Jump to content

Ukraine: Slava Ukraini!!!


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Lily Liyang said:

Nah.

The west is determined. 
 

I mean... in regards to your first comment here I wondered whether you are just being tongue-in-cheek, but this one leaves me startled. For real, what do you mean?

"The west", if anything, is determined to keep things cozy as they are, being trade partners. All this speculation about how a confrontation would play out is a result of Xi's sabre-rattling towards Taiwan. If Xi was stating he prefers the status quo on that front, everything would be peachy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toth said:

"The west", if anything, is determined to keep things cozy as they are, being trade partners. All this speculation about how a confrontation would play out is a result of Xi's sabre-rattling towards Taiwan. If Xi was stating he prefers the status quo on that front, everything would be peachy.

In fairness, that is not true.  The US finds China an economic rival and increasingly a military rival.  It also doesn’t like how China is trying to sway other countries into its orbit.

Trump put the US on a more confrontational path with China and Biden hasn’t changed direction appreciably.  There is nothing particularly controversial about me saying that.  That’s just how it is.

Taiwan and Uighur are factors but I would find it naive to think it’s all about them.  Or principally about them.

ThinkerX posted some wishful thinking about China earlier.  I would equate it with thinking about the US’s “inevitable break up”, which you can also find discussed on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Werthead said:

The original point, that Russia has expended vast stocks of weapons it would have used in a war with NATO in Europe just on Ukraine instead, to limited success, is a very good one and some in the US military establishment have made it clear that they're happy for Russia to keep doing that. That doesn't necessarily mean they want to keep the war artificially going and bleed Ukraine for Europe and America

It's hard not to spot the cognitive dissonance here. Or the naivety. Or the lack of historical perspective.  But of course the entire point of the war was precisely to bleed Russia dry. There were even statements to that effect before it had even started.
To be fair, it doesn't rule out the possibility of decison-makers also believing the war will achieve some lofty ideal - historically speaking, it happens. But no important decison-maker is going to act on lofty ideals alone.
So of course the war bleeds Ukraine for Europe and America. At this point I really don't see how anyone could delude themselves into thinking otherwise.
I guess you can also believe it bleeds Ukraine for Ukraine, if you assume Putin is a madman and/or Russia cannot be negotiated with, or trusted. But because that belief also makes the war perpetual, it ends up being of limited value ; or, to put it differently, the belief that an enemy cannot be negotiated with or trusted is ultimately a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What choice does Ukraine have? Defend itself or surrender. And then find its people flung into meat grinders when Russia attacks another country.

In any case, this may be the last ‘big’ war fought over ego and territory (save for Taiwan). When this war ends, people may celebrate it as showing the cost and futility of invading another country, but wars over resources (fresh water, oil, gas, food) are around the corner thanks to clinate change.

Lands are about to get too cold, too hot, too under water, too many peope, and too many old people.

It won’t be the end of human life, but I suspect life as we know if will end, particularly for weatern countries consuning far too many resources.

The very rich will keep their lifestyles, loving in protected conclaves - a winter house and a summer house to escape extreme weather.

In 200 years or so a reduced human race will have adapted, but some very hard decades are coming. We’ve had almost 59 years of warnings and done very little, much of it token changes.

Colonising Mars, while it would be good, is a dead end as its resources such as food and water will be ultimately non-renewable. And a resource-strapped earth isn’t going to happily waste massive amounts of fuel to send dwindling water to Mars.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lily Liyang said:

I have to say that we have a very different view on Taiwan. Taiwan has always been a part of China. I grew up reciting poems written a thousand years ago saying my country’s shattered even though the mountains and rivers remain the same.. even the grass and flowers are weeping. Some people think we are brainwashed.

