Ukraine

[Taran Wanderer]

Except that China has been building lots of missiles to take out those carriers.

[bacchi]

China has a troop transport problem. They don't have enough military ships to move 100k troops across the strait let alone 500k+ so they'll be using civilian ships.

Taiwan has a shit-ton of anti-ship missiles (they're getting 400 more US Harpoons this year). Four of those missiles can take out a Chinese destroyer; one or two can disable or sink a car carrier or ferry converted into a troop transport ship.

Taiwan would eventually fall but the strait would be a blood bath.

[Sibley]

Add the fact that China presumably wants Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturing intact. Those are by nature highly sensitive to disruption. You lob a missile in the general direction and you could severely damage the production capacity. It's also highly skilled work from my understanding, which means its easily sabotaged by captive workers, or replacement workers who don't have the training, skill or experience would not be able to produce high quality products, and possibly no products.

So yeah, China would eventually capture Taiwan, but most likely everything they wanted to get out of it will be destroyed. And then they'd have an island full of very pissed of people on their hands, and the rest of the world would be pissed because of the destruction of the semiconductor production. Not a good position to be in. China may or may not care of course, but it's still not a good position to be in.

[LennStar]

Yeah, China, or at least Xi Jiping, dioes not care much in face of the "reunification", but it is a severe problem for them.

btw. Warren Buffet bought TSMC stocks. I am surprised he takes that risk when so many people are convinced China will attack in 3-5 years if nothing happens.

[pecunia]

Yeah, China, or at least Xi Jiping, dioes not care much in face of the "reunification", but it is a severe problem for them.

btw. Warren Buffet bought TSMC stocks. I am surprised he takes that risk when so many people are convinced China will attack in 3-5 years if nothing happens.

Warren Buffet is 92.  I wonder if he still thinks long term or is now looking for more short term gains like most of the Wall Street guys.

I guess I can see China looking at Taiwan as a historical enemy, but 22 million people on an island that will do them no harm seems like a waste of resources to get the military all fired up.  Trade with Taiwan has been a win win for both countries.  China has a lot of very intelligent people, maybe they will come to their senses.  I'd like to think they look at the Russian attack on Ukraine, view the world's reactions and think it's not such a good idea.

[former player]

There's talk in Ukraine of another attack on Kyiv.

[Taran Wanderer]

The very existence of Taiwan is destabilizing to China, just as the existence of Ukraine is destabilizing to Russia. The presence of an immediately proximate neighbor with significantly greater individual freedom, innovation, and expanding democratic values throws into stark relief the deficiencies of the Chinese and Russian systems. Coupled with a population with closely related cultures and histories, it is a recipe for turmoil and agitation in the authoritarian states. This, more than anything, is why Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s why China wants to subjugate Taiwan. Because the presence of an independent and free Ukraine or Taiwan creates a direct threat to the governments of Russia and China from their own people.

[zolotiyeruki]

The very existence of Taiwan is destabilizing to China, just as the existence of Ukraine is destabilizing to Russia. The presence of an immediately proximate neighbor with significantly greater individual freedom, innovation, and expanding democratic values throws into stark relief the deficiencies of the Chinese and Russian systems. Coupled with a population with closely related cultures and histories, it is a recipe for turmoil and agitation in the authoritarian states. This, more than anything, is why Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s why China wants to subjugate Taiwan. Because the presence of an independent and free Ukraine or Taiwan creates a direct threat to the governments of Russia and China from their own people.

I suppose the Berlin Wall is a rather stark evidence of that phenomenon as well.

[LennStar]

The very existence of Taiwan is destabilizing to China, just as the existence of Ukraine is destabilizing to Russia. The presence of an immediately proximate neighbor with significantly greater individual freedom, innovation, and expanding democratic values throws into stark relief the deficiencies of the Chinese and Russian systems. Coupled with a population with closely related cultures and histories, it is a recipe for turmoil and agitation in the authoritarian states. This, more than anything, is why Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s why China wants to subjugate Taiwan. Because the presence of an independent and free Ukraine or Taiwan creates a direct threat to the governments of Russia and China from their own people.

