The general problem when someone decides they want to be the sole consolidated source of power: They're usually an idiot and have no non-idiots around them to steer them away from stupid decision. See: Putin, Trump, Stalin, etc.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I don't trust Putin on anything but a greater than 0 chance exists that his demands already have softened or will continue to do so if Russia continues to have massive struggles. My first thought is Putin will fight to the bitter end to prove he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't mean it's a guarantee. He will do anything to twist it as a win no doubt no matter what happens, but a super long conflict here is seemingly becoming less likely than one that ends in a short amount of time from right now.
Things are going that badly and I don't see a lot of things that truly turn that tide.
Last edited:
Yeah I've pointed this out before, after Xi and Putin, i question the quality of the leadership that comes up after them. For China in particular, they are about to japanize in terms of a rapidly aging population, I wonder what happens if you combine stagnating growth with weak leadership after a leader that decided to aboloish term limits.
This post deserves to get more attention so that people really get an idea of just how fragile China's economic situation is. I've even got supplementary materials in video form that break it down easy
Strongly recommend at least watching that first video to see how fucked up China's housing market and real estate bubble truly is. It blew my mind to see that a third of China's population are living as second-class citizens without access to education for their kids or healthcare because they don't own property in the proper province, with many kids never growing up with their parents. And China wonders why they have a demographic crisis, legacy of the One Child policy aside.
China stands to lose everything if they open a conflict that results in Western sanctions because their entire economy is geared and hinging upon the idea that China will be able to make good on its growth potential we've been promised for the last 20+ years that depends entirely on continued participation in the global free-market economy. They're also heavy importers of raw materials and food to sustain their economic output. A severe recession in the West due to their sanctioning China is an economic implosion in China that will hurt them far worse than it'll hurt the West and bring the country back decades on their projections for growth as investor money shrivels up and their system collapses
Not to get more armchair analyst than I already have but the trends are apparent just by looking at the effect of sanctions on the Russian economy, which is far less interwoven with globalized consumerism than China is. Pulling out of the global economy is essentially a CCP self-destruct button, and that's what a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be. This market reaction just to the idea of Chinese aid to Russia resulting in consequences shows just how fragile their position is
staff post - stay on topic
Russian vehicle losses appear to keep the same pace, if not higher slightly, than the previous days. Previous days were over 100 confirmed losses a day. Waiting to see if the tracking folks post any daily numbers but a lot of new stuff has been posted today with numerous vehicles in them.
What worries me is that all dictators have the attitude that "it's better to be hated than be laughed at". If Russia withdraws and fails to achieve their objectives it would be a crushing humiliation for Putin, I don't think we're anywhere near the point where he'd even think about stopping.
With the talks on US conducting a trade embargo on Russia I'm really wondering what's going to happen with the supply of titanium. It's a material we've been importing even during the height of the cold war
Yeah, I also don't think that will stop. He is just too deep and the losses are insane. He would probably throw chemical weapons all over the place and call it a day before he pulls out without anything.
Gonna be lots of those technicals driving around with Russian guns on top.
I apologize for contradicting, but how can we not discuss China on regular tangents when dealing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
China has made itself a present geopolitical player in this conflict from the start with the rumors about the delayed invasion for the sake of the Olympic Games all the way to today with requests for aid and stock market reactions. The evolving Chinese stance on the Ukrainian conflict is absolutely relevant, especially if there's potential for material aid to Russia that could hamper the Ukrainians. If nothing else, the Russians seem to think so.
Discussing the potential ramifications of Chinese policymaking and spreading awareness of the economic factors that weigh into China's policy-making is tangential, it's true, but it's 100% relevant to following the Russian-Ukrainian War and tempering expectations of Chinese escalation. It's no different than discussing the way that this war has affected America internally both economically and politically. We've (as far as I can tell, and only on the most recent page) not veered into speculation of escalating wars based on hysteria or panic, only provided reasoning as to why it's extremely unlikely to occur while trying to better inform others on what plays into the Chinese stance on the war. It's not as if we don't regularly discuss the American, British, or other EU internal situation regarding the war, sanctions, and economic impact caused by this war, and I don't see why China merits an exception unless people are getting silly again with WW3 claims or going on racism-tinged tangents
Have never truly understood the role a technical is supposed to fill. An armoured vehicle, I'll suited to stabilise the armaments fitted to it, with little in the way of transport capacity. Maybe it can support a squad of infantry by way of suppressive fire?
