Ukraine War: David And Goliath

[Celestial]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

Yeah, contriving a way to make this the Dems' fault is a bit over and above.

I totally blame Biden and the Dems for dragging their feet on the help for Ukraine. Even if the Republican majority in the House had been more sensible and approved the aid, did they intend to send the heavy gear two years into the conflict? Any person with half a brain would know that in two years losses would pile up, morale would drop and war fatigue would set in.

Imagine the US sending just a bunch of destroyers and a few subs in the Pacific to fight the Japanese immediately after Pearl Harbor, then sending some cruisers in the summer of 1942, then adding some old battleships at the beginning of 1943, then sending in the carriers near the end of 1943. How the Pacific War would have developed with this "strategy" is pretty easy to guess. That is exactly what Biden did in the Russian-Ukrainian War.

That US and Europe hesitated in february-march can be understood: they did not know how effective the Ukrainian resistance would be. But the fact that both US and Europe reinforced Ukraine at the ponderous pace they did after it became clear the Russian first assault failed is criminally incompetent. Europe at least has the excuse that it is not a single country and it is simply not set up to deal quickly with a crisis of this sort - and its arms industry literally rotted after the Cold War. But the US?

Biden allowed himself to be bluffed by Putin and that is on him.

Frankly, this starts to feel like 1938 all over again (and the excuses for throwing Czechoslovakia to the nazies are eerily similar) and I fear US and Europe might be heading for a very nasty wake up, just like Britain and France did. We all made fun of the Russian army before, but if that is the measure of American/European resolve, I honestly don't see why Putin won't try for more. US spent 100 billions $ a year to fight a bunch of rag tag militias in Iraq and Afghanistan. If giving the same amount to Ukraine to fend off Russia is apparently too much of a hurdle, would America actually fight for some Eastern European countries like the Baltics or even Poland or Romania, even with their NATO status? Because all that bellicosity and determination of last year seems to have melted like snow in the spring at the first hardships - and not just amongst the MAGA.

If that is how things are, would Russia really risk that much by attacking NATO? After all, why not? If things go south fro Russia, Putin can always ask for an off-ramp, no?

Edited December 18, 2023 by Celestial

[House Balstroko]

8 minutes ago, Celestial said:

I totally blame Biden and the Dems for dragging their feet on the help for Ukraine. Even if the Republican majority in the House had been more sensible and approved the aid, did they intend to send the heavy gear two years into the conflict? Any person with half a brain would know that in two years losses would pile up, morale would drop and war fatigue would set in.

Imagine the US sending just a bunch of destroyers and a few subs in the Pacific to fight the Japanese immediately after Pearl Harbor, then sending some cruisers in the summer of 1942, then adding some old battleships at the beginning of 1943, then sending in the carriers near the end of 1943. How the Pacific War would have developed with this "strategy" is pretty easy to guess. That is exactly what Biden did in the Russian-Ukrainian War.

That US and Europe hesitated in february-march can be understood: they did not know how effective the Ukrainian resistance would be. But the fact that both US and Europe reinforced Ukraine at the ponderous pace they did after it became clear the Russian first assault failed is criminally incompetent. Europe at least has the excuse that it is not a single country and it is simply not set up to deal quickly with a crisis of this sort - and its arms industry literally rotted after the Cold War. But the US?

Biden allowed himself to be bluffed by Putin and that is on him.

Frankly, this starts to feel like 1938 all over again (and the excuses for throwing Czechoslovakia to the nazies are eerily similar) and I fear US and Europe might be heading for a very nasty wake up, just like Britain and France did. We all made fun of the Russian army before, but if that is the measure of American/European resolve, I honestly don't see why Putin won't try for more. US spent 100 billions $ a year to fight a bunch of rag tag militias in Iraq and Afghanistan. If giving the same amount to Ukraine to fend off Russia is apparently too much of a hurdle, would America actually fight for some Eastern European countries like the Baltics or even Poland or Romania, even with their NATO status? Because all that bellicosity and determination of last year seems to have melted like snow in the spring at the first hardships - and not just amongst the MAGA.

If that is how things are, would Russia really risk that much by attacking NATO? After all, why not? If things go south fro Russia, Putin can always ask for an off-ramp, no?

