Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4
Discussion
GT03ROB said:
TopTrump said:
You really are a one aren't you.
Imagine this. Israel or Ukraine attack Iran for supplying drones (kind of already happening). Other Muslim states don't like that they are being picked on/ attacked/ tag teamed. Escalation happen fast.
The Bosnian war was not that long ago and very nearby.
In answer to the alliance question- I was asked specifically what countries would join them. I then went on to make the point of religion. You seem to always ignore that piece to suit your crusade of arrogance around me daring to offer a differing viewpoint.
There are a number of major Muslim states who see Iran as a bigger enemy than Israel & would be more than happy to see Israel or whoever kick lumps out of Iran. The Islamic world is most certainly not a homogenous block.. Imagine this. Israel or Ukraine attack Iran for supplying drones (kind of already happening). Other Muslim states don't like that they are being picked on/ attacked/ tag teamed. Escalation happen fast.
The Bosnian war was not that long ago and very nearby.
In answer to the alliance question- I was asked specifically what countries would join them. I then went on to make the point of religion. You seem to always ignore that piece to suit your crusade of arrogance around me daring to offer a differing viewpoint.
If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
Solocle said:
Yep - a whole lot of detente between Israel and the Saudis / Gulf States in recent years. Precisely because Iran is increasingly seen as a common enemy.
If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
It could however form a tentacle for the outliers. Like the South Africa's, Zimbabwe's etc who had no specific reason before and the initial religious aspect becomes a catalyst for something wider.If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
TopTrump said:
Solocle said:
Yep - a whole lot of detente between Israel and the Saudis / Gulf States in recent years. Precisely because Iran is increasingly seen as a common enemy.
If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
It could however form a tentacle for the outliers. Like the South Africa's, Zimbabwe's etc who had no specific reason before and the initial religious aspect becomes a catalyst for something wider.If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
Do you mind me asking, where do you live/come from?
Enjoyed the last episode of Warship (filmed in 2021 - before the Russian invasion).
If that's anything to go by, the Russian military assets and responses seem pretty w
ky by Western standards.
(Caveat - state-owned BBC showing where tax-£'s are going so may not be completely transparent).
If that's anything to go by, the Russian military assets and responses seem pretty w
ky by Western standards.(Caveat - state-owned BBC showing where tax-£'s are going so may not be completely transparent).
TopTrump said:
Solocle said:
Yep - a whole lot of detente between Israel and the Saudis / Gulf States in recent years. Precisely because Iran is increasingly seen as a common enemy.
If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
It could however form a tentacle for the outliers. Like the South Africa's, Zimbabwe's etc who had no specific reason before and the initial religious aspect becomes a catalyst for something wider.If Iran formed a coalition it would be Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Iraq. Hardly a force for global domination.
Rivenink said:
pingu393 said:
Evanivitch said:
China wouldn't need to use land forces when it's Navy and air force would be sufficiently effective if Taiwan was not in receipt of US/Japan/Australia support.
Taiwan wouldn't starve. The US won't let them.If PRC should take it, it would show the other countries in the region which way the wind is blowing in terms of world power.
paulrockliffe said:
Castrol for a knave said:
He made the point that the West needs to climb off the high horse - they were all over Russia when they wanted cheap energy. "fk what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it.
It's only a grain though isn't it. The people that were all over Russian energy are either silent now or shilling for a 'negotiated settlement', or doing their best not to send arms to Ukraine. The voices you hear opposing Russia aren't the same people, they're the people that were saying this is mental and to build nuclear power stations decades ago.k what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it. It wasn't "Cheap energy", it was just energy, that's where the market ended up on a supply vs demand
basis.
The West wanted to trade with Russia, that's how trade works, that's why western companies went in there, to make money and provide their goods and services to an eager population.
We have always been wary of Russia because of past behaviour, but it was like the country had mellowed and everyone relaxed a bit, there is tourism back and forth, Oligarchs buying football clubs etc.
So Pauls Russian Mate needs to see it as a two way street, its human nature to interact, to trade and get the best deal.
Now we aren't perfect, but our forces aren't in anywhere at the moment raping, pillaging and randomly attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure and Rishi isnt threatening anyone with Armageddon.
