Ukraine 11: Russian lies, guns, and money

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But he has kids from what I gather? Wouldn’t this insure the possibility of her killing or exiling them should un die before his offspring is grown?

I mean, it's North Korea, who really knows, but Un assassinated his (half) brother for a lot reasons - one of which being he thought he was working with the CIA.  Un's uncle is also a potential successor and still alive, as is his (apparently uninterested) brother, so it's not like they off every family member that poses a threat. 

[Werthead]

5 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

The danger of Russia breaking apart is that it likely will be a bloody affair and you may have multiple actors with access to nuclear weapons. This would likely draw in other countries, even if only at proxy level initially. And there is the risk of someone worse than Putin either taking over or at least carving out a state somewhere in Russia and have a nuclear arsenal at command.

I think the primary risk of Russia fragmenting, and why it likely won't happen at least nationwide, is that the far eastern regions would be in extreme danger of China swallowing them up. China wants more land and more access to Russia's raw materials, and to be fair to China, tiny - or huge but sparsely populated - states sprouting up along its northern border with nuclear weapons and no clear model of what they want to do with them would be extremely alarming and potentially dangerous.

That's why I think among the outcomes from this conflict, a much deeper China-Russia alliance might be possible and would be alarming: China has the potential to become a true peer competitor to the US and is much more capable than Russia of creating an alternate economic structure that allows it to exist independently from the US-led system. However, Russia and its unpredictability is also a potential major liability to China. Them forging a close and eternal friendship and then Russia going off on the deep end and doing something that hurts China's economic ties badly would be humiliating to Beijing (and the Russia-Indian relationship is something China views cooly, although arguably not as cooly as an Indian hard pivot to the USA, which is another possibility).

However, one of the links in the long thread noted above points to the danger of a China buoyed by the increase in power and prestige (not to mention its nuclear arsenal) from such an alliance, it may overreach and feel it can challenge the US in the Asia-Pacific region now rather than in another generation, which seems to be the consensus of even most Chinese experts. The US still retains the power to deal (politically and/or conventionally) with China in the Pacific and Russia in Europe simultaneously.

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Them forging a close and eternal friendship

While the conflict should intuitively improve Putin and Xi's "special relationship" - especially in an advantageous way for the latter - I don't think anyone should be worried about these two states, with their particular history and interests, "forging a close and eternal friendship."  That sounds like it should be reserved for speechwriters and hopeless romantics.

[Werthead]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

While the conflict should intuitively improve Putin and Xi's "special relationship" - especially in an advantageous way for the latter - I don't think anyone should be worried about these two states, with their particular history and interests, "forging a close and eternal friendship."  That sounds like it should be reserved for speechwriters and hopeless romantics.

I think that's true, and any relationship would be more of a junior partnership for Russia, or Russia even becoming a vassal state for China. But those still aren't necessarily desirable outcomes.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

I think that's true, and any relationship would be more of a junior partnership for Russia, or Russia even becoming a vassal state for China. But those still aren't necessarily desirable outcomes.

Yeah, agreed.  My sense is this may well drive Russia closer to China (frankly it logically should), but their disadvantageous position is not going to sit well with Russia in the long run.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Werthead @DMC

Do the Chinese want that kind of power?  Do they want to create “Chung Kuo”?  I’m not sure that they do.  I’ve always been under the impression China wants to be able to do what it thinks it must to further its independence and wants other Asian nations to seek their nod before taking big actions.  Which is something less than global hegemony.

Am I incorrect?

 

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve always been under the impression China wants to be able to do what it thinks it must to further its independence and wants other Asian nations to seek their nod before taking big actions.  Which is something less than global hegemony.

Well, I think their ambitions extend further than just regional hegemony (which seems to be what you're suggesting here), but I agree they may not want some of the responsibilities that entail Russia becoming too dependent on them.

[Werthead]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@Werthead @DMC

Do the Chinese want that kind of power?  Do they want to create “Chung Kuo”?  I’m not sure that they do.  I’ve always been under the impression China wants to be able to do what it thinks it must to further its independence and wants other Asian nations to seek their nod before taking big actions.  Which is something less than global hegemony.

Am I incorrect?

I think the points are arguable. Officially China wants to be the regional hegemon, which at least means being the primary power in Asia. I think that includes a Russia-like ambition to neutralise or win over US-friendly countries in the region, including South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines (where they are already making progress) to create a buffer region of friendly nations surrounding them. I think the Chinese, at least at this point, know that empire-building is a bad idea and it's better for them to employ soft power to ensure they are the primary influence over the areas of the world where they see the most growth this century, particularly Africa where they are investing heavily. I think they are warier about engaging in complex and unstable situations in the Middle East.

Chinese experts seem divided on whether this should be accomplished through peace and economic power or through a direct military confrontation with the United States over Taiwan: the Chinese believe that at a certain point they will be able to muster enough force to win a conventional war with the United States over Taiwan alone which will not involve a risk of escalation to nuclear war, and that such a Chinese victory would signal a US retreat from the region and nations in the region becoming friendlier to China, without China having to exert further military power. China has made a lot of hay about respecting territorial integrity and not using military force beyond its borders, although of course those borders could be redefined (i.e. Tibet).