Well... first, what do poems from a thousand years ago have to do with Taiwan? Taiwan is a remnant of the civil war from 80 years ago. A thousand year old poem would predate the Mongol takeover. That's quite a lot of game-changing events in between. And using the stuff you had to memorize in school isn't exactly a good argument against the possibility of "brainwashing". I've been working with GDR history books in my history classes and found it quite interesting how subtle they force you to look at an event through a very narrow lens by omission of some facts, giving you very ideologically charged interpretations and also the usual pointing fingers at the imperialist west being the source of all that ever went wrong. Given the idiological overlap... excuse me that I'm figuring the modern Chinese school system to not be much more liberal than that.

20 minutes ago, Lily Liyang said:

I know you may think differently. But 1.4 billion Chinese jaws clenched to watch Pelosi visited Taiwan. Why provoke and humiliate us and expect us not to fight back?

I... see that Pelosi's visit was perceived as a slight in mainland China, but you must see that from our view the extremely thin-skinned reaction of your government to outsiders mentioning countries China doesn't want to exist, or events they don't want to remember have happened, or... Winnie the Pooh for some reason... does come across as extremely petty to us Westerners. And controlling. Since it sometimes results in that this government wants to dictate how we should look at history or else they go sulk in a corner.

And I see @Padraigs point that the US is seeing China as a rival... yes... but that's the US... And even then, rival shouldn't mean enemy. It's all about what China intends to do with its soft power. Wanting prosperity through cooperation is a good thing, but we don't need another bully on the block who thinks in 19th century influence spheres. We should have grown beyond that.

11 minutes ago, Lily Liyang said:

And you are assaulting a Chinese when you suggest that China needs a license to “conquer” Taiwan. 

This! This is and the fighting thing also really concerns me! All the snark aside: If you'd live in Taiwan, would you want war? Would you want to be forcibly 'brought back into the fold' under threat of death and destruction? Look at Ukraine. Look at how this country looks now. 30 years ago Ukraine and Russia were under a single flag. Now hundred-thousands are dead because some old geezer wants to reverse time against the wishes of 36 Million people. How many dead do you think would reversing time for 24 Million cost? Is that really worth it if everyone is content with things being as they are now?

You see, I'm living in a country that used to be divided just 30 years ago because of people drawing lines on a map after WW2 and managed to go for unification. I do know that strong push towards one people living together in one country being the most natural state of things. Heck, that's been the German yearning since the Napoleonic Wars if you want to get particularly historical. But damn it, not through war and submission of your brothers! Look at what Korea got out of that! Look at Ukraine! Unification only makes sense if the people of both sides see it as a desirable outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Toth said:

Well... first, what do poems from a thousand years ago have to do with Taiwan? Taiwan is a remnant of the civil war from 80 years ago. A thousand year old poem would predate the Mongol takeover. That's quite a lot of game-changing events in between. And using the stuff you had to memorize in school isn't exactly a good argument against the possibility of "brainwashing". I've been working with GDR history books in my history classes and found it quite interesting how subtle they force you to look at an event through a very narrow lens by omission of some facts, giving you very ideologically charged interpretations and also the usual pointing fingers at the imperialist west being the source of all that ever went wrong. Given the idiological overlap... excuse me that I'm figuring the modern Chinese school system to not be much more liberal than that.

I... see that Pelosi's visit was perceived as a slight in mainland China, but you must see that from our view the extremely thin-skinned reaction of your government to outsiders mentioning countries China doesn't want to exist, or events they don't want to remember have happened, or... Winnie the Pooh for some reason... does come across as extremely petty to us Westerners. And controlling. Since it sometimes results in that this government wants to dictate how we should look at history or else they go sulk in a corner.

And I see @Padraigs point that the US is seeing China as a rival... yes... but that's the US... And even then, rival shouldn't mean enemy. It's all about what China intends to do with its soft power. Wanting prosperity through cooperation is a good thing, but we don't need another bully on the block who thinks in 19th century influence spheres. We should have grown beyond that.

This! This is and the fighting thing also really concerns me! All the snark aside: If you'd live in Taiwan, would you want war? Would you want to be forcibly 'brought back into the fold' under threat of death and destruction? Look at Ukraine. Look at how this country looks now. 30 years ago Ukraine and Russia were under a single flag. Now hundred-thousands are dead because some old geezer wants to reverse time against the wishes of 36 Million people. How many dead do you think would reversing time for 24 Million cost? Is that really worth it if everyone is content with things being as they are now?

You see, I'm living in a country that used to be divided just 30 years ago because of people drawing lines on a map after WW2 and managed to go for unification. I do know that strong push towards one people living together in one country being the most natural state of things. Heck, that's been the German yearning since the Napoleonic Wars if you want to get particularly historical. But damn it, not through war and submission of your brothers! Look at what Korea got out of that! Look at Ukraine! Unification only makes sense if the people of both sides see it as a desirable outcome.

Very well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's hard not to spot the cognitive dissonance here. Or the naivety. Or the lack of historical perspective.  But of course the entire point of the war was precisely to bleed Russia dry. There were even statements to that effect before it had even started.
To be fair, it doesn't rule out the possibility of decison-makers also believing the war will achieve some lofty ideal - historically speaking, it happens. But no important decison-maker is going to act on lofty ideals alone.
So of course the war bleeds Ukraine for Europe and America. At this point I really don't see how anyone could delude themselves into thinking otherwise.
I guess you can also believe it bleeds Ukraine for Ukraine, if you assume Putin is a madman and/or Russia cannot be negotiated with, or trusted. But because that belief also makes the war perpetual, it ends up being of limited value ; or, to put it differently, the belief that an enemy cannot be negotiated with or trusted is ultimately a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The war is bleeding American and European military stocks as well, which might well be a reason why China intervened in the way it did. It took a very reasonable approach when it could have leveraged its influence over Russia more forcefully to end the war, or it could have sided with Russia more forcefully and sent them tons of equipment, thus continuing the war for many years to come. Taking the path it did projects (particularly to third countries) that of a reasonable middle ground and shows that they are not pouring petrol on the flames by sending weapons (but insinuating the US is doing exactly that). They also continue to see American military stocks being depleted by being sent to Ukraine, removing their utility in any future confrontation with China in the near or medium term. It also incidentally leaves Russia increasingly reliant on China and very much a junior partner to China, a useful stalking horse in future geopolitics (Russia is fast becoming a Belarus to China). 

This is one reason why some American politicians now want to bring a conclusion to the war even if it leaves Russia with something they can sell as a victory (which is in itself dangerous for future escalation), not because of anything to do with Russia or Ukraine but because the United States' own global position is starting to look a bit leaky and needs urgent shoring up.

As regards to Putin, I don't think he's a madman, although he clearly wants people to think that as it makes them fear him more, but his judgement has clearly been poor, either due to advancing age or believing his own propaganda or a mixture of both (or he's a poker player who's just been blindingly lucky up until now and has suddenly hit his losing streak). That he is not to be trusted is self-evident. He can be negotiated with, but only if the desirable outcome is something that he wants. If it is not, then negotiations are a waste of time. Putin has been in intelligent in prior confrontations by always giving himself an out that his adversaries would be prepared to go for. He could have done that in Ukraine very easily, but he overreached and established his desired end-state (the annexation of four full oblasts, none of which he controls in full) is something that is incompatible with anything Ukraine would be prepared to accept, which even some pro-Putin commentators has said was a mistake. Annex Luhansk and Donetsk and try to gain recognition for Crimea as Russia, sure, that's doable. But anything beyond that was always going to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lily Liyang said:

Unbelievable you jump to the conclusion that I’m root for war. 
I see you are determined to think we are brainwashed by the “regime”.
good night

Excuse me that I'm not a mindreader. I did see that you put "conquer" in quotation marks, so I could tell you don't see it as war, but you did write that you see unification as a national mission and I've been wondering how exactly that would practically look like for you, if not through force. That's why I phrased it as a warning. As far as I can tell, the unification party in Taiwan has been on a steady decline these decades and the CCP doesn't look inclined to go for a system change on their end. I for one don't see how unification could be achieved with circumstances being as they are. So why the saber-rattling then?

And if you are upset about me not taking your quotation marks as stating the opposite, you should look that I've put "brainwashed" in quotation marks as well. So no, I don't think you are brainwashed. Heck, you are the one who for some reason felt the need to bring up your education system with your only point being that you looked at a thousand years old poems through a lens of nationalism and historic grievance. I was just responding to that saying that it takes a lot of critical thinking skills to work with ideologically charged textbooks because that's something that is usually on my mind when I think of education in communist countries.

In the end, it is just obvious that your opinion aligns with the party line and I'm replying to that. Also "we" is such a strong word as well. I've had interactions with Chinese people in real life and come to experience that your people is not exactly as monolithic as you claim it is, even politically. At least when having laid-back face-to-face discussions where heck, I wasn't even the one bringing up politics, dreading how bad that could end. Not sure why online debates I've experienced so far almost always went the opposite way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I guess you can also believe it bleeds Ukraine for Ukraine, if you assume Putin is a madman and/or Russia cannot be negotiated with, or trusted. But because that belief also makes the war perpetual, it ends up being of limited value ; or, to put it differently, the belief that an enemy cannot be negotiated with or trusted is ultimately a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nope, Russia still deploying his army on Ukrainian soil makes that war perpetual. Russia withdraws it troops, we have peace.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nope, Russia still deploying his army on Ukrainian soil makes that war perpetual. Russia withdraws it troops, we have peace.

 

:agree:

Russia started the war by launching an illegal aggression, and it can end the war tomorrow by ending it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/28/asia/russia-missile-training-japan-intl-hnk/index.html

Russia has launched missiles in a simulated attack on an enemy war ship in the Sea of Japan. Japan has been extremely pro Ukraine and has its own dispute with Russia over land lost at the conclusion of WW2. Doubt they would open up another front but maybe Russia is prepping for post Ukraine operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

In any case, this may be the last ‘big’ war fought over ego and territory (save for Taiwan). When this war ends, people may celebrate it as showing the cost and futility of invading another country, but wars over resources (fresh water, oil, gas, food) are around the corner thanks to clinate change.

Lands are about to get too cold, too hot, too under water, too many peope, and too many old people.

I think you'll see more wars fought over ego and territory, though the primary reason for it will be resources. Basically the model of what caused the Syrian civil war but all over the place. The Syrians don't say that the reason for it was lack of water or bad crops, but that was the actual cause that made people dissatisfied. You'll see a lot of countries use that dissatisfaction and anger to then justify future warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

And then find its people flung into meat grinders when Russia attacks another country.

I don't think Russia will attack another country any time soon. That's the one good thing I have to say about the Western (US?) strategy here: it worked. A year ago I thought it was insane because I didn't think Putin/Russia would be stupid enough to waste their military in this war. Obviously, I was wrong about that :P.

12 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

What choice does Ukraine have? Defend itself or surrender.

The "self-defense" line was valid a year ago. Now it's a war over Eastern Ukraine. Ultimately, it's up to the Ukrainians to decide how badly they want the regions annexed by Russia back. Or which ones they want back - given that eventual Ukraine victory is pretty much assured, given enough time.
I wouldn't consider Ukraine deciding that Donbass isn't worth fighting for "surrender."

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

As regards to Putin, I don't think he's a madman, although he clearly wants people to think that as it makes them fear him more, but his judgement has clearly been poor, either due to advancing age or believing his own propaganda or a mixture of both (or he's a poker player who's just been blindingly lucky up until now and has suddenly hit his losing streak). That he is not to be trusted is self-evident. He can be negotiated with, but only if the desirable outcome is something that he wants. If it is not, then negotiations are a waste of time. Putin has been in intelligent in prior confrontations by always giving himself an out that his adversaries would be prepared to go for. He could have done that in Ukraine very easily, but he overreached and established his desired end-state (the annexation of four full oblasts, none of which he controls in full) is something that is incompatible with anything Ukraine would be prepared to accept, which even some pro-Putin commentators has said was a mistake. Annex Luhansk and Donetsk and try to gain recognition for Crimea as Russia, sure, that's doable. But anything beyond that was always going to fail.