That gun should be able to stop lightly armored vehicles and trucks etc. the video earlier where the Ukrainian vehicle was darting in and out taking shots at Russian armor is what I can see these things doing
Should we just be ignoring all China related news concerning Ukraine? We talk about the US or Germany or the UK when they send weapons, make policy changes, add sanctions etc. Why is China off limits when they're constantly in the conversation?
The .50 cal equivalent they are mounting can cut through brush and light cover. It's not something you want to be shot at by, and it can scoot away before you really get a chance to return fire.
Yeah, China sending warplanes over Taiwan. Off topic. China supplying arms to Russia, seems like on topic? I'm a bit confused as well.
In 30 years right wingers will suddenly claim Zorro is awesome for "reasons"
I'm a bit confused by this staff communication too. It was my impression that the discussions from the last few pages where about the recent news of the potential involvement of China in the Ukraine war by providing weapons/supplies/support to Russia. News that came from a few different sources, including US intelligence.
Should we not talk about that? Why?
There's probably a pretty blurred line between legitimate concerns about China's potential involvement and baseless speculation. Especially so when there's really not much to go on aside from "China may or may not be willing to help Russia in some capacity"
Huh, I did not know that Ukraine had their own drones. I thought it was supplied entirely by the west or through Turkey. Really says something if the Russians are having issues taking out old drones out.
ISW analysis for 14 March 2022:
www.understandingwar.org
Institute for the Study of War
Russian forces made small territorial gains in Luhansk Oblast on March 14 but did not conduct any major attacks toward Kyiv or in northeastern Ukraine. Russian forces continue to assemble reinforcements and attempt to improve logistical support in both
I can only assume that China's involvement in Ukraine directly is on-topic; Talking about China v. USA/West worldwide- offtopic.
I don't know if anyone else has seen this. Couldn't find anything in a search:
Old drones are still more modern then all the old crap Russia has been rolling out.
I don't know if anyone else has seen this. Couldn't find anything in a search:
lol
I don't know if anyone else has seen this. Couldn't find anything in a search:
lmao!
What this report doesn't highlight on top of the Russians not making any new gains, is that they are continuing to take losses like when they were. There hasn't been a noticeable lull in the fighting/casualty rates yet, due to consistent Ukranian maneuvers. Since Russia has no visible reinforcements (at least in a large scale), every day they take these losses is another day towards not being able to complete any objectives. You can already see some former generals make the statement that Kyiv is most likely not attenable anymore (in the short term) due to losses and not advancing (they also comment Russia didn't commit enough men to Kyiv anyways though).ISW analysis for 14 March 2022:
Institute for the Study of War
Russian forces made small territorial gains in Luhansk Oblast on March 14 but did not conduct any major attacks toward Kyiv or in northeastern Ukraine. Russian forces continue to assemble reinforcements and attempt to improve logistical support in both
Hit and run anti-infantry tactics.
Prefect for the war strategy UA is using.
The article is super clear about the drones being made by Turkey. They're just operated by Ukraine, hence the "Ukraine's drones" in the headline.
Supposing Xi confirms he is an idiot and starts sending MREs and other stuff, and that the MREs aren't food poisoning waiting to happen...
What then? Does Russia magically gain the ability to supply soldiers in that are in any strategically meaningful locations? Aren't pretty much most of the Russian forces that are "besieging" cities nearly cut off from their own supply lines? If they couldn't even divert foodstuffs from the whole of Russia to send to the front lines, I'm not sure having a bunch of potentially rancid rations will do all that much.
What then? Does Russia magically gain the ability to supply soldiers in that are in any strategically meaningful locations? Aren't pretty much most of the Russian forces that are "besieging" cities nearly cut off from their own supply lines? If they couldn't even divert foodstuffs from the whole of Russia to send to the front lines, I'm not sure having a bunch of potentially rancid rations will do all that much.
The crazy thing is…if that's what Russia is asking for, it basically says that they don't have any to send in the first place. That lines up with those ones that were seen with the 2015 expiration dates, but still. That's just insane that they don't have stockpiles of MREs. Even expired ones.
And like you said, it doesn't mean that they'll magically gain the ability to actually get them to their troops.
Russia needs trucks and perhaps, more importantly, people motivated enough to drive said unarmored trucks through angry Ukrainian territory. The latter is the real supply crisis. It's arguably what's keeping Belarus on the sidelines. Anyone and everyone with a rifle or better will be willing to take shots at you. They know the land, the roads, where backup, food, and shelter are.
A recently ambushed convoy was carrying loose citrus (looked like apples) so I can believe they are out of MREs and largely bound to fighting near field kitchens or looting.
