strategic bombing, and tactical nukes), still fail, and China's help is required to avoid complete loss in Ukraine. In that case, we are already in a nuclear WW3 scenario, so this is fantasy playing into an extreme scenario.
or a proxy war, to keep the active conflicts away from her own border, exact mirror of what is normal standard US practice.
Russia should commit it's entirely military first, then see the results, then escalate to nukes. It has so many options to dominate Ukraine and then into ashes, that Chinese military aid is not necessarily needed to win in Ukraine.
Economic reasons are always a distant secondary when it comes to strategic survival of a state. What exactly is the point of being rich and technologically advanced society when you are already dead and buried and long ceased to exist?
How did this suddenly escalate to national survival? Obviously if we are already in nuclear WW3 scenario, China would help Russia with military aid, because nuclear winter is a bigger worry than GDP growth. But that's not even a remote possibility in Ukrainian war.
I have seen some posters here who would spout appeasenik FUD nonsense like economic factors are absolute priority over a nation's survival,
You are arguing using an extreme scenario which isn't even remotely probably in this limited Ukraine war. It really is detached from reality.
as an unbreakable axiom of truth, much like what a veritable American think tank with an hegemonic axe to grind would proselytize. Not trying to jingle anybody's bells, but that line of thinking would have a sell by date of 1989. This is 2022 now. Grow up, or change your appeasenik FUD line of tactics.
This is a really awkward rant... "Appeseniks," you realize China's official position is 'positive neutrality' and providing military aid would exceed positive neutrality and enter the realm of defacto co-belligerent? China atleast needs to pretend to be neutral for sale of superficial appearance to third-world nations.
 
Last edited:

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well, you were the one guessin’ ‘bout his assessin’? ;)

Fair enough. I'd still say my guess is more reasonable along the lines of possible geopolitical thinking, what you're saying is a bit more tabloidy..... But again you're right I'm just guessing as much as you were
 

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
It is the context that we differ on, a single snapshot on the ladder doesn't say if you are going up or down.
It is not risk free cost free situation for both sides, they too have an incentives to keep pushing and delaying the final showdown - case in point they haven't banned Russian oil yet - so you keeping on China's relative shortcomings at this current stage doesn't explain the whole picture, maybe more like a reflection of a sample bias. So who is more determined with a well prepared mindset in what he wants will get better shot at a chance to come out ahead, that's exactly where Russia as a strategic piece comes in, decoupling right now or not.
Some people are organically inclined to always perceive themselves and their position as being small, weak, and unprepared. I remember seeing a movie in which a kid got bullied at about age 7 and broke down crying. He then went and lifted weights for about 10 years, getting “big“ and “strong”. At about age 17, the same bullies came back and bullied him again and he reacted the same way as when he was 7.

These are the “men“ whose mothers and wives buy their drawers! LOL
 
Last edited:

zgx09t

Junior Member
Registered Member
I am saying that it is in China's interest to delay an economic and technological confrontation more into the future than at present, because the more into the future such a confrontation happens, the better China will be prepared to weather it.

Please tell me why you think China should carry out actions without obvious geopolitical benefit (such as supplying Russia with arms in its war in Ukraine), which would result in a risk of bringing froward that economic and technological confrontation?

Or alternatively, tell me why do you think China should not seek to delay an economic and technological confrontation for the future.

First off, weapons sales are still fake news, so that's a lot of air for nothing.
Second, your entire point of contention here that time is on China side is a straight line assumption, China must have a plan to use her resources effectively and efficiently at any given time, as the world keeps changing every day, domestically and internationally.
Third, a chick in bed already is worth 10 chicks in a fancy bar, so I'd keep the one in bed as opposed to your 10 more, which, by the way, would be a welcome bonus.
 

Aegis21

Junior Member
Registered Member

Igor Strelkov: It is difficult to judge how much Moscow understood that the special operation would be long and difficult​

Part 1:

The progress and prospects of the special operation in Ukraine "Free Press" decided to discuss with the one who stood at the origins of the people's republics of Donbass - with the main organizer of the defense of the mining region - former Minister of Defense of the DPR
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
After the events of 2014, it is more famous to the public as Igor Strelkov.

"SP": - I want to remind you that in this studio we met with you at the end of November last year. At that time, we weren't talking about any special operation. It was hard to imagine that it would start at all and how it would begin. But we discussed the versions.

"SP": - It turns out that the blow is preventive?


- It's preventive. I've already talked to you about it. Last winter, Ukraine concentrated a very strong group to strike Donbass for the first time. Around January-March 2021. In response, we from all over Russia pulled our troops in the same direction. Less than today. But it also turned out very impressive.