I suppose the Berlin Wall is a rather stark evidence of that phenomenon as well.

I would argue that is quite a big difference between those things (war and wall) but yes, the motivation is similar. The wall is to keep people in, the war is to make the in bigger.
I actually should think a bit about that...

You definitely should be very concerned if Xi Jiping, when asked if China wants to reunify with Taiwan even if the people there don't want it, says that nobody is intending an invasion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#Start_of_the_construction_(1961))

[bwall]

China has a troop transport problem. They don't have enough military ships to move 100k troops across the strait let alone 500k+ so they'll be using civilian ships.

Taiwan has a shit-ton of anti-ship missiles (they're getting 400 more US Harpoons this year). Four of those missiles can take out a Chinese destroyer; one or two can disable or sink a car carrier or ferry converted into a troop transport ship.

Taiwan would eventually fall but the strait would be a blood bath.

Russia couldn't even take Kharkiv, less than 50 km from its land border. This, with a modicum of surprise. China will have no such luxury when amassing troops and ships off the Taiwan Straits.

The Ukrainians are providing an unforgettable object lesson to show that there's no way that China can land 100k troops in Taiwan, keep them alive AND resupply these troops to keep them fighting.

China's already tried to take an island from Taiwan once before. They got an old school back-alley beat down; close to 100% of the invading force either captured, wounded or dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guningtou

[nereo]

For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.

While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.

Fighting across the Strait, yes. But an invasion of Taiwan would rapidly become fending off amphibious assaults and/or block by block fighting in urban environments. At that point the equipment and material needed to fight the current war in Europe and the hypothetical war in Asia converge significantly.

I'm not privy to US or Taiwan war plans, but I am fairly sure that their plans revolve largely around sending as much of China's invasion force to the bottom of the strait as possible.  They've been planning it for about 75 years, so I'd imagine they have their ranges dialed in already.

One US aircraft carrier group would be very able to succeed at such a task.  2 or more and nothing bigger than a seagull would be above sea level for long.

I think you severely underestimate the sophistication and size of of China’s military. Twenty years ago what you described might have been close to accurate - but they’ve advanced light years in that timeframe.  Don’t get me wrong, the Chinese still can’t match the US military head-to-head, but they could cause a whole heck of a lot of damage in a conventional confrontation, particularly around their mainland.

[LennStar]

Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.

There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.

And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.

 

[zolotiyeruki]

Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.

There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.

And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.

A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation.  The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports.  Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating.  That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be.  They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.

I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.

[former player]

Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.

There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.

And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.

A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation.  The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports.  Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating.  That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be.  They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.

I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.

Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed.  Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life.  He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years.  In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous.  China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.

Will the middle class be a brake on Xi?  The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience.  Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.

[pecunia]

Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.

There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.

And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.

A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation.  The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports.  Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating.  That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be.  They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.

I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.

Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed.  Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life.  He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years.  In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous.  China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.

Will the middle class be a brake on Xi?  The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience.  Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.

I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion.  The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost.  The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.

[big_owl]

Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.

There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.

And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.

A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation.  The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports.  Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating.  That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be.  They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.

I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.

Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed.  Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life.  He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years.  In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous.  China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.

Will the middle class be a brake on Xi?  The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience.  Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.

I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion.  The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost.  The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.

China is rapidly modernizing it's military, they're way ahead of us in pumping out drones.  They're gonna have a lot of shiny new toys in the near future.  It's human nature to want to play with those toys.  Lord knows the US is guilty of this. 

[pecunia]

Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.

There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.

And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.

A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation.  The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports.  Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating.  That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be.  They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.

I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.

Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed.  Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life.  He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years.  In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous.  China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.

Will the middle class be a brake on Xi?  The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience.  Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.

I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion.  The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost.  The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.

China is rapidly modernizing it's military, they're way ahead of us in pumping out drones.  They're gonna have a lot of shiny new toys in the near future.  It's human nature to want to play with those toys.  Lord knows the US is guilty of this.