Honestly, I think that’s a very valid concern. So far NATO has been revitalised, at least in terms of exterior appearances. Among the far right (not just the MAGA types) there’s a belief that this isn’t America’s fight, and Europe should be left to their own devices. 
 

As you pointed out above, it’s worth pondering the implications of not standing up for your allies. What happens if a country in the Baltics invokes Article 5, but is ultimately met with indifference by its fellow NATO partners? At the end of the day, I think everyone realises that there’s a big difference between a country like the US, UK or Germany getting attacked versus someone like Estonia or Latvia. I hope I’m wrong though and NATO truly sticks together as an equal partnership. 

[Celestial]

30 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

Honestly, I think that’s a very valid concern. So far NATO has been revitalised, at least in terms of exterior appearances. Among the far right (not just the MAGA types) there’s a belief that this isn’t America’s fight, and Europe should be left to their own devices. 
 

As you pointed out above, it’s worth pondering the implications of not standing up for your allies. What happens if a country in the Baltics invokes Article 5, but is ultimately met with indifference by its fellow NATO partners? At the end of the day, I think everyone realises that there’s a big difference between a country like the US, UK or Germany getting attacked versus someone like Estonia or Latvia. I hope I’m wrong though and NATO truly sticks together as an equal partnership. 

Even if NATO were to send help, that has to be fast. If NATO will reinforce a member state just like they did with Ukraine, like 1 tank per week and 3 missiles on Saturdays, the alliance is dead.

If Roosevelt had reinforced his forces in the theatres of war like Biden did with Ukraine, the US military would have rioted. And morons then ask why Ukraine is not grateful enough.

 

Quote

At the end of the day, I think everyone realises that there’s a big difference between a country like the US, UK or Germany getting attacked versus someone like Estonia or Latvia. I hope I’m wrong though and NATO truly sticks together as an equal partnership.

If that happens, I believe US would gradually lose all its alliances in the hot spots of the world, because the lesson of this development will be: always bet against US allies.

Why fight together with the US when the latter can (and will) always abandon you at the drop of a hat, and not because of any fault of your own? Wouldn't it just be better to skip the bombing phase and seek an accommodation with America's enemies from the very beginning?

If it is shown that the US can be easily intimidated away, then Russia, China, Iran will start testing the waters. And any country in their crosshairs would have to decide their policy without factoring in the US anymore.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Celestial

[Darzin]

12 hours ago, hauberk said:

Entirely dependent on being able to count on McCarthy not immediately breaking any promises made. 

Sure he's an untrustworthy snake but if he breaks his deal vote him out then.

12 hours ago, mormont said:

Yeah, contriving a way to make this the Dems' fault is a bit over and above.

It's definitely the Republicans fault but with a deal with McCarthy Ukraine would still be getting aid.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

It's definitely the Republicans fault but with a deal with McCarthy Ukraine would still be getting aid.

McCarthy literally ruled out a deal with Democrats.

Sure they should have taken a deal to save his Speakership in exchange for Ukraine aid. But that was never offered.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Martell Spy

[Darzin]

I didn't realized he point blank closed the option down. 

[House Balstroko]

8 hours ago, Celestial said:

Even if NATO were to send help, that has to be fast. If NATO will reinforce a member state just like they did with Ukraine, like 1 tank per week and 3 missiles on Saturdays, the alliance is dead.

If Roosevelt had reinforced his forces in the theatres of war like Biden did with Ukraine, the US military would have rioted. And morons then ask why Ukraine is not grateful enough.

 

If that happens, I believe US would gradually lose all its alliances in the hot spots of the world, because the lesson of this development will be: always bet against US allies.

Why fight together with the US when the latter can (and will) always abandon you at the drop of a hat, and not because of any fault of your own? Wouldn't it just be better to skip the bombing phase and seek an accommodation with America's enemies from the very beginning?

If it is shown that the US can be easily intimidated away, then Russia, China, Iran will start testing the waters. And any country in their crosshairs would have to decide their policy without factoring in the US anymore.

The main advantage that the US has, is that it’s an incredibly valuable ally to have. That’s the reason many countries put up with it, even when it does its share of bs. Most other countries don’t have that luxury. The other big advantage that the US has, is that its main adversaries are far less reliable than it is. 

[Celestial]

40 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

The main advantage that the US has, is that it’s an incredibly valuable ally to have.