Russia now thinks we all hate them, I personally don't hate the Russian population and find it weird when they appear on Telegram or whatever really keen to nuke us, but I put that down to the mindset and the IV line into their veins supplying bulls
t propaganda from birth. I am quite happy for Russians to live happily in Russia and not get nuked. I am interested in Russian history, culture and engineering, the whole cold war thing but this whole thing just seems to be a nightmare realised where we are catapulted back to the seventies/eighties (the decades I remember of the cold war, obviously goes back further) and it makes me think there is something so fundamentally wrong, its all founded on negativity, mistrust, misanthropy, nihilism and hatred.
Its like that bloke who gets friendly with any big cat, bear or whatever and lives amongst them, lots of pictures of them rolling around, all good fun until it reverts to type and eats his face, and we are in the face eating bit after years of tickling Russias tum.
Thought it was interesting that the RAND corporation posted a less than hawkish report regarding US interests in Ukraine.
As I am sure many people know RAND are the embodiment of the military industrial complex.
This was their headline conclusion:-
"The United States has a strong interest in avoiding a long war in Ukraine. Although Washington cannot alone determine the war's duration, it can take steps to make an eventual negotiated peace more likely."
The report correctly identifies that Russian behaviour is morally repugnant and antithetical to the rules based international order.
But the central tenet of the report is that US interests are not well served by a prolonged war and indeed steps should be taken now try and move the parties on a road to a negotiated settlement.
It's a pretty cold eyed, rational approach that is entirely consistent with conventional thinking regarding US foreign policy since the conclusion of the second world war.
"Our analysis suggests that this debate is too narrowly
focused on one dimension of the war’s trajectory.
Territorial control, although immensely important to Ukraine, is
not the most important dimension of the war’s future for
the United States. We conclude that, in addition to averting
possible escalation to a Russia-NATO war or Russian
nuclear use, avoiding a long war is also a higher priority
for the United States than facilitating significantly more
Ukrainian territorial control. Furthermore, the U.S. ability
to micromanage where the line is ultimately drawn is highly
constrained since the U.S. military is not directly involved
in the fighting. Enabling Ukraine’s territorial control is also
far from the only instrument available to the United States to
affect the trajectory of the war. We have highlighted several
other tools—potentially more potent ones—that Washington
can use to steer the war toward a trajectory that better
promotes U.S. interests. Whereas the United States cannot
determine the territorial outcome of the war directly, it will
have direct control over these policies.
....
A dramatic, overnight shift in U.S. policy is politically
impossible—both domestically and with allies—and would
be unwise in any case. But developing these instruments
now and socializing them with Ukraine and with U.S.
allies might help catalyze the eventual start of a process
that could bring this war to a negotiated end in a time
frame that would serve U.S. interests. The alternative is a
long war that poses major challenges for the United States,
Ukraine, and the rest of the world."
Of course whether this does portend a change in approach is unclear. However, the article itself is the very essence of the sort of softening up that the authors' advocate.
There is certainly no real indication that it will come to pass based on recent pronouncements from the US and Europe.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.h...
Interesting read.
As I am sure many people know RAND are the embodiment of the military industrial complex.
This was their headline conclusion:-
"The United States has a strong interest in avoiding a long war in Ukraine. Although Washington cannot alone determine the war's duration, it can take steps to make an eventual negotiated peace more likely."
The report correctly identifies that Russian behaviour is morally repugnant and antithetical to the rules based international order.
But the central tenet of the report is that US interests are not well served by a prolonged war and indeed steps should be taken now try and move the parties on a road to a negotiated settlement.
It's a pretty cold eyed, rational approach that is entirely consistent with conventional thinking regarding US foreign policy since the conclusion of the second world war.
"Our analysis suggests that this debate is too narrowly
focused on one dimension of the war’s trajectory.
Territorial control, although immensely important to Ukraine, is
not the most important dimension of the war’s future for
the United States. We conclude that, in addition to averting
possible escalation to a Russia-NATO war or Russian
nuclear use, avoiding a long war is also a higher priority
for the United States than facilitating significantly more
Ukrainian territorial control. Furthermore, the U.S. ability
to micromanage where the line is ultimately drawn is highly
constrained since the U.S. military is not directly involved
in the fighting. Enabling Ukraine’s territorial control is also
far from the only instrument available to the United States to
affect the trajectory of the war. We have highlighted several
other tools—potentially more potent ones—that Washington
can use to steer the war toward a trajectory that better
promotes U.S. interests. Whereas the United States cannot
determine the territorial outcome of the war directly, it will
have direct control over these policies.
....
A dramatic, overnight shift in U.S. policy is politically
impossible—both domestically and with allies—and would
be unwise in any case. But developing these instruments
now and socializing them with Ukraine and with U.S.
allies might help catalyze the eventual start of a process
that could bring this war to a negotiated end in a time
frame that would serve U.S. interests. The alternative is a
long war that poses major challenges for the United States,
Ukraine, and the rest of the world."
Of course whether this does portend a change in approach is unclear. However, the article itself is the very essence of the sort of softening up that the authors' advocate.
There is certainly no real indication that it will come to pass based on recent pronouncements from the US and Europe.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.h...
Interesting read.
Talksteer said:
If China is blockading and trying to starve Taiwan it is also basically going to starve it's economy of all the goods and services it needs as well.
That's not just from sanctions but because Taiwan blockades the coast of China by its position.
You need to look at a map. Taiwan is tiny compared to the Chinese coast. It's not even a credible position to shoot on Chinese trade ships.That's not just from sanctions but because Taiwan blockades the coast of China by its position.
Talksteer said:
Looking at the % of food imports that goes into Taiwan tells you relatively little. Firstly Taiwan achieves that level of food production with a few % of its workforce. Secondly there are lots of more efficient methods of farming or choices of food types.
And Qatar is a great example of how a nation can improve their position, but Qatar used massive air freight over a period of months to buffer the development of their domestic agriculture.Talksteer said:
There is also the question of will, the economic pain of blockading Taiwan would be much higher for each Taiwanese person, but they are fighting for their lives/nation against a hated invader. Whereas the average Chinese person would gain very little from an invasion but would see a substantial reduction in their quality of life and future prospects. We've seen that public mood can move things in the PRC and this could well be a catalyst for the Chinese Communist party either being overthrown or factions with using it to gain power.
You're making a few poor assumptions. Firstly, Taiwan would have little fight against a Chinese blockade. It would happen a hundred+ miles off the coast.And Russia has continued to sell gas because that's why the world needs. And China will continue to sell the goods the world needs too.
spookly said:
Castrol for a knave said:
He made the point that the West needs to climb off the high horse - they were all over Russia when they wanted cheap energy. "fk what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it.
It's not much of a point. The west was trading with russia with the hope that it would lead to peace not war. In hindsight this was the wrong move, but it wasn't the wrong thing to do at the time.k what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it. Ever since the end of the cold war the western countries have tried to bring russia to join the rest of the world. This war has just singlehandedly removed any chance of that for the forseeable.
Even if russia packs up and goes home, and some trade resumes, then there will be technology sanctions for generations.
But does give an insight into the Russian psyche, and why I doubt any of this will end sensibly any time soon.
Murph7355 said:
spookly said:
Castrol for a knave said:
He made the point that the West needs to climb off the high horse - they were all over Russia when they wanted cheap energy. "fk what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it.
It's not much of a point. The west was trading with russia with the hope that it would lead to peace not war. In hindsight this was the wrong move, but it wasn't the wrong thing to do at the time.k what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it. Ever since the end of the cold war the western countries have tried to bring russia to join the rest of the world. This war has just singlehandedly removed any chance of that for the forseeable.
Even if russia packs up and goes home, and some trade resumes, then there will be technology sanctions for generations.
But does give an insight into the Russian psyche, and why I doubt any of this will end sensibly any time soon.
I am less certain of that because history does not suggest that is what tends to happen after a conflict ends - especially re large, resource rich nations.
Less likely if there is some form of political change in Russia (which may be confected). The indirect effect of rendering Russia a vassal state to China may also present a large number of trade offs that are unpalatable to the West.
KarlMac said:
Call me a cynic but when the US have the chip plants up and running nI think their interest in preserving Taiwan will dwindle quite rapidly.