Yes - I remember a few years ago when they interviewed some guys about the "bunker buster" bombs.  They thought they were the best thing since sliced bread.  Those Chinese hypersonic missiles may be quite the temptation.  They could wreak a lot of havoc on their fellow Chinese in Taiwan.

[GuitarStv]

Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.

There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.

And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.

A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation.  The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports.  Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating.  That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be.  They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.

I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.

Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed.  Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life.  He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years.  In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous.  China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.

Will the middle class be a brake on Xi?  The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience.  Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.

I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion.  The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost.  The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.

China is rapidly modernizing it's military, they're way ahead of us in pumping out drones.  They're gonna have a lot of shiny new toys in the near future.  It's human nature to want to play with those toys.  Lord knows the US is guilty of this.

Yes - I remember a few years ago when they interviewed some guys about the "bunker buster" bombs.  They thought they were the best thing since sliced bread.  Those Chinese hypersonic missiles may be quite the temptation.  They could wreak a lot of havoc on their fellow Chinese in Taiwan.

The people living in Taiwan are Taiwanese.  They very much don't want to become Chinese!

[pecunia]

Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.

There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.

And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.

A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation.  The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports.  Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating.  That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be.  They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.

I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.

Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed.  Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life.  He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years.  In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous.  China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.

Will the middle class be a brake on Xi?  The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience.  Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.

I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion.  The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost.  The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.

China is rapidly modernizing it's military, they're way ahead of us in pumping out drones.  They're gonna have a lot of shiny new toys in the near future.  It's human nature to want to play with those toys.  Lord knows the US is guilty of this.

Yes - I remember a few years ago when they interviewed some guys about the "bunker buster" bombs.  They thought they were the best thing since sliced bread.  Those Chinese hypersonic missiles may be quite the temptation.  They could wreak a lot of havoc on their fellow Chinese in Taiwan.

The people living in Taiwan are Taiwanese.  They very much don't want to become Chinese!

Right!  I figure Toronto must have a Chinatown.  Those people don't want to be Chinese either.  Then there are the Ukrainian settlements in Manitoba.  They probably don't want to be Chinese either.  Come to think of it, I don't want to be Chinese either.

You have to be so careful of ethnicity these day.  Jeepers!

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Taiwan has a mixture of beliefs, with older people tending to want reunification while younger people tend to want to stay apart from China.  There's also the unfortunate example of Hong Kong, which had its freedom removed recently.

The last thing I recall President Biden doing against China was to further restrict their access to advanced computer chips. I think the value of Taiwan Semiconductor is greatly underestimated - but not by world leaders.  Advanced chips are critical to advanced military equipment.
"Taiwan makes 65% of the world’s semiconductors and almost 90% of the advanced chips."
https://www.voanews.com/a/race-for-semiconductors-influences-taiwan-conflict-/6696432.html

Almost two hundred years ago, Western powers controlled China (the "Opium Wars").  I suspect that is what China most wants to avoid, and is why they focus on defensive weapons.  Those weapons include anti-ship missiles, which would be a significant threat to the US Navy (original typo: anti-chip missiles).

In both China and Russia, criticicism of the government is off limits.  But in China, people loudly protested the treatment of a doctor who tried to warn about Covid - and China decided to make a memorial for him.  I'll need to dig up other examples, but when a protest is in the millions, China seems to respond to it.

If China invades Taiwan, I expect the US cuts off all trade, and probably Europe to some extent.  That creates a huge economic impact in China, where a fraction of the country's exports are simply not needed.  If a hundred million people suddenly become unemployed, would they protest?  That's an additional risk for China contemplating a violent solution to Taiwan.

[bwall]

Almost two hundred years ago, Western powers controlled China (the "Opium Wars").

Good point. Most people in the West have forgotten about this, if they even knew about it at all. The Chinese haven't forgotten, though. They outlawed opium in the 1830's, yet Western traders insisted on exporting opium from other parts of the British Empire and importing the opium in China. From the Chinese point of view the West brought about the downfall of China through unethical (immoral?) business practices.