Agree 100%. Putin was incredibly stupid, which makes it difficult to trust him now.

Ironically though, it means we're back to square one: it's up to the Ukrainians to decide what they're willing to accept - at this point Russia will have to take whatever it is offered anyway. But Ukrainian military superiority will mean Ukraine gets to decide.

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

This is one reason why some American politicians now want to bring a conclusion to the war even if it leaves Russia with something they can sell as a victory (which is in itself dangerous for future escalation), not because of anything to do with Russia or Ukraine but because the United States' own global position is starting to look a bit leaky and needs urgent shoring up.

And who could have seen this coming... :rolleyes:

12 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

In any case, this may be the last ‘big’ war fought over ego and territory (save for Taiwan). When this war ends, people may celebrate it as showing the cost and futility of invading another country, but wars over resources (fresh water, oil, gas, food) are around the corner thanks to clinate change.

Lands are about to get too cold, too hot, too under water, too many peope, and too many old people.

Sadly, I believe you are absolutely correct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chad Vader said:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/28/asia/russia-missile-training-japan-intl-hnk/index.html

Russia has launched missiles in a simulated attack on an enemy war ship in the Sea of Japan. Japan has been extremely pro Ukraine and has its own dispute with Russia over land lost at the conclusion of WW2. Doubt they would open up another front but maybe Russia is prepping for post Ukraine operations.

The Russians would be absolutely insane to lanch at the Japanese.  It would give the Japanese all the excuse they need to retake the Kurils. And the Russians don’t have the bandwidth for a fight with Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nope, Russia still deploying his army on Ukrainian soil makes that war perpetual. Russia withdraws it troops, we have peace.

I don't even think Russia needed to do that to achieve an endpoint favourable to their ends. If they had limited operations to Donetsk and Luhansk alone, as a much milder evolution of the conflict that started in 2014 (so no massed invasion along a thousand miles of front, but a tripling of manpower on the DPR/LPR side and then steady escalations in attacks) I think you would be seeing at least some countries supporting Ukraine being much more hesitant about that support.

I suspect, even now, if Russia suddenly withdrew its claims to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and withdrew its military forces to Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, that would create a real political rift in at least some of the countries supporting Ukraine (particularly the United States). However, the land-bridge to Crimea is a crucial strategic aim of the conflict. Putin will only surrender it if he thinks the alternative is losing Crimea itself. Those moronic soldiers who heavily damaged the canal to Crimea may have inadvertently helped make that less of an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Werthead said:

As regards to Putin, I don't think he's a madman, although he clearly wants people to think that as it makes them fear him more, but his judgement has clearly been poor, either due to advancing age or believing his own propaganda or a mixture of both (or he's a poker player who's just been blindingly lucky up until now and has suddenly hit his losing streak). That he is not to be trusted is self-evident. He can be negotiated with, but only if the desirable outcome is something that he wants. If it is not, then negotiations are a waste of time. Putin has been in intelligent in prior confrontations by always giving himself an out that his adversaries would be prepared to go for. He could have done that in Ukraine very easily, but he overreached and established his desired end-state (the annexation of four full oblasts, none of which he controls in full) is something that is incompatible with anything Ukraine would be prepared to accept, which even some pro-Putin commentators has said was a mistake. Annex Luhansk and Donetsk and try to gain recognition for Crimea as Russia, sure, that's doable. But anything beyond that was always going to fail.

As I've said before, Putin cannot be reasonably negotiated with because he cannot be trusted to hold up his end. The only real way to end the war is by either Ukraine deciding not to fight any more or by making Russia unable to fight any more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...