Yeah, ask the Kurds. I've seen this scenario described, to which I agree: 

Asian countries have every reason to expect the Ukraine scenario in the Pacific: US give promises they cannot fulfil -> You stand against the invader -> Get steamrolled -> Be left to your fate among ashes and ruins. Why not accept your fate now, skipping ashes & ruins part?

Ukraine provided US with the most favorable circumstances the US would ever have to support an ally: the US did not have to fight at all, Ukraine did and it was very effective; while 100 billion a year seems much, is the same amount US spent in Iraq/Aghanistan against much weaker foes and, to boot, a lot of these money were not real money, because it represent the theoretical value of old equipment which was destined for the scrapyard anyway. Yet, US is still failing.

Until now, the value of the US alliance was that other countries were convinced US would support its allies to the hilt. If that belief goes up in smoke and other countries start testing it at the same time, the value of that alliance will seriously diminish.

 

 

Quote

The other big advantage that the US has, is that its main adversaries are far less reliable than it is. 

They don't have to be, because it's not about getting into a reliable alliance with them but simply yielding to their demands. The problem is that, despite its material advantages, US seems uncommitted to win and can be easily distracted or made to back off. Russia and even China, on the other hand, might marshal less resources, but they are much more committed to win.

Here is a case in point: if Ukraine fails due to lack of American support, do you really think Taiwan will still considering standing up against China with US support?

Or maybe that is the plan, make countries lose faith in America, so US won't have to make the choice whether to fight or not itself?

Edited December 18, 2023 by Celestial

[Bironic]

24 minutes ago, Celestial said:

Here is a case in point: if Ukraine fails due to lack of American support, do you really think Taiwan will still considering standing up against China with US support?

I think almost 2 years after the russian invasion of Ukraine, we can say one thing: the current US President and with it a large part of "the West" doesn't view Ukraine as something that is really worth fighting for. It has in their view not that much strategic value (if at all) and itsn't really worth to put loads of money in... We don't want it to fall completely under russian control but we can arrange us somehow seems to be the line of thinking... The "west" simply doesn't need wheat and sunflower oil, and doesn't see a big difference between Ukraine and Russia...

Taiwan on the other hand has massive strategic value for the US and the "West"(that seems clear from Obama to Trump to Biden, both republicans like McConnell but also democrats like Pelosi), to let the biggest and best semiconductor factory in the world fall into chinese hands and give them access to the open ocean, while also destabilising the south/east china sea is something the US will spend much more money and probably troops on.

[SeanF]

40 minutes ago, Celestial said:

Yeah, ask the Kurds. I've seen this scenario described, to which I agree: 

Asian countries have every reason to expect the Ukraine scenario in the Pacific: US give promises they cannot fulfil -> You stand against the invader -> Get steamrolled -> Be left to your fate among ashes and ruins. Why not accept your fate now, skipping ashes & ruins part?

Ukraine provided US with the most favorable circumstances the US would ever have to support an ally: the US did not have to fight at all, Ukraine did and it was very effective; while 100 billion a year seems much, is the same amount US spent in Iraq/Aghanistan against much weaker foes and, to boot, a lot of these money were not real money, because it represent the theoretical value of old equipment which was destined for the scrapyard anyway. Yet, US is still failing.

Until now, the value of the US alliance was that other countries were convinced US would support its allies to the hilt. If that belief goes up in smoke and other countries start testing it at the same time, the value of that alliance will seriously diminish.

 

 

They don't have to be, because it's not about getting into a reliable alliance with them but simply yielding to their demands. The problem is that, despite its material advantages, US seems uncommitted to win and can be easily distracted or made to back off. Russia and even China, on the other hand, might marshal less resources, but they are much more committed to win.

Here is a case in point: if Ukraine fails due to lack of American support, do you really think Taiwan will still considering standing up against China with US support?

Or maybe that is the plan, make countries lose faith in America, so US won't have to make the choice whether to fight or not itself?

It's hard to disagree with any of that.

The other obvious conclusion for countries to draw is that they should arm themselves with nukes.  Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, in return for having it borders guaranteed, and they learned that assurance was worthless.

 

[Bironic]

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's hard to disagree with any of that.

The other obvious conclusion for countries to draw is that they should arm themselves with nukes.  Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, in return for having it borders guaranteed, and they learned that assurance was worthless.