Thus, today the Chinese have no qualms about selling methamphetamine precursor chemicals in bulk to Mexican transnational criminal organizations for them to then process into meth and sell in the USA. Most every other country has outlawed bulk sale/export of meth precursor chemicals, but not China. Turnabout is fair play and all that.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Thus, today the Chinese have no qualms about selling methamphetamine precursor chemicals in bulk to Mexican transnational criminal organizations for them to then process into meth and sell in the USA.

That's such a brutal piece of information I had to fact check it, hoping it was a conspiracy theory... it's confirmed by multiple government websites, the most clearest being this one:

Over the last 15 years, Mexican drug organizations have replaced domestic producers as the main manufacturers and distributors of meth in the United States. While Mexican cartels produce the majority (around 90 percent) of meth used in the United States, around 80 percent of precursor chemicals used in Mexican meth come from China.

https://www.uscc.gov/research/meth-precursor-chemicals-china-implications-united-states

So apparently China does have offensive weapons: meth addiction of Americans.

[pecunia]

Thus, today the Chinese have no qualms about selling methamphetamine precursor chemicals in bulk to Mexican transnational criminal organizations for them to then process into meth and sell in the USA.

That's such a brutal piece of information I had to fact check it, hoping it was a conspiracy theory... it's confirmed by multiple government websites, the most clearest being this one:

Over the last 15 years, Mexican drug organizations have replaced domestic producers as the main manufacturers and distributors of meth in the United States. While Mexican cartels produce the majority (around 90 percent) of meth used in the United States, around 80 percent of precursor chemicals used in Mexican meth come from China.

https://www.uscc.gov/research/meth-precursor-chemicals-china-implications-united-states

So apparently China does have offensive weapons: meth addiction of Americans.

So they have followed the model of big business and have "outsourced" the production.  Local criminals are essentially "laid off."  It's tough in bad cities in the rust belt.  Even meth cookers have a tough time these days.

[Chaplin]

So apparently China does have offensive weapons: meth addiction of Americans.

Dan Simmons novel "Flashback" had this as the central plot, except that it wasn't the Chinese. Get America get hooked on a drug that was kept out of the home country. Good book, by the way.

[bacchi]

China's already tried to take an island from Taiwan once before. They got an old school back-alley beat down; close to 100% of the invading force either captured, wounded or dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guningtou

Fascinating. This is some serendipity:

Chung Lung [an ROC ship] was supposed to leave on the evening of October 24 after offloading its cargo, but remained, offering an official excuse of "bad weather". The unmentioned real reason the ship remained in the area was that it was running a side business of smuggling brown sugar from Taiwan island in exchange for peanut oil. However, there was not enough peanut oil on the whole island for the deal, so the ship was forced to stay for another day while waiting for more peanut oil to be produced, making it the accidental hero of the battle.

[bwall]

Thus, today the Chinese have no qualms about selling methamphetamine precursor chemicals in bulk to Mexican transnational criminal organizations for them to then process into meth and sell in the USA.

That's such a brutal piece of information I had to fact check it, hoping it was a conspiracy theory... it's confirmed by multiple government websites, the most clearest being this one:

Over the last 15 years, Mexican drug organizations have replaced domestic producers as the main manufacturers and distributors of meth in the United States. While Mexican cartels produce the majority (around 90 percent) of meth used in the United States, around 80 percent of precursor chemicals used in Mexican meth come from China.

https://www.uscc.gov/research/meth-precursor-chemicals-china-implications-united-states

So apparently China does have offensive weapons: meth addiction of Americans.

The nature of the trade allows the Chinese deniability; 'We don't make any meth so we didn't do anything wrong' and 'Someone else is cooking meth and exporting to the USA, not us. For best results, talk to them' and 'If your citizens didn't want it, no one would make it', etc.
Yet, the Chinese know full well what is going on. Due to their own history, they know how devastating illegal drug activity can be to a country, which is the whole point of the Chinese doing it, IMHO.

[LennStar]

It's also a nice business, but yes, they certainly watch gleefully.

It's really of no use to talk about Chinas actions as long as you don't know the opium history - and understand how important that still is to the Chinese, like um... statues of General Lee for the Southerners in the US.
In the same was you need to understand that Xi Jiping is a victim of Mao - and still managed to work himself up into the highest ranks (also by marriage) by being a Maoist. That guy has discipline and determination enough for a dozen people. And no scruples at all.

[PeteD01]

ISW published an analysis of the Russian milblogger scene. A few months ago, some milbloggers appeared on Russian TV propaganda shows and their criticism, based on realistic assessments as for the conduct of the war, was severe and was seen by some in the west as signs of unrest in Russia and a potential threat to Putin.
This was talked about earlier in this thread but when I looked into it I could not verify that because it really looked like exercises in self-criticism or something and should more or less be seen as system stabilizing:

A few days ago, a former Russian colonel gave an excellent analysis of the war in Ukraine on Russian TV and some in the west have seen this as an important development as opinions like that are rare in the Russian media.
But they are wrong as this is just an attempt to keep the debate a Russian issue and potentially preparing the propaganda space for a face-saving retreat for the regime.
There is a tradition of self criticism in Marxism/Leninism that has always been used in two quite different ways: to purge dissenters from the party or to introduce issues that either could not be ignored anymore or arose in the minds of others in the upper echelons.
It is basically a gatekeeper strategy that makes any allowed debate one that takes places within the constraints of party orthodoxy, while allowing some, easily discreditable if the need should arise, crazy expert deviation from it. And at the same time, all undesirable debates will be suppressed.
This tradition also pays homage to a particular kind of expert veneration because, after all, Marxism/Leninism is the expert way how to run the world, and there are probably a lot of Russians who get nostalgic with that USSR stuff.
It is not evidence of major dissent but standard procedure in Marxism/Leninism to introduce a subject into public discourse using the perceivedly most neutral entry: an expert in the field.
The Russian TV audience skews older, just like in the US, and they most assuredly are not shocked when something controversial appears on TV, as that was always standard operating procedure to either steer and control the public discourse  or at least to lend legitimacy to the propaganda.

Here is how the media sees it - and it´s grotesquely beside the point, but then, they simply do not know any of this.
They are saying that the colonel's statements left his fellow panelists stunned and that opinions like his are banished from the airwaves. As far as I know, the same person gave another excellent analysis weeks before the invasion and predicted the outcome.

Here is the article from Feb 3, Google translate does a decent job:

Predictions of bloodthirsty political scientists

About enthusiastic hawks and hasty cuckoos

"FINDINGS

In general, there will be no Ukrainian blitzkrieg. The statements of some experts such as “The Russian army will defeat most of the units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 30-40 minutes”, “Russia is able to defeat Ukraine in 10 minutes in the event of a full-scale war”, “Russia will defeat Ukraine in eight minutes” have no serious grounds.

And finally, the most important thing. An armed conflict with Ukraine is currently fundamentally not in Russia's national interests. Therefore, it is best for some overexcited Russian experts to forget about their hatred fantasies. And in order to prevent further reputational losses, never remember again."

https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02-03/3_1175_donbass.html


It is just like in the old days: a good propaganda operation blends factual analysis and reporting with the right amount of lies - see US extremist media.
And as far as Russian TV goes, the opinions of their pundits are so extreme, calling for using nukes or extermination of Ukrainians etc., that Putin almost looks like a prudent leader. And in this context, the colonel´s analysis might actually be, among other things, reassuring to those who might have developed some doubts - at least one can be assured that these issues are known and considered by dear leader.
So, notwithstanding that the good colonel´s analysis is excellent, the fact that it was aired on TV does not indicate anything but business as usual in the Russian TV propaganda operation.
 

On a Russian talk show, a retired colonel stuns his colleagues by pointing out that the invasion isn’t going well.