[Zorral]

China wants resources and like any other empire will take them any way that works.

[polishgenius]

Won't link them here but there's graphic images up on twitter of the village of Bucha near Kyiv where there seems to be a mass grave and bodies of civilians, hands tied, lying on the ground apparently executed as the Russian forces withdrew. 

Fuck. 

[JGP]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

Won't link them here but there's graphic images up on twitter of the village of Bucha near Kyiv where there seems to be a mass grave and bodies of civilians, hands tied, lying on the ground apparently executed as the Russian forces withdrew. 

Fuck. 

Yeah, been seeing images of this brutality all morning. 

Getting really fucking angry again.

[Werthead]

Ukrainian sources saying they are seeing some signs of Russian and Transnistrian troops preparing to open a new front against Odesa, possibly to be accomplished alongside an amphibious push.

However, Moldovan sources are contradicting this, saying they are not seeing any change to the threat posture of Transnistrian troops along the border.

In addition, the combined Russian-Transnistrian forces do not exceed 7,500 (~1,500 of them Russian). They have no modern aircraft and only 17 helicopters and 18 tanks. Assuming they would leave some behind to defend against the highly improbable event of a Moldovan attack, their forces would be insufficient to take or seriously menace Odesa. Russia also can't currently safely airlift reinforcements to Transnistria due to the EU closing its airspace and Ukrainian airspace remaining contested.

[Padraig]

7 hours ago, Liffguard said:

I think that depends on what you mean by "win." Is it still possible for Russia to defeat Ukraine's military and occupy the country? Yes, I think that is still possible. But is it possible for Russia to achieve any strategic aims that are worth the expenditure of blood, equipment, money, and reputation? No, I don't think so. I think we're past the point where anyting that Russia might gain from this war is worth what they've spent on it.

That seems fair.  Although I think Putin's perspective on this will be different from ours.

On 4/1/2022 at 10:38 PM, JEORDHl said:

I'm just frustrated.

With you there!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Ukrainian sources saying they are seeing some signs of Russian and Transnistrian troops preparing to open a new front against Odesa, possibly to be accomplished alongside an amphibious push.

However, Moldovan sources are contradicting this, saying they are not seeing any change to the threat posture of Transnistrian troops along the border.

In addition, the combined Russian-Transnistrian forces do not exceed 7,500 (~1,500 of them Russian). They have no modern aircraft and only 17 helicopters and 18 tanks. Assuming they would leave some behind to defend against the highly improbable event of a Moldovan attack, their forces would be insufficient to take or seriously menace Odesa. Russia also can't currently safely airlift reinforcements to Transnistria due to the EU closing its airspace and Ukrainian airspace remaining contested.

When the hell are we going to get serious long range anti ship missile systems to Odesa.  Or does NATO fear that’s another Russian “Red Line”?

[Winterfell is Burning]

9 hours ago, Loge said:

Do the Kims really have an obvious succession plan? IIRC, the current one offed his uncle and his half-brother. Doesn't sound like they have a clear-cut line of succession like, say, the British royals.

 

I mean, if a Kim died, his son is expected to take his place. Although of course the current ruler is young, so who knows what will happen when he bites it.

 

 

[Corvinus85]

Apparently in the city of Izium, civilians gave Russian soldiers poisoned-laced food. Two soldiers died soon after and another 28 had to be taken to intensive care. I'm not sure if this would constitute a war crime, since it was done by civilians. In my book, this does not break the laws of hospitality. No gods have been offended. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Yeah, been seeing images of this brutality all morning. 

Getting really fucking angry again.

Utterly vile.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

I think the points are arguable. Officially China wants to be the regional hegemon, which at least means being the primary power in Asia. I think that includes a Russia-like ambition to neutralise or win over US-friendly countries in the region, including South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines (where they are already making progress) to create a buffer region of friendly nations surrounding them. I think the Chinese, at least at this point, know that empire-building is a bad idea and it's better for them to employ soft power to ensure they are the primary influence over the areas of the world where they see the most growth this century, particularly Africa where they are investing heavily. I think they are warier about engaging in complex and unstable situations in the Middle East.

Chinese experts seem divided on whether this should be accomplished through peace and economic power or through a direct military confrontation with the United States over Taiwan: the Chinese believe that at a certain point they will be able to muster enough force to win a conventional war with the United States over Taiwan alone which will not involve a risk of escalation to nuclear war, and that such a Chinese victory would signal a US retreat from the region and nations in the region becoming friendlier to China, without China having to exert further military power. China has made a lot of hay about respecting territorial integrity and not using military force beyond its borders, although of course those borders could be redefined (i.e. Tibet).

I don’t see China ever reaching a point at which launching an invasion across 80-120 miles of sea against a numerous and well-armed opponent could be anything other than extremely risky.

[Wilbur]

How surprised should Putin be to learn that war is a street that goes both ways?

This is quite an interesting take on the recent attack on Russian soil.

 

[Loge]

Looks like the Russians have completely withdrawn from Kyiv oblast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg