Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4

[Bright Halo]

isaldiri said:

TheJimi said:

Digga said:

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

It's an interesting scenario to ponder; a world with a de-fanged Russia. Would it necessarily pass the mantle of 'enemy' to China?

Instinctively, I think the mantle passed to China quite a while ago. Perhaps "enemy" is too strong a word, currently, but if you asked the upper echelons of US defence and government who the biggest threat is, they'd say "China".

^ pretty much this. China has been the primary strategic adversary of the US for a while, far more than Russia due to their (increasing) economic clout. China as well has been very keen to try to break up the hegemony that the US currently enjoys so.... that certainly isn't going to happen without heaps of military expenditure which of course the US is likewise rather incentivised to try to maintain.

I don’t think the relationship between China and West is beyond repair. That is where the West should be concentrating it’s diplomatic effort to ensure there is a stable, workable coexistence that enhances trade and friendship.

[Adam.]

China acts in a somewhat logical and predictable way.

It is fighting primarily an economic battle with a mutual reliance with the West.

The worrying aspect is their clever and long term strategy of acquiring influence and raw materials in Asia and Africa etc

Edited by Adam. on Wednesday 29th March 11:29

[bloomen]

It's mind boggling China's rivals haven't been doing the same thing since forever.

That's an awful lot of people and resources. The usual routine seems to be plunder and walk away.

China is going about it the right way.

[isaldiri]

Bright Halo said:

I don’t think the relationship between China and West is beyond repair. That is where the West should be concentrating it’s diplomatic effort to ensure there is a stable, workable coexistence that enhances trade and friendship.

The tech/semiconductors moves that the US has brought against China recently rather suggests that 'friendly co-existence with enhanced trade' isn't really part of the plan....

[Digga]

isaldiri said:

Bright Halo said:

I don’t think the relationship between China and West is beyond repair. That is where the West should be concentrating it’s diplomatic effort to ensure there is a stable, workable coexistence that enhances trade and friendship.

The tech/semiconductors moves that the US has brought against China recently rather suggests that 'friendly co-existence with enhanced trade' isn't really part of the plan....

Or alternatively it suggests the corporate offshore herd mentality of "everything made in China" was hugely naive.

I think, if you listen to Xi, he's very much in the mode of "the 21st century is no place for disagreements to be settled by wars". That much is good. That China is a malign global influence on certain levels and also a country very much with its own questions to answer in terms of domestic policy - freedom, democracy, human rights etc. etc. - is not in question. However, Russia Mk2 they are not.

[souper]

Russia = Vranyo
China = Face

[AstonZagato]

isaldiri said:

Bright Halo said:

I don’t think the relationship between China and West is beyond repair. That is where the West should be concentrating it’s diplomatic effort to ensure there is a stable, workable coexistence that enhances trade and friendship.

The tech/semiconductors moves that the US has brought against China recently rather suggests that 'friendly co-existence with enhanced trade' isn't really part of the plan....

To be fair the German doctrine of "Wandel durch Handel" (change through trade) to bring Russia into the global community was a great plan, except for one tiny flaw: it was complete b0ll0cks.

[PRTVR]

Digga said:

Or alternatively it suggests the corporate offshore herd mentality of "everything made in China" was hugely naive.

I think, if you listen to Xi, he's very much in the mode of "the 21st century is no place for disagreements to be settled by wars". That much is good. That China is a malign global influence on certain levels and also a country very much with its own questions to answer in terms of domestic policy - freedom, democracy, human rights etc. etc. - is not in question. However, Russia Mk2 they are not.

I disagree, their militarisation of the islands in the South China Sea along with a massive military build programme would indicate they have every intention of using it as diplomatic leverage .

[Digga]

Back to the front: tanks.

It will be interesting to see the changes that the arrival of NATO tanks will bring. As I understand it, the ethos of their design, as opposed to Russian, was quality, rather than quantity in number. The basics are:

• Heavier, better armored and so more survivable for crews under fire.
• Munitions not stored under turret further reduces catastrophic effects of direct hit.
• Longer range guns than Russian tanks, so they can engage before Russian have any chance of returning fire.
• Ability to operate and attack at night, which Russians cannot.

[vaud]

Digga said:

Back to the front: tanks.