I agree with you, but I think here we have to but a bit of the blame also on the US, I think a large part of the reason why North Korea, Russia and Iran are pursuing nuclear rearmament as hard as they do is that the unilateral invasions of Iraq and Libya (to a lesser degree Kosovo and Afghanistan) and the fate that Saddam Hussein, Qaddaffi, Milosevic etc. has befallen means that every wannabe dictator in this world wants nukes as a guarantee that he won't fall to some sort of regime change invasion...

[Celestial]

13 minutes ago, Bironic said:

I think almost 2 years after the russian invasion of Ukraine, we can say one thing: the current US President and with it a large part of "the West" doesn't view Ukraine as something that is really worth fighting for. It has in their view not that much strategic value (if at all) and itsn't really worth to put loads of money in... We don't want it to fall completely under russian control but we can arrange us somehow seems to be the line of thinking... The "west" simply doesn't need wheat and sunflower oil, and doesn't see a big difference between Ukraine and Russia...

Taiwan on the other hand has massive strategic value for the US and the "West"(that seems clear from Obama to Trump to Biden, both republicans like McConnell but also democrats like Pelosi), to let the biggest and best semiconductor factory in the world fall into chinese hands and give them access to the open ocean, while also destabilising the south/east china sea is something the US will spend much more money and probably troops on.

The problem is that actions speak louder than words. When this debate will be had in the Taiwanese society and the proponents of resistance to China will argue along those lines, all the proponents of surrender will have to do is point at Ukraine.

And, besides, the matter is not as clear cut as you make it to be.

1. Ukraine might not have much things which the Wests need, but the West has not decided to support Ukraine because it needs "wheat and sunflower oil". It did so because Russia has given clear indications that it is trying to go back to its expansionist ways from the tsarist period. From this perspective, Ukraine has massive strategic value because it can be the rock on which the new Russian expansionism can flounder - or its springboard.

Do I need to remind you that Putin asked in December 2021 for NATO to go back to the situation from 1997 or the constant threats from Russian propagandists and officials against the Baltics, Finland, Poland or Romania?

Taiwan might have the "chips", but it will also require a much greater effort (in money and actual blood) from the US to defend it, the success is much more uncertain even if the US were to go all in and a Chinese take-over does not pose the same risk of the conflict extending further as a Russian victory in Ukraine would. All these would weigh against supporting Taiwan.

2. Whether "the current US President and with it a large part of "the West" doesn't view Ukraine as something that is really worth fighting for" is questionable. The last statements from US and European officials suggest that they actually understand the issue described at point 1. Over the last months, with the war turning against Ukraine, there has been a ton of grim predictions and assessment along these lines, which I am sure you have noticed. The problem is that both US and Europe cannot overcome the institutional inertia embedded in their political and social systems.

The root cause of Ukraine's problem is not a conscious decision that Ukraine is not "worth fighting for". It's a combination of complacency, pettiness, internal division, a population who has not been asked to endure any major hardships since WW2 and the stupid hope that the problem might go away on its own (hence the "Putin drops dead" scenarios). Democratic countries also think mostly in electoral cycles and are world champions at passing the can down the road, in the hope that some deux ex machina will solve the problem by then, without them having to make any sacrifices. All these factors still apply to Taiwan as well, they will not magically disappear just because Taiwan makes a lot of chips.

If China gives Taiwan an ultimatum, "surrender or be bombed to bits", would you be surprised to see the same crowd which sabotages Ukraine today arguing that "Taiwan really belongs to China and maybe we can cut a deal with Xi Jinping"?

[Werthead]

A large part of the west does see Ukraine as fighting for. The main problem is that they gave up too much of their military production infrastructure and are reliant on the US, and US always bitched whenever European countries started talking about setting up rival production facilities.

There has been some talk about countries much closer to Russia - Norway, Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, possibly Sweden when it joins, maybe Turkey depending on what mood towards Putin Erdogan has that week - forming a closer cooperation bloc within NATO/the EU to militarise and construct defences against a possible Russian invasion if Ukraine is defeated (or even if Russia decides to invade with Ukraine not fully taken). They'd easily be supported by the UK in that, probably Spain as well, and France and Germany at least this side of their respective next elections.

[Werthead]

12 minutes ago, Celestial said:

Taiwan might have the "chips", but it will also require a much greater effort (in money and actual blood) from the US to defend it, the success is much more uncertain even if the US were to go all in and a Chinese take-over does not pose the same risk of the conflict extending further as a Russian victory in Ukraine would. All these would weigh against supporting Taiwan.

The Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia and India all have a far, far less sanguine view of this situation then that would suggest.

Yes, China has a historical, consistent claim to Taiwan, but they have also flat-out killed Indian soldiers in border clashes and China has significant issues with Japan, including burning resentment for previous events (in Beijing, at least, people are apathetic towards Taiwan but it doesn't take much to spark angry statements about Japan). Their neutrality towards South Korea is pretty much only because they regard North Korea as a potential loose cannon who could spark a nuclear war on their doorstep which they really don't want to deal with; if North Korea was more compliant, they might be prepared to back them in a war against South Korea and the US.

China also has a long-standing border concern with Vietnam and maritime disputes with the Philippines. China sees these disputes as all low-hanging fruit it could deal with in five seconds apiece if the US wasn't in contention.

Quote

 

2. Whether "the current US President and with it a large part of "the West" doesn't view Ukraine as something that is really worth fighting for" is questionable. The last statements from US and European officials suggest that they actually understand the issue described at point 1. Over the last months, with the war turning against Ukraine, there has been a ton of grim predictions and assessment along these lines, which I am sure you have noticed. The problem is that both US and Europe cannot overcome the institutional inertia embedded in their political and social systems.

 

The war has not really been turning against Ukraine so far. Ukraine has taken more territory this year from Russia around Robotyne, Bakhmut and in Kherson Oblast than Russia has taken back around Avdiivka, and Russian material losses have been staggering.

The threat is more that the war starts turning against Ukraine in the near term, not that it's already done so.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Werthead

[Bironic]

22 minutes ago, Celestial said:

1. Ukraine might not have much things which the Wests need, but the West has not decided to support Ukraine because it needs "wheat and sunflower oil". It did so because Russia has given clear indications that it is trying to go back to its expansionist ways from the tsarist period. From this perspective, Ukraine has massive strategic value because it can be the rock on which the new Russian expansionism can flounder - or its springboard.

Do I need to remind you that Putin asked in December 2021 for NATO to go back to the situation from 1997 or the constant threats from Russian propagandists and officials against the Baltics, Finland, Poland or Romania?

You seem to misunderstand me... I am certainly not saying that Ukraine has no strategic value etc. I do see the implications of letting down Ukraine, but a lot of politicians in the US and the west and a large part of their population doesn't(and the longer this war drags on the louder they will be). If they would the help we would give to Ukraine would be as high as the help the Baltic countries have given them and not significantly lower...

22 minutes ago, Celestial said:

The problem is that actions speak louder than words.

Exactly, all the western leaders have said they will support Ukraine all the way down, has that resulted in the military help they need? No (with the exception of some countries like the Baltics, denmark, norway etc.)...

22 minutes ago, Celestial said:

When this debate will be had in the Taiwanese society and the proponents of resistance to China will argue along those lines, all the proponents of surrender will have to do is point at Ukraine.

If China gives Taiwan an ultimatum, "surrender or be bombed to bits", would you be surprised to see the same crowd which sabotages Ukraine today arguing that "Taiwan really belongs to China and maybe we can cut a deal with Xi Jinping"?

I agree with you on that. Given the unclear status of Taiwan that crowd has an even bigger argument that Taiwan is actually China, while said argument cannot be made about Ukraine...

22 minutes ago, Celestial said:

The root cause of Ukraine's problem is not a conscious decision that Ukraine is not "worth fighting for". It's a combination of complacency, pettiness, internal division, a population who has not been asked to endure any major hardships since WW2 and the stupid hope that the problem might go away on its own (hence the "Putin drops dead" scenarios). Democratic countries also think mostly in electoral cycles and are world champions at passing the can down the road, in the hope that some deux ex machina will solve the problem by then, without them having to make any sacrifices. All these factors still apply to Taiwan as well, they will not magically disappear just because Taiwan makes a lot of chips.

Agree there are a lot of reasons underlying why support for Ukraine is waning, but in the end it boils down to the fact that the possible perceived/real downsides to more support for Ukraine seem to outweigh the possible(short term) benefits. In the case of Taiwan the calculation is probably different... (which doesn't mean that there will be a strong appeasement faction in that conflict too...)