....and yet they're helping Ukraine and Ukraine isn't famous for its chip production....and it doesn't matter. Russia is self sufficient in energy and food. China isn't. Big difference.
ant1973 said:
Murph7355 said:
spookly said:
Castrol for a knave said:
He made the point that the West needs to climb off the high horse - they were all over Russia when they wanted cheap energy. "fk what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it.
It's not much of a point. The west was trading with russia with the hope that it would lead to peace not war. In hindsight this was the wrong move, but it wasn't the wrong thing to do at the time.k what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it. Ever since the end of the cold war the western countries have tried to bring russia to join the rest of the world. This war has just singlehandedly removed any chance of that for the forseeable.
Even if russia packs up and goes home, and some trade resumes, then there will be technology sanctions for generations.
But does give an insight into the Russian psyche, and why I doubt any of this will end sensibly any time soon.
I am less certain of that because history does not suggest that is what tends to happen after a conflict ends - especially re large, resource rich nations.
Less likely if there is some form of political change in Russia (which may be confected). The indirect effect of rendering Russia a vassal state to China may also present a large number of trade offs that are unpalatable to the West.
spookly said:
ant1973 said:
Murph7355 said:
spookly said:
Castrol for a knave said:
He made the point that the West needs to climb off the high horse - they were all over Russia when they wanted cheap energy. "fk what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it.
It's not much of a point. The west was trading with russia with the hope that it would lead to peace not war. In hindsight this was the wrong move, but it wasn't the wrong thing to do at the time.k what the idiots say on Telegraph" was his view, "but you guys need to know Putin was useful when it suited you", which has a grain of truth in it. Ever since the end of the cold war the western countries have tried to bring russia to join the rest of the world. This war has just singlehandedly removed any chance of that for the forseeable.
Even if russia packs up and goes home, and some trade resumes, then there will be technology sanctions for generations.
But does give an insight into the Russian psyche, and why I doubt any of this will end sensibly any time soon.
I am less certain of that because history does not suggest that is what tends to happen after a conflict ends - especially re large, resource rich nations.
Less likely if there is some form of political change in Russia (which may be confected). The indirect effect of rendering Russia a vassal state to China may also present a large number of trade offs that are unpalatable to the West.
spookly said:
I'm not suggesting that most sanctions won't be relaxed after a return to peace. Just that I don't see the export to russia of anything used to manufacture weapons going away for a very very long time.
Very much this. Who's going to lease a billion dollar aircraft to Russia in the next 30 years? Russia are not a reliable supplier of energy and won't be considered such for a generation or two. So countries can still buy energy from them in the medium term but no country can rely on them. (Including China.)
...and that's nothing to do with sanctions that's just reality.
In fact, you can work around sanctions, there's no workaround for showing yourself as a maliciously unreliable trading partner. You have gradually trade yourself back into trustworthiness over decades.
Saweep said:
Maybe; my thinking is that a Russia too weak to resist Chinese nibbles is not what the Americans will want either.
China's just jumped over a demographic cliff edge. China relies on the world for Energy and Food and it lives by selling tat to the world.Obviously there's a balance but I'm pretty sure the West will want to keep Russia out of Europe more than we want to keep China out of Russia.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Saweep said:
Maybe; my thinking is that a Russia too weak to resist Chinese nibbles is not what the Americans will want either.
China's just jumped over a demographic cliff edge. China relies on the world for Energy and Food and it lives by selling tat to the world.Obviously there's a balance but I'm pretty sure the West will want to keep Russia out of Europe more than we want to keep China out of Russia.
Chilling. Russia continue to sacrifice Ukranian troops to attack Ukranian positions. It's great that they're making little progress but the lives lost are not significant to Russia, which I find abhorrent.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/161998771...
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/161998771...
TopTrump said:
Religion has the shrewdest way of finding itself into conflict
So, in short, you have absolutely no idea why or how the thing you speculated was feasible would happen. You could at least have the basic courtesy to admit this fact rather than trying to pretend I'm "closed-minded" for having enough basic understanding to see how absurdly fanciful your suggestion is. TopTrump said:
Sometimes it is good to offer up a different viewpoint
I judge viewpoints on their merits, evidence and/or basis in reality and rationality. There is very good reason to be dismissive of your suggestion, reason I have explained in detail but which you refuse to acknowledge. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff