Nukes on the table

[vision]

...let's not forget that it violates international law and the rights of Ukrainians...let's not forget that international law is not just some abstract concept; it's what keeps the world from falling into chaos.

International law doesn't matter. It's not enforceable. There is no such thing as a legal and just war anyway. Those laws exist as a justification to punish the losers. The thing that ACTUALLY holds the modern world together is globalism and central banking. Read some economics books when you get a chance.

Ignoring [International Law] for the sake of short-term gains is not a good idea...

This isn't a short-term gain. Russia's move into Eastern Ukraine is a long-term investment that they won't reap the benefits from for at least a decade after the fighting stops. That's a minimum of how long it will take to invest in and extract the wealth of their newly acquired land and mineral resources.

...maybe Russia should focus on building better relationships with its neighbors and competing in the global economy.

Have you not been reading anything I've written? The war in Ukraine IS how they will compete in the global economy. They are simultaneously boosting their portfolio while eliminating a competitor. It's all a numbers game man, you should get over the romantic idea that morality and justice mean anything.

[Isaac]

While some may argue that Russia's move into Ukraine could be a long-term investment, the reality is that the costs of the conflict are likely to far outweigh any potential benefits. The war in Donbas has already caused significant damage to the region's infrastructure, economy, and social fabric, and the human toll of the conflict is immeasurable. Moreover, the war in Afghanistan, for example, has dragged on for over 20 years with no clear end in sight. It's not clear if Russia has the resources or political will to sustain a prolonged conflict with Ukraine and its allies. The idea that Russia can hold out for 20 years or more is highly doubtful.

All countries compete with one another. Ukraine and Russia could have worked together to promote mutual interests and strengthen their economies. By choosing to invade Ukraine and annex Crimea, Russia has not only violated international law, but also damaged its relations with Ukraine and the wider international community. Attacking your neighbor doesn't increase your standard of living.

Moreover, the idea that war is a cheaper or more efficient option than cooperation isn't true. Wars are a drain, both in terms of human lives and economic costs and Russia has a habit of falling appart. The conflict in Eastern Ukraine has already taken a significant toll on both countries, and Ukraine seems to be gaining allies as it sides with the West, as it should.

If it's really a numbers game, then I question if Russia owns a calculator.

[vision]

The idea that Russia can hold out for 20 years or more is highly doubtful...Moreover, the idea that war is a cheaper or more efficient option than cooperation isn't true.

When Russia was expelled from Swift Banking I predicted that they would eventually be reduced to the level of Pakistan; a nuclear power with little regional influence. I still maintain this is the most likely outcome. I remember telling a friend that Eastern Ukraine could become like Northern Ireland during The Troubles, but with the added disturbance of rockets regularly falling into the territory from Ukraine Proper. The instability could slow Russia's ability to recoup their war investment enough that wind up in worse shape than before the war, and that prolonged drag on their economy could spur some real change in their regime.

And of course cooperation is less expensive than war, but here is the thing: Ukraine is on the cusp of becoming a stronger economic player than Russia. They don't need Russia. There is no incentive to cooperate with Russia other than to not be attacked. And since Russia decided to be a jerk in 2004 they have only themselves to blame.

[Tunnelcat]

This is all well and good, but none of this addresses the elephant in the room. What we have is a power hungry autocrat with national delusions of grandeur and an ego to match who's currently getting his ass handed to him on a silver platter. We have our own example of what a man like that does when he's been emasculated and loses a fight. He'll do anything to keep that power and it doesn't matter that he's destroying the very country he wants to lead by going into retaliatory burn down the house mode in retribution. Right now, the fate of the world hinges on what this autocrat does if or when he loses. Will he be graceful and admit defeat, or does he go into retaliatory scorched earth mode? So the million dollar question is, what will Putin do if he loses the fight with Ukraine and the West and will his cronies back him up? Can ONE MAN be responsible for destroying the world?

[vision]

...the fate of the world hinges on what this autocrat does if or when he loses.

Please dial back the ridiculous drama. The Ukraine war is the most important conflict since WWII, but is no where near that scale or danger to the world. Keep in mind that this conflict will likely go on for years and there is a chance Putin might not even live to see the end of it. If Russia "loses" it's not something that will happen overnight. It will be a slow series of events where Russia progressively pulls back, and at some point diplomacy will phase out military operations in the form of "peace talks." It's in these talks that Putin, if he is alive, will get to save face. There is virtually no chance Russia will escalate this conflict because they can't, and like I said earlier there is no reason to use their only other option which is nuclear weapons.

[Isaac]

This is all well and good, but none of this addresses the elephant in the room. What we have is a power hungry autocrat with national delusions of grandeur and an ego to match who's currently getting his ass handed to him on a silver platter. We have our own example of what a man like that does when he's been emasculated and loses a fight. He'll do anything to keep that power and it doesn't matter that he's destroying the very country he wants to lead by going into retaliatory burn down the house mode in retribution. Right now, the fate of the world hinges on what this autocrat does if or when he loses. Will he be graceful and admit defeat, or does he go into retaliatory scorched earth mode? So the million dollar question is, what will Putin do if he loses the fight with Ukraine and the West and will his cronies back him up? Can ONE MAN be responsible for destroying the world?

Yes

[vision]

The real threat is AI

[woodchip]

The real threat is AI

While to a point this is true, The real threat in the world is China. They have the money and the desire to carry out what they want. Unlike Russia that could only put to sea one decrepit aircraft carrier followed by a tug in case it broke down, China has put to sea trials it's third new carrier. It has a modern air force and hyper-sonic missiles Most importantly it has the desire while with our president, we no longer have that desire. So WW3 will not happen in Ukraine, rather keep your eye on Taiwan.

[Vander]

Or we could, you know, not do a WW3.

[woodchip]

Yes, we could let the chi-coms take over Taiwan. Who cares. After all we botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan so we already showed we are a toothless tiger. More important to keep Joe's chin clear from drool while he gives a speech.

[Tunnelcat]

Or we could elect a Fascist Republican like DeSantis who's top priority is to keep those dangerous woke people out of the nation's public classrooms rather than put a check on that ongoing Russian illegal aggression against it's neighbor.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/politics ... index.html

And woody, you assume that all that glorious looking Chinese military hardware is built to even function as intended. Judging from the quality of the crap we buy from China, and the fact that the country and government is rife with corruption on a massive scale, I'd be surprised they could prosecute a war and win without resorting to nukes and a zero sum game result.

[vision]

Yes, we could let the chi-coms take over Taiwan.

They won't take over Taiwan because they don't recognize it as separate from China. Taiwan is viewed as one of those semi-autonomous regions of China. it's already considered theirs. What China would do (and are trying to do) it make it less autonomous, like they have in Tibet, HK, etc. And as we've seen in the past, there is no need for China's military to get involved, the mainland government simply uses diplomatic pressure. The US will absolutely not help Taiwan in a military escalation, but we'll do everything we can diplomatically and economically. No WW3 happening here either.

[Vander]

After all we botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan

Are we still in Afghanistan?

[woodchip]

Yes, we could let the chi-coms take over Taiwan.

They won't take over Taiwan because they don't recognize it as separate from China. Taiwan is viewed as one of those semi-autonomous regions of China. it's already considered theirs. What China would do (and are trying to do) it make it less autonomous, like they have in Tibet, HK, etc. And as we've seen in the past, there is no need for China's military to get involved, the mainland government simply uses diplomatic pressure. The US will absolutely not help Taiwan in a military escalation, but we'll do everything we can diplomatically and economically. No WW3 happening here either.

I don't know if you have been following the news, but China is using it's military to intimidate the Taiwanese people and government to acquiesce to it's demands. Less autonomous? HK was supposed to be able to operate freely under the agreement when the British gave up control. Tibet was out and out a takeover :
https://www.newsweek.com/china-tibet-hu ... ge-1786558
Tebet is not less autonomous. If you think Taiwan will be any different you are listening to the wrong people. The only difference between the Ukraine and Taiwan is the fact we have a agreement with the Chinese that, " understanding that Taiwan’s future would be determined peacefully". We have seen with Ukraine how well these "understandings" work out. We also had a understanding with Ukraine when they gave up their nukes.
I now see Poland has determined they will supply fighter jets to Ukraine. Ought to be interesting to see how big a conduit Poland becomes.

[woodchip]

After all we botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan

Are we still in Afghanistan?

No but for some reason we are still in S.Korea and Germany.

[woodchip]

Or we could elect a Fascist Republican like DeSantis who's top priority is to keep those dangerous woke people out of the nation's public classrooms rather than put a check on that ongoing Russian illegal aggression against it's neighbor.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/politics ... index.html

And woody, you assume that all that glorious looking Chinese military hardware is built to even function as intended. Judging from the quality of the crap we buy from China, and the fact that the country and government is rife with corruption on a massive scale, I'd be surprised they could prosecute a war and win without resorting to nukes and a zero sum game result.

I'd answer you except it looks like you're trying to set me up by accusing me of the crime of "stalking". With red flag laws coming on line, I don't care to open myself up in that manner,

[Vander]

No but for some reason we are still in S.Korea and Germany.

So the withdrawal wasn't botched when compared to South Korea and Germany?

[Tunnelcat]

Or we could elect a Fascist Republican like DeSantis who's top priority is to keep those dangerous woke people out of the nation's public classrooms rather than put a check on that ongoing Russian illegal aggression against it's neighbor.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/politics ... index.html

And woody, you assume that all that glorious looking Chinese military hardware is built to even function as intended. Judging from the quality of the crap we buy from China, and the fact that the country and government is rife with corruption on a massive scale, I'd be surprised they could prosecute a war and win without resorting to nukes and a zero sum game result.

I'd answer you except it looks like you're trying to set me up by accusing me of the crime of "stalking". With red flag laws coming on line, I don't care to open myself up in that manner,

Uhhhh, what? You off your meds today? You and your ilk sit there and worry about China when at the same time you don't support standing up to an already proven aggressor country like Russia because it costs too much money. WTF? Too much despot Putin love in the Trumpublican Party?

You want to bankrupt the Chi Coms, start going after all our greedy corporations that produce nearly everything we buy in that country, which of course feeds that repulsive government with cash. This issue isn't party specific either, it's that glorious capitalism you worship. I was doing some plumbing yesterday. I start looking at those PVC fittings I bought from Home Depot. Fer cripes sake, nearly every one had Made in China stamped into them like a badge of honor. So now we can't make a little shitty piece of plastic in this country? And here your party is concentrating on the Culture Wars, taking away a woman's right to bodily autonomy and giving everyone a gun to carry around like a bunch of Fascists. And here you call liberals stupid.

[vision]

Tebet is not less autonomous. If you think Taiwan will be any different you are listening to the wrong people.

I have a much better understanding of Chinese history and culture than you will ever have. The interplay between China and Tibet goes back 1500 years and simply saying China "took over" Tibet shows a gross ignorance of the power dynamics in that region. (This isn't a justification for China's repugnant erasure of Tibetan culture). Regarding Taiwan, China doesn't need the military, economic might and nefarious diplomacy will work just fine. Taiwan is a democracy and democracies are sensitive and unstable. China simply has too corrupt Taiwan's government and flood the island with propaganda and eventually the island will weaken.

Think of it this way: you're sitting on a train and a large bully wants your seat, but you refuse. If the bully sucker-punches you that's akin to a military strike. But that's not how China works. They will simply sit down in your seat whether you like it or not. Hitting back won't do any good so your only choice is to move or get crushed.

Also, we signed a defense treaty with Taiwan at the height of the red-scare and then immediately ignored the treaty and let Taiwan fight the mainland on their own a couple years later. What makes you think the US will anything if China invades the island some 70 years later?

[Tunnelcat]

What if...

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ina-196549

[woodchip]

Tebet is not less autonomous. If you think Taiwan will be any different you are listening to the wrong people.

I have a much better understanding of Chinese history and culture than you will ever have. The interplay between China and Tibet goes back 1500 years and simply saying China "took over" Tibet shows a gross ignorance of the power dynamics in that region. (This isn't a justification for China's repugnant erasure of Tibetan culture). Regarding Taiwan, China doesn't need the military, economic might and nefarious diplomacy will work just fine. Taiwan is a democracy and democracies are sensitive and unstable. China simply has too corrupt Taiwan's government and flood the island with propaganda and eventually the island will weaken.

Think of it this way: you're sitting on a train and a large bully wants your seat, but you refuse. If the bully sucker-punches you that's akin to a military strike. But that's not how China works. They will simply sit down in your seat whether you like it or not. Hitting back won't do any good so your only choice is to move or get crushed.

Also, we signed a defense treaty with Taiwan at the height of the red-scare and then immediately ignored the treaty and let Taiwan fight the mainland on their own a couple years later. What makes you think the US will anything if China invades the island some 70 years later?

First off I don't doubt you have a better understanding of China as my interest didn't start until WW2 and Claire Chennault and his flying tigers who flew for Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese Air force. I also took a honors class while at MSU but all I can remember from that was how the CCP as experimenting with turning the Guangdong Province into a capitalist area.
As to Taiwan, unless the parents and educators are teaching their kids to be weak I seriously doubt your examples are going to work. Chinese culture revere's their elder (who fled the communist) and by the examples seen in HK, Tibet and even in India are strong reasons to dissuade the Taiwanese from allowing the Chi-coms in. Besides they have the US, Japan, S.Korea and Australia as trading partners. So the argument the Chinese will use their economic might to gain entry is a no go. And you do realize we have military personnel in Taiwan with more troop expected in the near future:
https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/us-to-ram ... an-report/
While not a lot it will still deter CCP from trying to invade.

[vision]

While not a lot it will still deter CCP from trying to invade.

Those troops aren't a deterrent because China has no intention of invading. China plays the long game, slowly exploiting ways to make Taiwan more dependent on China (Tiwan's largest trading partner), corrupting politicians, spreading propaganda, and breaking their democracy. Keep in mind, until recently Taiwan also had a brutal authoritarian regime. Taiwanese and Chinese have way more in common than differences. It won't happen in our lifetimes but eventually Taiwan will be almost completely subservient to China. I'd like for it to be different but this is the most likely outcome.