"A military analyst on one of Russian state television’s most popular networks left his fellow panelists in stunned silence on Monday when he said that the conflict in Ukraine was deteriorating for Russia, giving the kind of honest assessment that is virtually banished from the official airwaves."



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/world/europe/russian-state-tv-ukraine-invasion.html

I´m quoting my older post in its entirety to provide some context and to show that this is not a new development but has become more important with the way the war has been going for Russia.
Putin clearly is more closely aligned with the milbloggers than in May and the ISW analysis certainly clarifies certain positions taken by Russian officials and political influencers.
Going forward, this political maneuvering will become more important as it could provide a pathway towards preserving Putinism, and by extension Putin himself, in the face of a Russian defeat.
I suggest reviewing the ISW analysis if one is interested in Russian domestic power machinations and wants to put the notion to rest that Russian milblogger dissent is some sort of dissident activity. They are not dissident but system stabilizing:

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, NOVEMBER 20
Nov 20, 2022 - Press ISW

ISW is publishing an abbreviated campaign update today, November 20. This report discusses the rising influence of the milblogger (military correspondent or voenkor) community in Russia despite its increasingly critical commentary on the conduct of the war. The milblogger community reportedly consists of over 500 independent authors and has emerged as an authoritative voice on the Russian war.[1] The community maintains a heavily pro-war and Russian nationalist outlook and is intertwined with prominent Russian nationalist ideologists. Milbloggers’ close relationships with armed forces – whether Russian Armed Forces, Chechen special units, Wagner Group mercenaries, or proxy formations – have given this community an authoritative voice arguably louder in the Russian information space than the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD). Russian President Vladimir Putin has defended the milbloggers from MoD attacks and protected their independence even as he increases oppression and censorship throughout Russia.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-november-20

[Glenstache]

It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.

[LennStar]

It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.

Yeah. At least the US in their (mostly) imperialistic wars don't go out of their way to kill civilians, they are merely hushing their war crimes up and putting whistleblowers in jail.

It doesn't sound like it, but that was meant without irony. I think now Russia undisputedly has crossed the genocide line.

[pecunia]

It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.

Yeah. At least the US in their (mostly) imperialistic wars don't go out of their way to kill civilians, they are merely hushing their war crimes up and putting whistleblowers in jail.

It doesn't sound like it, but that was meant without irony. I think now Russia undisputedly has crossed the genocide line.

That country is definitely evil.  There is absolutely no benefit for them to destroy the country they wish to conquer.  The strangest thing to me is that their Russian Orthodox Church leaders support all of this.  I think corruption in various forms is rampant throughout their Society.  It has been pointed out that they cannot outfit the soldiers, but their riot police seem to be well outfitted.  I guess that's the priority keeping their populace in line.

[PeteD01]

It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.

Yeah. At least the US in their (mostly) imperialistic wars don't go out of their way to kill civilians, they are merely hushing their war crimes up and putting whistleblowers in jail.

It doesn't sound like it, but that was meant without irony. I think now Russia undisputedly has crossed the genocide line.

That country is definitely evil.  There is absolutely no benefit for them to destroy the country they wish to conquer.  The strangest thing to me is that their Russian Orthodox Church leaders support all of this.  I think corruption in various forms is rampant throughout their Society.  It has been pointed out that they cannot outfit the soldiers, but their riot police seem to be well outfitted.  I guess that's the priority keeping their populace in line.

The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is effectively the state religion in Putinism. The idea of  ROC either supporting or not supporting Russian state actions doesn´t really apply here. ROC is nothing but an instrument of political and religious repression and cannot be looked at the same way as independent religious entities.

[LennStar]

Also the current patriarch is an ex-KGB. Also from the St. Petersburg branch and a old friend of Putin, if I rember correctly.

All positions of power in Russia are with the people there are because Putin put them there. That is also why a rebellion on the top is vanishingly unlikely.

[Glenstache]

It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.

[big_owl]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever? 

[PeteD01]

...some sort of peace. 

What sort of peace?
 

[sonofsven]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?

Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?

[big_owl]

...some sort of peace. 