This made me think about the premature victory article released by Russian state media and if that was also done by a rogue employee instead of being a mistake. Archive
edit: wrong quote
Guess they figured their troops would just pick up something to eat at a Kyiv McDonald's.
Hit and run fire support. Convoy hunting. General purpose light infantry support.
It's not an APC, nobody's fooling themselves. But it beats hoofing it around trying to carry an HMG, and it beats being backed up by a truck that doesn't have a mounted .50 cal
That's roughly what Hu Wei says:
III. China's Strategic Choice
1. China cannot be tied to Putin and needs to be cut off as soon as possible. In the sense that an escalation of conflict between Russia and the West helps divert U.S. attention from China, China should rejoice with and even support Putin, but only if Russia does not fall. Being in the same boat with Putin will impact China should he lose power. Unless Putin can secure victory with China's backing, a prospect which looks bleak at the moment, China does not have the clout to back Russia. The law of international politics says that there are "no eternal allies nor perpetual enemies," but "our interests are eternal and perpetual." Under current international circumstances, China can only proceed by safeguarding its own best interests, choosing the lesser of two evils, and unloading the burden of Russia as soon as possible. At present, it is estimated that there is still a window period of one or two weeks before China loses its wiggle room. China must act decisively.
2. China should avoid playing both sides in the same boat, give up being neutral, and choose the mainstream position in the world. At present, China has tried not to offend either side and walked a middle ground in its international statements and choices, including abstaining from the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly votes. However, this position does not meet Russia's needs, and it has infuriated Ukraine and its supporters as well as sympathizers, putting China on the wrong side of much of the world. In some cases, apparent neutrality is a sensible choice, but it does not apply to this war, where China has nothing to gain. Given that China has always advocated respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it can avoid further isolation only by standing with the majority of the countries in the world. This position is also conducive to the settlement of the Taiwan issue.
3. China should achieve the greatest possible strategic breakthrough and not be further isolated by the West. Cutting off from Putin and giving up neutrality will help build China's international image and ease its relations with the U.S. and the West. Though difficult and requiring great wisdom, it is the best option for the future. The view that a geopolitical tussle in Europe triggered by the war in Ukraine will significantly delay the U.S. strategic shift from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region cannot be treated with excessive optimism. There are already voices in the U.S. that Europe is important, but China is more so, and the primary goal of the U.S. is to contain China from becoming the dominant power in the Indo-Pacific region. Under such circumstances, China's top priority is to make appropriate strategic adjustments accordingly, to change the hostile American attitudes towards China, and to save itself from isolation. The bottom line is to prevent the U.S. and the West from imposing joint sanctions on China.
4. China should prevent the outbreak of world wars and nuclear wars and make irreplaceable contributions to world peace. As Putin has explicitly requested Russia's strategic deterrent forces to enter a state of special combat readiness, the Russo-Ukrainian war may spiral out of control. A just cause attracts much support; an unjust one finds little. If Russia instigates a world war or even a nuclear war, it will surely risk the world's turmoil. To demonstrate China's role as a responsible major power, China not only cannot stand with Putin, but also should take concrete actions to prevent Putin's possible adventures. China is the only country in the world with this capability, and it must give full play to this unique advantage. Putin's departure from China's support will most likely end the war, or at least not dare to escalate the war. As a result, China will surely win widespread international praise for maintaining world peace, which may help China prevent isolation but also find an opportunity to improve its relations with the United States and the West.
My take is that China need Putin to survive, and the best way to ensure Putin's survival is to stop the war asap on some sort of "win".
Second best is to play hard ball and stop helping Putin almost entirely to get those bonus points with the west.
Going all in with Putin risks China's growth being slowed by sanctions and maybe even imperil the one party rule
You'd think even what turned out to be a third rate military would have heard of the expression "hope for the best, prepare for the worst." Not that I'm complaining, but it would seem that everything related to Russia's military infrastructure was rotten to the core.
do we have a time lapse of colleciton of these? would be nice to see the day to day changes.ISW analysis for 14 March 2022:
Institute for the Study of War
Russian forces made small territorial gains in Luhansk Oblast on March 14 but did not conduct any major attacks toward Kyiv or in northeastern Ukraine. Russian forces continue to assemble reinforcements and attempt to improve logistical support in both
I mean for a country like Russia that is always threatening war of some sort on its neighbors, it seems like such a massive failing that they apparently have no food at all for their soldiers, even enough for a couple of weeks. Like, what the hell? There should be warehouses full of this stuff.
Considering there's a good 20+ pages about whether planes will arrive from Poland, that seems like a weird distinction to make. It basically sounds like we can only discuss what the West may or may not do and why.