Edited December 18, 2023 by Bironic

[Celestial]

3 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia and India all have a far, far less sanguine view of this situation then that would suggest.

Yes, China has a historical, consistent claim to Taiwan, but they have also flat-out killed Indian soldiers in border clashes and China has significant issues with Japan, including burning resentment for previous events (in Beijing, at least, people are apathetic towards Taiwan but it doesn't take much to spark angry statements about Japan). Their neutrality towards South Korea is pretty much only because they regard North Korea as a potential loose cannon who could spark a nuclear war on their doorstep which they really don't want to deal with; if North Korea was more compliant, they might be prepared to back them in a war against South Korea and the US.

China also has a long-standing border concern with Vietnam and maritime disputes with the Philippines. China sees these disputes as all low-hanging fruit it could deal with in five seconds apiece if the US wasn't in contention.

 

The threat is more that the war starts turning against Ukraine in the near term, not that it's already done so.

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. That India, Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea and Japan will declare war on China if it moves to annex Taiwan?

Quote

The war has not really been turning against Ukraine so far. Ukraine has taken more territory this year from Russia around Robotyne, Bakhmut and in Kherson Oblast than Russia has taken back around Avdiivka, and Russian material losses have been staggering.

 

From a Western perspective, yes. From a Russian perspective, less so. And even in this case, Russia has more men and weapons to spend than an unsupported Ukraine does.

Quote

The threat is more that the war starts turning against Ukraine in the near term, not that it's already done so.

Having in mind the slow pace of Western decision making and of actual deliveries, what happens now on the diplomatic front shapes what will happen on the military front in the next 6 months, at least.

The grim mood of both Ukrainian and Western officials is evidence of this.

[Werthead]

10 minutes ago, Celestial said:

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. That India, Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea and Japan will declare war on China if it moves to annex Taiwan?

No. If China takes Taiwan, they fear they will be next. They also fear that China does an all-or-nothing full-spectrum attack against Taiwan, all US bases in the region (including on South Korean, Philippine, Japanese and even Australian soil) and therefore on those countries as well, if China fears not doing so will allow the US to counter-attack.

Quote

 

From a Western perspective, yes. From a Russian perspective, less so. And even in this case, Russia has more men and weapons to spend than an unsupported Ukraine does.

Having in mind the slow pace of Western decision making and of actual deliveries, what happens now on the diplomatic front shapes what will happen on the military front in the next 6 months, at least.

The grim mood of both Ukrainian and Western officials is evidence of this.

 

From all perspectives. Russia has lost more than half of its total tanks, a quarter of it S-400 AA systems (which will be badly needed in a war against NATO., a third of its TOS-1 thermobaric missile systems, two of only five high-cost radar complexes etc. These are not things it can replace overnight or even in a few years. Hence why it has been dragging 60+ year old tanks and artillery systems out of museums to deploy on the front.

In terms of men, Russia has three times the manpower of Ukraine so Ukraine needs to be inflicting three losses for every loss it has sustained. At points in this war, Ukraine was inflicting 10:1 losses. During the counter-offensive that dropped to around 2:1, but has recently shot back up again in the defence of Avdiivka.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Werthead

[Celestial]

6 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Agree there are a lot of reasons underlying why support for Ukraine is waning, but in the end it boils down to the fact that the possible perceived/real downsides to more support for Ukraine seem to outweigh the possible benefits. In the case of Taiwan the calculation is probably different... (which doesn't mean that there will be a strong appeasement faction in that conflict too...)

I do not necessarily disagree with the bolded part, but I disagree that in the case of Taiwan the calculation is probably different. I am willing to bet that the same crowd who does not understand the strategic implication of Ukraine's defeat does not even know that Taiwan makes the best chips or what those chips are good for.

[Celestial]

48 minutes ago, Werthead said:

No. If China takes Taiwan, they fear they will be next. They also fear that China does an all-or-nothing full-spectrum attack against Taiwan, all US bases in the region (including on South Korean, Philippine, Japanese and even Australian soil) and therefore on those countries as well, if China fears not doing so will allow the US to counter-attack.

 

In case of India and Japan, that is one hell of a stretch. That would be the equivalent of saying that Britain and France fear they will be next on Russia's target list. Even I am not saying that, although I think it is obvious I am more pessimistic than you on this matter.