What sort of peace?

Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday?  Life isn't fair.  You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million.  You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are?  Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever.  It's fucking war.  If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace.  Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.   

[big_owl]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?

Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?

Your point? 

[seattlecyclone]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?

Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?

Your point? 

Those actions were predicated on the idea that "if we just let the Germans have what they want, maybe we can all live in peace and harmony together." It didn't work. Once they got what they said they wanted one year, they expanded their ambitions accordingly.

Russia wasn't willing to stop once they took over Crimea, a few years later they came back for more. Even supposing the Ukrainian people were interested in trading the current Russian-held territory for a peace settlement (which I believe they are not), what reason do we have to believe that such a peace would last? If we all know the peace will be temporary at best, there's little to be gained by delaying the inevitable conflict, and plenty to lose.

[blue_green_sparks]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?

Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?

Your point? 

Those actions were predicated on the idea that "if we just let the Germans have what they want, maybe we can all live in peace and harmony together." It didn't work. Once they got what they said they wanted one year, they expanded their ambitions accordingly.

Russia wasn't willing to stop once they took over Crimea, a few years later they came back for more. Even supposing the Ukrainian people were interested in trading the current Russian-held territory for a peace settlement (which I believe they are not), what reason do we have to believe that such a peace would last? If we all know the peace will be temporary at best, there's little to be gained by delaying the inevitable conflict, and plenty to lose.

Yes, and it's not inconceivable that this war outlasts dictator Putin himself. The Russians buying weapons from Iran and using T-62 tanks, and all that cardboard filled body armor proves the oligarchs stole so much of that military budget to buy mega yachts and Parisian apartments.  Russian pilots have to Velcro Garmin GPS and Apple iPhones too their wind-shields so they know where they are. Look at their one aircraft carrier. It doesn’t start, LOL. It is clear they thought a large-scale conventional war unlikely, and Ukrainians would be waving welcoming Russian flags after paying all those pro-Russian separatists off for so long.

[pecunia]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?

Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?

Your point? 

Those actions were predicated on the idea that "if we just let the Germans have what they want, maybe we can all live in peace and harmony together." It didn't work. Once they got what they said they wanted one year, they expanded their ambitions accordingly.

Russia wasn't willing to stop once they took over Crimea, a few years later they came back for more. Even supposing the Ukrainian people were interested in trading the current Russian-held territory for a peace settlement (which I believe they are not), what reason do we have to believe that such a peace would last? If we all know the peace will be temporary at best, there's little to be gained by delaying the inevitable conflict, and plenty to lose.

I just did a quick check.  There are 13 owl species that live in Russia.

The Russians have stated on their media that they want more than just Ukraine.  The people that live on the border with Russia seem to have a very good understanding of the type of people they deal with when they deal with Russia.  they seem to support Ukraine quite well.  I think the Neville Chamberlain analogy is quite apt.

After Russia saw how much misery they created for the civilians in Ukraine, they recently shut the gas off to Moldova.  There certainly seems to be a lot of credibility in calling them a terrorist state as a number of European nations have recently done.

Life isn't fair.  I'll bet the mothers of the 86,710 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine don't think its fair.  You know - Nobody would stop them from packing up and going home to Russia.  After all, it was all their idea.  Then peace can be made.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd,
...
Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died
...
It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.

Your post is filled with strawman arguments - things you made up and then dispute, which nobody else is saying.

Russian soliders shooting civilians in the back of the head isn't war - its a war crime.  There's video evidence of it, and mass graves of civilians.

Germany and Japan instigated WWII many decades ago, and each killed millions of civilians.  That does not justify doing something similar at a smaller scale now.

[former player]

There is no peace to be made with Russia that only involves parts of Ukraine.   There would be only a temporary pause and then another push for the rest of Ukraine, for the rest of Moldova, for the rest of Georgia, for the fomenting of Russian populations in the Baltic States, for suborning extremist politicians in Hungary, Czechia and Serbia, and all happening during the continued genocide of Ukrainians in the occupied parts of Ukraine.