It will be interesting to see the changes that the arrival of NATO tanks will bring. As I understand it, the ethos of their design, as opposed to Russian, was quality, rather than quantity in number. The basics are:

• Heavier, better armored and so more survivable for crews under fire.
• Munitions not stored under turret further reduces catastrophic effects of direct hit.
• Longer range guns than Russian tanks, so they can engage before Russian have any chance of returning fire.
• Ability to operate and attack at night, which Russians cannot.

If you take Desert Storm as a comparison for Russian vs Western tanks then the results will not be good for Russia, especially when combined with Bradleys.

[trickywoo]

Digga said:

Back to the front: tanks.

It will be interesting to see the changes that the arrival of NATO tanks will bring. As I understand it, the ethos of their design, as opposed to Russian, was quality, rather than quantity in number. The basics are:

• Heavier, better armored and so more survivable for crews under fire.
• Munitions not stored under turret further reduces catastrophic effects of direct hit.
• Longer range guns than Russian tanks, so they can engage before Russian have any chance of returning fire.
• Ability to operate and attack at night, which Russians cannot.

The actual tanks themselves are superior in the ways you say but also expect Ukraine to use them with well trained infantry support, which isn't something the Russians have managed to do consistently.

[Bannock]

AstonZagato said:

isaldiri said:

Bright Halo said:

I don’t think the relationship between China and West is beyond repair. That is where the West should be concentrating it’s diplomatic effort to ensure there is a stable, workable coexistence that enhances trade and friendship.

The tech/semiconductors moves that the US has brought against China recently rather suggests that 'friendly co-existence with enhanced trade' isn't really part of the plan....

To be fair the German doctrine of "Wandel durch Handel" (change through trade) to bring Russia into the global community was a great plan, except for one tiny flaw: it was complete b0ll0cks.

It was optimistic, but I believe it was worth a shot and the right approach in the Yeltsin/early Putin years. But they hung on too long, as did every other Western nation in all honesty, us included. It should have been apparent by 2014 at the very, very latest that it was turning into Blackadder's complete b0ll0x. Nice reference, BTW. Here's my effort: Politics, man. If you're hanging onto a rising balloon, you're presented with a difficult decision. Let go before it's too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope?

[Ayahuasca]

Digga said:

Back to the front: tanks.

It will be interesting to see the changes that the arrival of NATO tanks will bring. As I understand it, the ethos of their design, as opposed to Russian, was quality, rather than quantity in number. The basics are:

• Heavier, better armored and so more survivable for crews under fire.
• Munitions not stored under turret further reduces catastrophic effects of direct hit.
• Longer range guns than Russian tanks, so they can engage before Russian have any chance of returning fire.
• Ability to operate and attack at night, which Russians cannot.

The German Tiger (superior quality, but fewer in numbers) lost out to the Sherman and T34 (lower quality, much higher in numbers) in WWII. Let’s hope the reverse is true in Ukraine. Yes I know it is not a true parallel.

[Digga]

trickywoo said:

Digga said:

Back to the front: tanks.

It will be interesting to see the changes that the arrival of NATO tanks will bring. As I understand it, the ethos of their design, as opposed to Russian, was quality, rather than quantity in number. The basics are:

• Heavier, better armored and so more survivable for crews under fire.
• Munitions not stored under turret further reduces catastrophic effects of direct hit.
• Longer range guns than Russian tanks, so they can engage before Russian have any chance of returning fire.
• Ability to operate and attack at night, which Russians cannot.

The actual tanks themselves are superior in the ways you say but also expect Ukraine to use them with well trained infantry support, which isn't something the Russians have managed to do consistently.

Yes, using isolated tanks, rather than as a group formation and with no infantry support was a foolish mistake. It sounds also as though NATO support equipment - logistics and supply vehicles, as well as personnel carriers - are included alongside to bolster the effectiveness.

[IroningMan]

Bannock said:

AstonZagato said:

isaldiri said:

Bright Halo said:

I don’t think the relationship between China and West is beyond repair. That is where the West should be concentrating it’s diplomatic effort to ensure there is a stable, workable coexistence that enhances trade and friendship.

The tech/semiconductors moves that the US has brought against China recently rather suggests that 'friendly co-existence with enhanced trade' isn't really part of the plan....

To be fair the German doctrine of "Wandel durch Handel" (change through trade) to bring Russia into the global community was a great plan, except for one tiny flaw: it was complete b0ll0cks.

It was optimistic, but I believe it was worth a shot and the right approach in the Yeltsin/early Putin years. But they hung on too long, as did every other Western nation in all honesty, us included. It should have been apparent by 2014 at the very, very latest that it was turning into Blackadder's complete b0ll0x. Nice reference, BTW. Here's my effort: Politics, man. If you're hanging onto a rising balloon, you're presented with a difficult decision. Let go before it's too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope?

A year ago there was a poster on here ostensibly from China who was asking why 'the West' hadn't tried harder to embrace and integrate Russia in the early 1990s...their inference being that 'the West' had turned it's collective back on Russia at that point.

[bloomen]

PRTVR said:

I disagree, their militarisation of the islands in the South China Sea along with a massive military build programme would indicate they have every intention of using it as diplomatic leverage .

China's prime concern is maintaining itself. Falling apart from within has always been higher in their minds.

However it's slightly problematic when China decides somewhere else nearby is now itself too.

And that's what may set everything on fire. What they regard as internal does not match what others think. China doesn't seem to have a problem inflilcting vile things on people inside their borders.

[isaldiri]

Digga said:

I think, if you listen to Xi, he's very much in the mode of "the 21st century is no place for disagreements to be settled by wars". That much is good.

If you listen to Xi, he's also very much in the mode of 'no one in the 21st century should be stupid enough to disagree sufficiently with China (ie me) such that war is needed'. Especially with regards to rebel provinces......

[Digga]

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

I think, if you listen to Xi, he's very much in the mode of "the 21st century is no place for disagreements to be settled by wars". That much is good.

If you listen to Xi, he's also very much in the mode of 'no one in the 21st century should be stupid enough to disagree sufficiently with China (ie me) such that war is needed'. Especially with regards to rebel provinces......

Hnce why I said, the country is not without it's domestic policy issues.

[aeropilot]

IroningMan said:

Bannock said:

AstonZagato said:

isaldiri said:

Bright Halo said:

I don’t think the relationship between China and West is beyond repair. That is where the West should be concentrating it’s diplomatic effort to ensure there is a stable, workable coexistence that enhances trade and friendship.

The tech/semiconductors moves that the US has brought against China recently rather suggests that 'friendly co-existence with enhanced trade' isn't really part of the plan....

To be fair the German doctrine of "Wandel durch Handel" (change through trade) to bring Russia into the global community was a great plan, except for one tiny flaw: it was complete b0ll0cks.

It was optimistic, but I believe it was worth a shot and the right approach in the Yeltsin/early Putin years. But they hung on too long, as did every other Western nation in all honesty, us included. It should have been apparent by 2014 at the very, very latest that it was turning into Blackadder's complete b0ll0x. Nice reference, BTW. Here's my effort: Politics, man. If you're hanging onto a rising balloon, you're presented with a difficult decision. Let go before it's too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope?

A year ago there was a poster on here ostensibly from China who was asking why 'the West' hadn't tried harder to embrace and integrate Russia in the early 1990s...their inference being that 'the West' had turned it's collective back on Russia at that point.

A lot of that was due to the circumstances of the low oil prices when the wall fell, and then later the rise in oil prices which largely created the rise in power and wealth of the Oligarchs, which the Russian public thought would be curtailed by voting back in the old style Soviet 'strong man' that was Putin. Of course, all he did was join them in syphoning off the same wealth while lying to the population......which is after all, all they had been used to for the past 70 years anyway.....and in reality not unlike, Lenin and later Stalin having to bring in the American oil companies back in the 1920's to help rebuild Russia's oil industry after its collapse with the Russian Revolution.......as Russian's knew the square root of FA about keeping it going.

[Tango13]

Ayahuasca said:

The German Tiger (superior quality, but fewer in numbers) lost out to the Sherman and T34 (lower quality, much higher in numbers) in WWII. Let’s hope the reverse is true in Ukraine. Yes I know it is not a true parallel.

That's a good topic for discussion but despite asking the mods won't set up a sub forum for historical debate.