niall78

Long article, fairly grim conclusions, though I doubt many people on the thread will be surprised by any of them. Xi is obsessed with Taiwan and pushing the U.S. out of the western Pacific. A new cold war with China seems inevitable, and a hot war over Taiwan by no means unlikely. There are parts of the Chinese government that understand this is a terrible idea, but they are very much not the ones in charge.
My two cents is that the U.S. needs to expand military spending massively and now to try and head off the worst of this. I would argue for a truly large scale deployment of U.S. forces to Taiwan. Strategic ambivalence has run its course. To his credit Biden has said this several times, but he is having to drag the blob along behind him .
It would be a great time to offer the Vietnamese one heck of a deal. It would 80 years late, but still the worth doing.
Edit: Cross posted with Steve, he is giving the optimistic scenario, the Economist is giving a very negative one, we shall see. 

In addition to what others have said, the UK had a soft empire for quite a while after the real one faded away. At least they pretended they were still great and indulged in large quantities of nostalgia.
The King is still the head of state of 15 countries, as Town and Country dutifully reminds us - https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g41501895/what-countries-does-king-charles-iii-reign-over/
Until the Australians upset the apple cart, the UK (England) got to remind all the oiks who was best at the Commonwealth games every 4 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Commonwealth_Games_medal_table
And even now the proms (an annual series of classical performances in London) concludes with rousing singalongs to Land of Hope and Glory and Rule, Britannia, despite discontent in some circles given the damage they did to the colonised countries and people.
Throw in Brexit with it's longings for a lost Britain and you could say that the UK is still renegotiating it's post-empire place in the world.

Are they involved with taking Russian money like the Conservatives in the UK?
Brexit was built on Putin's cash and disinformation. A cheap way to destabilise the EU and wreck the UK.
Has he got fingers in the political/media system in the States?

Never mind a US Republican President guaranteed the integrity of the Ukraine for exchange of the nuclear weapons that country possessed. If the US renege on its guarantees it will be just about as credible as China or Russia. But without doubt the Republican party should be aware of this.

It may just be me, but I think that NATO would want someone competent.

@sburke
Here is example how the post of one of many Russian losses can uncover whole story
 Major Vasiliy Muren'kiy (left photo, on right photo his brother, who was killed together with him), 11th separate engineer-sapper brigade, Southern military district. Was kileld on 24th Feb 2022 near Chaplynka, Kherson oblast.

Column of pontoons and vehcile with HE moved to Nova Kakhovka to establish bridge through the Dnieper if UKR forces damage the dam bridge. Also they had a task to blow a gate, which close canal of water supply to Crimea. Column was bombed and shelled with rockets by the pair of UKR Su-25. The truck with HE charges was hit and exploded, eliminating almost all column. Video with remains of this column was issued several days ago by Russian milblogger. In this attack at least 12 Russian servicemen were killed, about two dozens of different engineer vehciles were destroyed or damaged. During this attack UKR Su-25 was shot down by a missile. Pilot, lt.colonel, squadron commader Oleksandr Zhybrov, probably directed own falling plane down to enemy column and even had time to eject, but altitude was too low - he died.
Moment of Su-25 attack, the jet hit and falling - it's seen how pilot ejected
Destroyed Russian column - video of next day

Video of Russian blogger
Crashsite of UKR Su-25 #19, 299th tactical aviation brigade

Lt.colonel Oleksandr Zhybrov

I'm trying hard to not make this reply inflammatory which isn't easy given that your post borders on being insulting.
I'd advise you to first check the facts: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_207051.htm
The contribution is a significant portion of our available mechanized equipment, btw. France also leads one of the NATO battlegroups in Eastern Europe.
And I can assure you, while there was a lot of discussion about sanctions and military aid for Ukraine, in Germany there is no discussion worth the name about being in NATO or honoring the treaty if push comes to shove. Even "Die Linke", who in previous years advertised leaving NATO (and didn't get elected for it) is remarkably quiet in that regard at the moment. (Ignore Sahra Wagenknecht, she somehow seems to have lost it).
From a (West) German perspective I can say that we were some 45 years designated ground zero in case of Cold War going hot. The current Russia is but a shadow of the Soviet Union plus the Warsaw Pact countries. So tell us about being at the NATO frontline... Eastern Europe then was on the other side of the iron curtain. Would have been terribly easy to say afterwards "we don't trust our new neighbors, we don't want them in NATO." We didn't.
Now, I'll admit that's no guarantee. But you will never get that. Just as the other NATO members have no guarantee that the Eastern Europeans are equally enthusiastic when it's not Russia we are talking about but some other (as of now hypothetical) foe that comes knocking at the western or southern border.
So far NATO was never under attack (if we don't count Afghanistan - but if we do, Germany answered the call, btw). So don't pretend you know who would or wouldn't honor the treaty. At this point Poland or Estonia are just as hypothetical as the US, Germany or France especially in a case where they aren't threatened directly.
Edit:
And honestly, I think Russia is behind this "Germany and France won't defend Eastern Europe" because of...  😉

This is probably one of the most ignorant and nonsensical posts in this whole thread 

It's not so much that Europe has outsourced security to the US (and somehow fooled them into paying way more for defence than we do). It's that Europe imploded culturally, politically, and economically because of WW2, and the US then took over global leadership.
When Trump says it's "not fair" that EU countries pay less for military, that's based on the idea that we are somehow in an equal partnership. We are not. The USA is running the show, and EU is generally fine with that because the USA is way better than any alternative. And because we really don't want to be too assertive in global politics, telling people in other countries what to do... we've been there.
Also, while the US pays way more for NATO (in fact investing in its own superpower status), European countries spend way more of their GDP on international development and humanitarian aid. So it's not so much that we don't pay our part of the bill - we just pay different parts of it.

I see you are very new to this thing, so let me give you a history lesson. No, not even THE history lesson, where we go through three centuries of genocide, although that context matters more than anything, but a recent one.
When Russia invaded Ukraine - Ukraine was bound by its own Constitution to stay neutral. In fact Ukraine wasn't just 'neutral' - it was absolutely anti-NATO. At the start of 2014 only 18% of Ukrainians wished to join NATO. Ukraine was also under Western sanctions, just a little bonus.
So then russians invade, start looting, raping, torturing, killing people and that goes on for whole 5 years before Ukraine finally decides to remove neutrality from Constitution. Hmmm, say - maybe getting killed by russians for 5 years had something to do with that "join the NATO" bright idea, but, nah, that's a preposterous thought.
How Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan are doing, not being in NATO, btw? I heard they have their territories occupied by russians, but that can't be, those countries are not in NATO.
Or maybe, just maybe russians not wanting anyone to be in purely defensive alliance is because they want to attack that country?
So come again? 

As far as I understand, there's no way Germany would be able to agree to that since we're signatory to and have ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which is very clear on these points:
Countries that ratify the convention will be obliged "never under any circumstances to":
Use cluster munitions; Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions; Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

I think in these cases, it's always helpful to remember that we're not here as representatives of our respective governments. I feel no need to support or defend Scholz's behavior simply because I'm not the one being adressed when people here are criticizing Germany.
I find that providing some context especially on domestic political realities in a country can be quite important to understand what's going on, especially since these things are often lost in translation through the international media.

Well said.

Have to jump in on that one.
As the gas was sold on the world market the whole planet benefited from the Russian supplies dampening down the market price of such gas. When the Russian supply is cut Europe buys its gas elsewhere and the global price spirals effecting everyone. So everyone worldwide that uses gas helped build the Russian army.
Same way we are all still benefiting from Saudi oil worldwide and other nasty regimes even if our countries don't buy directly from them.  It's a pity that Western democratic countries are dependant on any crappy regime for any natural resource but we are. Fuel, rare earth metals, you name it we buy it and in the process support despotic countries that work to undermine us at any opportunity.
It's a problem all democracies have built up over decades and it really isn't the responsibility of one or two democracies to take all the flak for that situation developing.

Have to jump in on that one.
As the gas was sold on the world market the whole planet benefited from the Russian supplies dampening down the market price of such gas. When the Russian supply is cut Europe buys its gas elsewhere and the global price spirals effecting everyone. So everyone worldwide that uses gas helped build the Russian army.
Same way we are all still benefiting from Saudi oil worldwide and other nasty regimes even if our countries don't buy directly from them.  It's a pity that Western democratic countries are dependant on any crappy regime for any natural resource but we are. Fuel, rare earth metals, you name it we buy it and in the process support despotic countries that work to undermine us at any opportunity.
It's a problem all democracies have built up over decades and it really isn't the responsibility of one or two democracies to take all the flak for that situation developing.

Have to jump in on that one.
As the gas was sold on the world market the whole planet benefited from the Russian supplies dampening down the market price of such gas. When the Russian supply is cut Europe buys its gas elsewhere and the global price spirals effecting everyone. So everyone worldwide that uses gas helped build the Russian army.
Same way we are all still benefiting from Saudi oil worldwide and other nasty regimes even if our countries don't buy directly from them.  It's a pity that Western democratic countries are dependant on any crappy regime for any natural resource but we are. Fuel, rare earth metals, you name it we buy it and in the process support despotic countries that work to undermine us at any opportunity.
It's a problem all democracies have built up over decades and it really isn't the responsibility of one or two democracies to take all the flak for that situation developing.

Have to jump in on that one.
As the gas was sold on the world market the whole planet benefited from the Russian supplies dampening down the market price of such gas. When the Russian supply is cut Europe buys its gas elsewhere and the global price spirals effecting everyone. So everyone worldwide that uses gas helped build the Russian army.
Same way we are all still benefiting from Saudi oil worldwide and other nasty regimes even if our countries don't buy directly from them.  It's a pity that Western democratic countries are dependant on any crappy regime for any natural resource but we are. Fuel, rare earth metals, you name it we buy it and in the process support despotic countries that work to undermine us at any opportunity.
It's a problem all democracies have built up over decades and it really isn't the responsibility of one or two democracies to take all the flak for that situation developing.

Have to jump in on that one.
As the gas was sold on the world market the whole planet benefited from the Russian supplies dampening down the market price of such gas. When the Russian supply is cut Europe buys its gas elsewhere and the global price spirals effecting everyone. So everyone worldwide that uses gas helped build the Russian army.
Same way we are all still benefiting from Saudi oil worldwide and other nasty regimes even if our countries don't buy directly from them.  It's a pity that Western democratic countries are dependant on any crappy regime for any natural resource but we are. Fuel, rare earth metals, you name it we buy it and in the process support despotic countries that work to undermine us at any opportunity.
It's a problem all democracies have built up over decades and it really isn't the responsibility of one or two democracies to take all the flak for that situation developing.

Please, do not link to reddit videos

couldn't that be said for probably every war ever fought?  There were indigenous people who fought alongside the US calvary.  Every colonial army ever formed usually had a portion made up of the indigenous population.  It is more a statement of humans than it is about any regional behavior in that part of the world.

Tragically, for Ukraine, they shouldn't have trusted that we (America) felt bound by the Budapest Memorandum.  In hindsight, they should have insisted that the U.S. Senate ratify a treaty with real obligations before they gave up their nuclear weapons.

Here's what Wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Analysis
 

Because different countries have different contexts.
Do PzH2000 suck? What about those Gepards - are they worthless? Or the other 12B euros that Germany has provided? None of it is good enough until you get the specific toy you have a temporary hardon for?
Why arent you moaning that the US hasn't given you a Nimitz, or a satellite, or a wing of B-52s?

You read it wrong.
And it has nothing to do with the German position. I just called BS on this "you don't give in to a blackmailer". Of course you do. I didn't say you do it all the time. The question is whether it is worth risking whatever the blackmailer is threatening to do versus what giving him what he wants costs you. If you say you rather die than handing someone your money... well, I actually don't believe you. If you say, you rather die than handing someone your child I do believe you.
Ukraine... Well, that certainly isn't that easy to answer. The thing is, there is a much stronger case for defending Poland (and I am certain Germany would do that) because if we didn't, NATO is dead and every little country is on its own. Sorry guys but you are making a straw man here, it can't really be that hard to get the difference between Poland and Ukraine in that regard.
 

Then why take the bloody risk?  Ukraine can nibble the RA operational system and have demonstrate it very well against mainstream predictions.  However, you are upscaling linearly on both risk, cost and opportunity.  In order to incremental erode Russias broader strategic capability and capacity to prosecute this war and fundamentally change conditions we are not talking about a few demonstrations with ATACMS.  Back over the summer the UA fired hundreds of HIMARS at RA logistics and effectively crippled them - that wasn’t “nibbling” it was chewing.  That erosion led the RA to the point of full collapse at Kharkiv and a more controlled one at Kherson.  It was erosion of the RA through precise targeting of a critical component.
To do this at the strategic level is much more intensive.  To be effective it would mean hitting Russia across sectors of its military, political and industrial complexes.  The key component missing in your theory is speed.  To conduct corrosive warfare one needs to hit precisely fast.  Faster than your opponent can replace the losses of critical components.  Upscaling means the speed needs to outstrip Russian ability to recover at a strategic level, which means wide scale and heavy strikes on critical components across those sectors.  The UA did not “onsey-twosie” RA logistics at the operational level and the strategic level requirements to do the same are much higher,
Sure he does - seriously this is dangerously obtuse and what I mean about under prescribing.  If Russia was not deterred by NATO at all, as you claim, Russia would at a minimum 1) be hitting support bases in Poland and 2) likely have employed WMDs- they had no problem in Syria.  In fact if there was no NATO deterrence Russia may have led with chemical weapons which was in line with Soviet doctrine.
So this is what this is really about - your personal frustration with the level of western support? And somehow “small amounts of long range missiles” are going to fix this.  So this whole angle is really about making you feel better?  
Ok, well this is where I get off this bus. ATACMS are an escalation as they shift western support to directly targeting Russia inside its own borders.  But apparently you believe NATO holds no deterrence so I am not sure we will ever agree on the deterrence/escalation calculus, regardless.  
Further “small amounts” ATACMS or other weapon systems will largely only serve as demonstrations and strategic harassing fires. Their effectiveness is directly linked to western ISR for target development, validation, prosecution and post-strike assessments, which provision thereof is also an escalation - but we are also not going to agree on that because there is no escalation Russia will respond to according to your position.
Finally, as a citizen of a supporting western nation, I find this continual uninformed western/US bashing insulting and ignorant.  E.g.  we are sending them BMPs because the UA can quickly get them into the fight and keep them into the fight - only a rank amateur would think stuffing Marders  into the UA is easy and west is somehow being lazy for failing to do it.  For example, Marders has 6 dismounts while the BMP has 8 - so the UA can just redesign its squad size over a long weekend while re-aligning it’s logistics system to maintain the things, including a whole new suite of FCS and spare parts…apparently.
The west is sticking its neck way out on this one for a lot of good reasons, and not all of the altruistic; however, they are backstopping Ukraine well above and beyond the call while not dragging us all into WW3.  But people in the cheap seats still want to crap all over us because we did not supply whatever piece of kit pops into their highly uninformed heads.
Ok, I am out…can someone show me where this damned ignore button is?