There is no peace to be made with Russia that does not involve acquiescing in the genocide of Ukrainians and in continued efforts by Russia to spread their terrorism further and further.

[LennStar]

...some sort of peace. 

What sort of peace?

Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday?  Life isn't fair.  You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million.  You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are?  Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever.  It's fucking war.  If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace.  Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.

Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.

But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.

[Vashy]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?

Yeah, because Russia can be trusted to keep to its treaties (see their security guarantee for a de-nuclearised Ukraine back in the 1990s) and respect the borders and sovereignty of its neighbours (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, the list goes on). And Ukraine *is* beating Russia - Russia has already retreated from Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and is now giving back territory in Donbass. Plus, if Ukraine moves forward a bit more in the south, the Kerch bridge and all Russian ships are within HIMARS range, putting Crimea very much on the table.

[PeteD01]

...some sort of peace. 

What sort of peace?

Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday?  Life isn't fair.  You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million.  You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are?  Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever.  It's fucking war.  If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace.  Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.

How silly!

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?

If it were a matter of civilians caught in a crossfire in a disputed area, sure, that happens.  When you're throwing inaccurate cruise missiles in the general direction of civilian power infrastructure hundreds of miles from the actual fighting, you lose your deniability.

Are there any examples where appeasement *has* worked?  It didn't work pre-WWII, it didn't work when Ukraine gave up their nukes, it didn't work after the 2014 invasion.

Yeah, because Russia can be trusted to keep to its treaties (see their security guarantee for a de-nuclearised Ukraine back in the 1990s) and respect the borders and sovereignty of its neighbours (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, the list goes on). And Ukraine *is* beating Russia - Russia has already retreated from Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and is now giving back territory in Donbass. Plus, if Ukraine moves forward a bit more in the south, the Kerch bridge and all Russian ships are within HIMARS range, putting Crimea very much on the table.

Sadly, unless Ukraine actually makes significant progress into Crimea proper, the Kerch Strait will still be well outside HIMARS range.

[pecunia]

I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect?   It's fucking war.  Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it?  Do some research on war.  Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.  Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace.  Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out.  So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?

If it were a matter of civilians caught in a crossfire in a disputed area, sure, that happens.  When you're throwing inaccurate cruise missiles in the general direction of civilian power infrastructure hundreds of miles from the actual fighting, you lose your deniability.

Are there any examples where appeasement *has* worked?  It didn't work pre-WWII, it didn't work when Ukraine gave up their nukes, it didn't work after the 2014 invasion.

Yeah, because Russia can be trusted to keep to its treaties (see their security guarantee for a de-nuclearised Ukraine back in the 1990s) and respect the borders and sovereignty of its neighbours (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, the list goes on). And Ukraine *is* beating Russia - Russia has already retreated from Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and is now giving back territory in Donbass. Plus, if Ukraine moves forward a bit more in the south, the Kerch bridge and all Russian ships are within HIMARS range, putting Crimea very much on the table.

Sadly, unless Ukraine actually makes significant progress into Crimea proper, the Kerch Strait will still be well outside HIMARS range.

How did they do it last time?  I guess they used a truck filled with explosives.  The world blew up bridges before HIMARS.  Ukraine has just been given some remote drone submarines.  Maybe, they could do the job.  It's always a whole lot easier to break something than it is to build something.  The bridge is not going any where.  They will figure out a way. They may be letting it be used in a somewhat crippled state to allow Russians to retreat.

[PeteD01]

Regarding negotiations with Russia:

The Case Against Negotiations with Russia

Frederick W. Kagan
November 17, 2022

The West should help Ukraine liberate the areas that are strategically vital to its security and economic well-being and then build up the Ukrainian military and economy to a point that deters future Russian invasions.  Moscow will continue to pursue means short of invasion to undermine pro-Western Ukrainian governments and coerce Ukrainians to surrender their independence.  Success for Ukraine and the West lies in turning this hot war into a cold war on terms that leave Ukraine strong enough to survive and ultimately win it.


https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-case-against-negotiations-with-russia