You said in November that a clash between Russia and Ukraine is inevitable. And what we will have to choose between surrender and entering into a real battle. At the same time, they very much doubted the right choice of Moscow. The quote from your speech is as follows: "Our country will not attack Ukraine itself, from the word "never". The reason is a blow to the economic and personal interests of the Kremlin."
You said in November that a clash between Russia and Ukraine is inevitable. And what we will have to choose between surrender and entering into a real battle. At the same time, they very much doubted the right choice of Moscow. The quote from your speech is as follows: "Our country will not attack Ukraine itself, from the word "never". The reason is a blow to the economic and personal interests of the Kremlin."

But we attacked in February 2022, didn't we?


- Yes, I must agree that it was we who attacked. If they hadn't done that, the attack would still have been. But - from Ukraine. To prevent this attack, our blow was struck.

As a result, some negotiations took place. And Ukraine withdrew part of its troops from Donbass. At the same time, apparently, Kiev gave a guarantee that it would not conduct an operation against the Donetsk and Lugansk republics. Then the Russian troops also withdrew from the state border.

However, just in case, their military equipment was partially left at the storage bases of the Western and Southern Military Districts. And the personnel returned to the points of permanent deployment in the central and eastern part of the country.

The second time the same group, it turns out, we started assembling near Ukraine at the end of last year. And even on a larger scale than a year ago. That is (I'm sure of it!), there was information that Ukraine is again preparing to attack Donbass with very powerful forces.

But it is impossible to drive Russian troops back and forth indefinitely. Apparently, the Kremlin, having weighed all the information, realized that sooner or later Ukraine still attacks the republics. That Ukraine will still be thrown into battle by its owners. And we decided to strike first to seize the initiative in the inevitable fight.

In fact, it was a strong move of Moscow. I can honestly say: I did not expect such determination from our authorities after seven years of endless "Minsky processes", which constantly worsened both the political and military position of the Russian Federation. Relatively speaking, we managed to choose from two bad options not the worst, but just the worst. And they attacked first.

"SP": - Didn't you get the impression that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
decided to start a special operation in Ukraine just in a fire order? Literally in two or three days?

I want to explain right away. I mean the sad fate of our gold and foreign exchange reserves, which are half left in the West. Or 15,000 cars that were stuck in Ukraine by the beginning of hostilities and which Kiev has now decided to nationalize. And there was a lot more that, in theory, should not have been provided if the decision to start a special operation was systematic.


- I believe that this decision to introduce troops was nurtied for a long time.

"SP": - However, so to speak, was the "red rocket" given by the Kremlin at the last moment?

- Yes, most likely, only a fairly narrow circle of Russian leaders knew about this decision. Serious attention was paid to secrecy. Therefore, in this case, it was possible to achieve surprise both for the Ukrainian authorities and for those people in our country who could inform the West in advance about the preparation of such a special operation.

But as a result, the beginning of the special operation was really a surprise, apparently, for a large number of top leaders of our country responsible for the economic bloc, for the financial condition of the state, for the property of the Russian Federation.

Most likely, these people did not assume the real reaction of the West to what happened. Perhaps they had expectations that the sanctions would be more cosmetic again. And more - pointless, as it was before. That "vents" will be found in these sanctions. That some countries will go to them, some will not go.
The monolithic position of the West, the fact that almost all European countries will not only support sanctions, but also accept to strengthen them at the expense of their own capabilities, was apparently an unpleasant surprise for the Kremlin.

It is difficult to judge how much Moscow understood that the special operation would be long and difficult. Apparently, the Kremlin, on the contrary, believed that our offensive would develop very quickly. And will quickly lead to obvious strategic victories.

"SP": - That's why, if you allow me. How do you feel about the version that the Russian leadership was to some extent disoriented and misled by the events of 2014? How, for example, was the operation in Crimea easily and bloodlessly given to us? Now, too, it seems, we were waiting for the fact that as soon as we enter the land of Ukraine, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will raise "paws up" everywhere. And they don't lift it. At least on a massive scale.

- Apparently, that's exactly what they were waiting for in Moscow. This is told unanimously by my comrades in various previous military operations, who are involved in the planning of current hostilities in one status or another.

All of them unanimously say that they were given tasks specific to the situation of 2014 from above. Bringing the situation, the commanders assured that there would be no serious resistance from the armed forces of Ukraine. Moreover, the transition to the side of Russian troops will begin quite massive. And local administrations will immediately defect to Russia. Just as it was in Crimea.

Even indirect information from the combat zone indicates that everything was so. In particular, you remember: in the first two days of the operation, no attacks were carried out at all at the points of permanent deployment of Ukrainian troops. That is, when it was possible to cause them really unacceptable losses, when they sat in barracks and did not have time to disperse. During these two days, Ukrainian troops were organized, without losses left their locations and entered into battle with us.
It also suggests that Moscow did not plan to fight them seriously. Attacks were carried out only on communication nodes, at individual command centers. And nothing more.

Then the adjustment gradually began. For about 3-4 days, there was an understanding that a lot went wrong in Ukraine. Serious air and missile strikes began.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top