But even if I were to grant your point, what is the specific effect of your argument on a potential China-Taiwan clash? My original point was that a defeat of Ukraine might diminish faith in America's promises up to the point that Taiwan might consider yielding rather than relying on American support.

Do you argue that India, Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea and Japan will step in and replace American support? Is there any reason for Taiwan to believe this will actually happen?

That they feel threatened by Chinese expansionism is clear, but, in response, they will beef their own militaries, not send aid to Taiwan.

Also, what exactly means "next"? In case of Russia's neighbours, the threat is very specific: in case of the Baltics, direct annexation and reintegration into "Russki Mir". In case of Romania, the most likely scenario is annexation of Moldova (which is a former Romanian province, known as Bessarabia and which constituted half of the medieval Moldavia, taken away by Russia in 1812 and again by USSR in 1940 and a sore spot both for the Romanian population and the government): in the worst case scenario, Russia could support its puppets from Chisinau to demand parts of the Western Moldavia (pro-russian Igor Dodon is on record claiming that it is a pity Russia did not annex the whole region in 1812) - even if the threat does not actually materialize, Russia would use it to destabilize Romania. Poland is the least threatened from this group and I do not think Russia will actually try to take Polish territory, but covert retaliation and using Polish puppets to stir trouble is possible.

What exactly do Japan or India need to fear from China?

Quote

In terms of men, Russia has three times the manpower of Ukraine so Ukraine needs to be inflicting three losses for every loss it has sustained. At points in this war, Ukraine was inflicting 10:1 losses. During the counter-offensive that dropped to around 2:1, but has recently shot back up again in the defence of Avdiivka.

Actually, 3.5 times. And the disparity is likely larger, because many ended in the occupied territories or fled the country. Then factor in the draft dodging due the drop in morale caused by a seeming endless war which has turned into a meat grinder... Yes, Russia also has issues with draft dodging, but it is easier for them to simply dragoon men into the army than it is for Ukraine.

PS: I also want to add that the ratio of 10:1 seems fanciful. All the Western sources I've seen estimate an overall ratio around 3:1, max. Which is not enough.

Quote

From all perspectives. Russia has lost more than half of its total tanks, a quarter of it S-400 AA systems (which will be badly needed in a war against NATO., a third of its TOS-1 thermobaric missile systems, two of only five high-cost radar complexes etc. These are not things it can replace overnight or even in a few years. Hence why it has been dragging 60+ year old tanks and artillery systems out of museums to deploy on the front.

The bolded part IS the problem: whenever you and others say "against NATO", you work with the assumption that NATO will form a united front to confront a Russian aggression against one of its weaker members. It's not certain at all. Putin is banking on NATO blinking and, until now, he has been proven only partially wrong. While the initial NATO reaction was more drastic than he hoped, he still managed to prevent a massive reinforcement of Ukraine with the best gear NATO had available, has several Quislings undermining the alliance from within and whether NATO will manage to support Ukraine in 2024 has become an open question.

I would estimate that the chance of NATO similarly dragging their feet to send help to the Baltics is at 50%. This chance in case of Romania is 25% and in case of Poland 10%.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Celestial

[Darzin]

The chips for Taiwan is a bit of a red herring. China can't take those factories without them being destroyed in a war and the US is attempting to increase chip production to prevent  a shortfall if there is a war it's not done yet but it should be ready ish by the time China has the power to take Taiwan. China doesn't want Taiwan because of the chips but because the unification of China is a key goal of the government and something deeply cultural. Everyone in mainland China I have ever talked to strongly believes Taiwan is part of China strongly supports unification and views the ROC government as something akin to the Donetsk People's Republic. The CCP and the Chinese people are very united on this and it's a goal that will be attempted at some point, it's ideological and cultural though nothing about chips.

I think the difference is an invasion of Estonia or Taiwan wouldn't just be providing support but actual US troops and intervention. I do agree there is some Chance of this not happening for Estonia if there is a Republican administration. But all the Ukraine doves are China hawks so I don't think there is that much of a chance of no intervention. Ukraine was never a US ally in the way a NATO country or even Taiwan was, it was always closer to South Vietnam or Afghanistan. I think Ukraine falling to Russia will be a blow but not a fatal one to US hegemony. Legitimizing a war of conquest is a far worst thing but it seems it may happen.