Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 5

[aeropilot]

Spare tyre said:

TGCOTF-dewey said:

Worrying escalation...Seems we're slowly marching into us all getting to play this horrible game.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul...

This is the exact reason we need to just sort the issue out sooner rather than later

Interesting article here along similar lines of thought.......

https://www.politico.eu/article/international-rela...

[Boringvolvodriver]

aeropilot said:

Spare tyre said:

TGCOTF-dewey said:

Worrying escalation...Seems we're slowly marching into us all getting to play this horrible game.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul...

This is the exact reason we need to just sort the issue out sooner rather than later

Interesting article here along similar lines of thought.......

https://www.politico.eu/article/international-rela...

Interesting articles - thank you for posting.

I agree that the issue needs sorting, I am just not sure whether the West knows how to.

It is a while ago now that I read an article by Patrick Cockburn in the I that basically said that the one thing that was never mentioned or considered was a peaceful end! His view, iirc, was that it was certainly in the American interests to keep the war going for a number of reasons - the armaments industry being one of them.

[Wadeski]

I think history will judge cautious American leadership early in the war very harshly - setting up Ukraine not to lose, but not to win either for fear of provoking Russia is just creating a permanent fracture in Europe.

Its counter to 50 years of US / Nato foreing policy which was all about certainty and unity.

[RustyMX5]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Interesting articles - thank you for posting.

I agree that the issue needs sorting, I am just not sure whether the West knows how to.

It is a while ago now that I read an article by Patrick Cockburn in the I that basically said that the one thing that was never mentioned or considered was a peaceful end! His view, iirc, was that it was certainly in the American interests to keep the war going for a number of reasons - the armaments industry being one of them.

I can't recall where I read it but it was something along the lines of The business of United States is war as it was considered so profitable. The US Armaments & Defence sector accounted for something like $310 bn in 2023.

[Digga]

Russia are attacking the West covertly. Assassination attempts on key figures (like the Rhinemetall boss) as well as cyber attacks and electronic warfare are ongoing. Moreover, a lot of this nefarious and nihilistic st has been going on for decades, but was somehow (and I don;t understand this) tolerated.

I am sure that if the West, MI6 etc. are returning the favour, we will never be told about it, but one hopes that they are, and in spades, because that's what's needed to combat the threat from this regime of gangsters. A total, all fronts strategy.

[isaldiri]

Wadeski said:

I think history will judge cautious American leadership early in the war very harshly - setting up Ukraine not to lose, but not to win either for fear of provoking Russia is just creating a permanent fracture in Europe.

Its counter to 50 years of US / Nato foreing policy which was all about certainty and unity.

Or it's simply facing reality that 50 years ago, the US was in a far more dominant position globally and able to exercise their will far more effectively in expecting the world (certainly in 'their' sphere') to be ordered as they pleased. The latter case then expanded rather a lot post 1990 when there was no longer any semblance of a counterweight to the US.

Whether or not it was possible to forever maintain that pre-eminent position as the sole global superpower and expect everyone else to always meekly follow the 'rules based international order' is less clear.

[aeropilot]

isaldiri said:

Wadeski said:

I think history will judge cautious American leadership early in the war very harshly - setting up Ukraine not to lose, but not to win either for fear of provoking Russia is just creating a permanent fracture in Europe.

Its counter to 50 years of US / Nato foreing policy which was all about certainty and unity.

Or it's simply facing reality that 50 years ago, the US was in a far more dominant position globally and able to exercise their will far more effectively in expecting the world (certainly in 'their' sphere') to be ordered as they pleased. The latter case then expanded rather a lot post 1990 when there was no longer any semblance of a counterweight to the US.

Whether or not it was possible to forever maintain that pre-eminent position as the sole global superpower and expect everyone else to always meekly follow the 'rules based international order' is less clear.

And I suspect that at some point, China will poke the American Eagle with a stick to see just who is 'top dog' which is what they are gradually edging towards in the South China Sea with their increasing expansion and bullying of smaller nations to see if USA wraps their nuckles and puts them in their place, or whether they choose to ignore it, which is basically what Pootin has been doing in Ukraine since 2014, and working out that clearly USA/EU didn't give a fk about the treaties signed with Ukraine, so it was there for the taking.

[isaldiri]

aeropilot said:

And I suspect that at some point, China will poke the American Eagle with a stick to see just who is 'top dog' which is what they are gradually edging towards in the South China Sea with their increasing expansion and bullying of smaller nations to see if USA wraps their nuckles and puts them in their place, or whether they choose to ignore it, which is basically what Pootin has been doing in Ukraine since 2014, and working out that clearly USA/EU didn't give a fk about the treaties signed with Ukraine, so it was there for the taking.

very much so - as increasingly has been seen around the spratlys and diaoyu islands already. East asia has an interesting conundrum in which way to turn as balancing the 2 powers (one obviously being rather a lot nearer but the other rather usefully has carrier battle groups...) might not be possible if things turn rather more unpleasant.

[Digga]

Problem China has is, it's 'empire', it's economy, is now very much on the wane. Doing war things properly is a VERY expensive business. USA has a decent(ish) econmy and currency and wealthy mates. China's mates are, very much, second rate.

There's only one thing the CCP are frightened of, and it is not the USA, it is it's own people and the outlook for them looks worse by the month.

[durbster]

Wadeski said:

I think history will judge cautious American leadership early in the war very harshly - setting up Ukraine not to lose, but not to win either for fear of provoking Russia is just creating a permanent fracture in Europe.

Its counter to 50 years of US / Nato foreing policy which was all about certainty and unity.

I think the problem is Putin's mindset is so far removed from something we understand that we're constantly expecting him to behave in ways we understand. That doesn't work because he's a fking lunatic.