So you are suggesting pulling the US more directly involved in this war so we can basically ping away at strategic targets within Russia “just a little bit more”?  The risk to opportunity costs are pretty upside down on this.  As I said before Ukraine has every right to strike legitimate military targets within Russia and obviously has a level of domestic ISR to do so. However, this is harassment fires that create uncertainty and doubt, which is not small, but Ukraine is already capable of this on its own.
Supplying longer range HIMARs without ISR support will limit their employment to what Ukraine can already prosecute or risks Ukraine leaning in and taking risks we are not comfortable with.  I have no doubt if the US supplies ATACMS today there will be people on this board screaming for “more ISR support so Ukraine can widen its target set” in another month or so.
A strategic offensive is not something one “nibbles away at” in ones or twosies - you claim to want a quick end to this war (strategic end) and that Ukraine needs long range precision fires to target in-Russia targets (Means) but they are going to do it incrementally (Ways)? - this is a flawed strategy with all the risks of escalation and none of the payoff?  You have under prescribed the risks to fit your narrative but it does not fix a fundamentally flawed strategy.
Your limited Russian airfield is a classic example of amateur military planning - ok, we execute a “limited campaign” against a single Russian airfield with strategic bombers, “1-4” was the number you quoted.  Let’s unpack this one:
We give Ukraine a few dozen ATACMS and they go ahead and do this campaign on their own - no western ISR.  Ukraine now has to validate the target and do BDA all on its own.  We have definitely escalated things by providing the weapons but can keep our hands clean from direct targeting.
Ukraine goes ahead and hits the target - you will all feel better I am sure.  They hit some infrastructure, damage the airfield and take out 4 Russian strategic bombers - huzzah!
Well this will definitely create some uncertainty for Russia which is not small, they will react and likely pull assets back lengthening flight times.  This will definitely be an escalation as it is now targeting their ability to defend themselves from NATO but it might make life harder for pounding Ukrainian cities.
Ok, now what?  Russia has over 500 TU-95s:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 . So the actual damage to the fleet is minimal.  Airfields also take a lot to knock out so the actual damage to that airfield is going to be temporary.  Finally, we have done nothing to actually affect the Russian strategic bomber system.  It’s production, maintenance, fuelling, arming and C4ISR.  We have damaged an airfield and knocked a few platforms.  The Russians will pull back, take a little longer and burn a little more fuel (which we also did nothing about) and still hammer Ukrainian cities with abandon.
What we did do is escalate this war.  Likely reinforced Putin’s narrative that this is an existential war for Russia against NATO pretty significantly, and Russia will likely continue to escalate strikes against Ukrainian cities.
So in a month or so, you and others will be demanding a broader campaign to hit “all Russia’s airfields in ATACMS range!!”  There will be all sorts of upside down risk calculations because - once again - no one has offers any educated assessment of where the Russian escalation threshold actually is.  A larger counter AirPower campaign will require western ISR support and pull the US further into direct involvement in this war while steadily marching towards a plausible Russian escalation threshold we cannot fully define.
More bluntly put - we are breaking our opponents hands and arms right now.  It is slow and painful but working.  If you want a fast end to the war you are going to have to hit the body and head, hard and fast - no sidestepping or weasel-ing out of that reality.  Russia has nuclear strategic deterrence and a doctrine behind it:https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf. That is a pretty grey and broad doctrine btw.  So if we start striking it’s head and body we are on a slippery slope to someone pulling out a gun in this bar fight. 
The end to this war is not about making you feel better.  It is about negotiating with a reality nobody wants but can live with. Russia is already on the ropes within Ukraine, the operational campaigns have been brilliant and are working.  If we are going to do anything more double down on that because any “quick and easy” magic new platform/weapon solutions aren’t quick or easy.