We should have listened to Garry Kasparov. He's been telling us since 2014 what Putin would do if he wasn't stopped and has been right the whole way. He was calling for NATO nations to stop dithering and give Ukraine everything it needs to win, without restraint, because it is the only way to stop Putin.

His insight on this is one of the few things I miss since leaving Twitter.

Edited by durbster on Friday 12th July 16:50

[aeropilot]

Digga said:

There's only one thing the CCP are frightened of, and it is not the USA, it is it's own people and the outlook for them looks worse by the month.

But isn't that the risk here, it deflects the potential massive internal problem by being able to say, those nasty westerners are attacking us, and all of a sudden nationalistic fervor takes over.
To some extent that is how Pootin is keeping his narrative going against Ukraine, and to a lessor extend, its why Galtieri invaded the Falklands.
Its also similar to how Hitler stoked up his own population prior to WW2.

Edited by aeropilot on Friday 12th July 16:53

[Wadeski]

aeropilot said:

Digga said:

There's only one thing the CCP are frightened of, and it is not the USA, it is it's own people and the outlook for them looks worse by the month.

But isn't that the risk here, it defects the potential massive internal problem by being able to say, those nasty westerners are attacking us, and all of a sudden nationalistic fervor takes over.
To some extent that is how Pootin is keeping his narrative going against Ukraine, and to a lessor extend, its why Galtieri invaded the Falklands.
Its also similar to how Hitler stoked up his own population prior to WW2.

Exactly this.

Plus, the Chinese population are still (and, lets be honest, indoctrinated to be) VERY sore towards Western "arrogance" towards them during the Colonial era.

[aeropilot]

Wadeski said:

aeropilot said:

Digga said:

There's only one thing the CCP are frightened of, and it is not the USA, it is it's own people and the outlook for them looks worse by the month.

But isn't that the risk here, it defects the potential massive internal problem by being able to say, those nasty westerners are attacking us, and all of a sudden nationalistic fervor takes over.
To some extent that is how Pootin is keeping his narrative going against Ukraine, and to a lessor extend, its why Galtieri invaded the Falklands.
Its also similar to how Hitler stoked up his own population prior to WW2.

Exactly this.

Plus, the Chinese population are still (and, lets be honest, indoctrinated to be) VERY sore towards Western "arrogance" towards them during the Colonial era.

And yet ironically, the Chinese suffered massively at the hands of the Japanese from the mid 30's until the end of WW2, China now covertly doing to others in the area, what the Japanese did overtly during those 10 years, and needing the Allies to beat Japan to enable them to be free of Japan.

[isaldiri]

aeropilot said:

And yet ironically, the Chinese suffered massively at the hands of the Japanese from the mid 30's until the end of WW2, China now covertly doing to others in the area, what the Japanese did overtly during those 10 years, and needing the Allies to beat Japan to enable them to be free of Japan.

Er... you can't seriously be comparing what china is doing today (covertly or otherwise) to surrounding countries as being anything even vaguely similar to what the japanese were doing to them even pre wider pacific war in the late 30s..

[OutInTheShed]

isaldiri said:

Wadeski said:

I think history will judge cautious American leadership early in the war very harshly - setting up Ukraine not to lose, but not to win either for fear of provoking Russia is just creating a permanent fracture in Europe.

Its counter to 50 years of US / Nato foreing policy which was all about certainty and unity.

Or it's simply facing reality that 50 years ago, the US was in a far more dominant position globally and able to exercise their will far more effectively in expecting the world (certainly in 'their' sphere') to be ordered as they pleased. The latter case then expanded rather a lot post 1990 when there was no longer any semblance of a counterweight to the US.

Whether or not it was possible to forever maintain that pre-eminent position as the sole global superpower and expect everyone else to always meekly follow the 'rules based international order' is less clear.

About 50 years ago, Wasn't the US dominantly retreating from Vietnam?

[OutInTheShed]

Digga said:

Problem China has is, it's 'empire', it's economy, is now very much on the wane. ......

Do you really believe that?

[aeropilot]

isaldiri said:

aeropilot said:

And yet ironically, the Chinese suffered massively at the hands of the Japanese from the mid 30's until the end of WW2, China now covertly doing to others in the area, what the Japanese did overtly during those 10 years, and needing the Allies to beat Japan to enable them to be free of Japan.

Er... you can't seriously be comparing what china is doing today (covertly or otherwise) to surrounding countries as being anything even vaguely similar to what the japanese were doing to them even pre wider pacific war in the late 30s..

They are going about it in a very different way, but the ultimate aim is the same.

[hidetheelephants]

Economic imperialism is still imperialism, just less raping and pillaging.

[isaldiri]

aeropilot said:

isaldiri said:

aeropilot said:

And yet ironically, the Chinese suffered massively at the hands of the Japanese from the mid 30's until the end of WW2, China now covertly doing to others in the area, what the Japanese did overtly during those 10 years, and needing the Allies to beat Japan to enable them to be free of Japan.

Er... you can't seriously be comparing what china is doing today (covertly or otherwise) to surrounding countries as being anything even vaguely similar to what the japanese were doing to them even pre wider pacific war in the late 30s..

They are going about it in a very different way, but the ultimate aim is the same.

Well I'd say there is quite a difference if stuff like Nanjing massacres and similar other not so pleasant things that the japanese were doing in china doesn't need to happen tbh for one country to assume it's dominant status over that area...

[CharlesdeGaulle]

isaldiri said:

Well I'd say there is quite a difference if stuff like Nanjing massacres and similar other not so pleasant things that the japanese were doing in china doesn't need to happen tbh for one country to assume it's dominant status over that area...

You're special. You think and interpret differently. I'm not sure if that's a special gift, or if it marks you out as a contrarian gobste.