How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Sojourner]

18 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Absolutely, it’s a lose lose for Red China, but there’s a difference. Russia has no single point of failure like the Three Gorges Dam that Ukraine can straight up destroy, and doesn’t have a long range missile program nor enough time to cobble together or straight up buy a few nuclear warheads. Russia unless we help push a bit harder will take years to collapse.

On the other hand, Taiwan has the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the mainland. They have a missle program, and they can surely get some plutonium. If the dam goes, minimum 10% of the population goes with it, at least 4 nuclear power stations, several major cities and the country is cut in half. Oh, and you lost 2/3 of the rice harvest. Not to mention all your cargo ships got sunk so there’s no food.

On the other other hand, IF Taiwan were able to do that, Taiwan would lose 100% of it's population. End of the two China problem. I think Xi would consider that a win.

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

On the other other hand, IF Taiwan were able to do that, Taiwan would lose 100% of it's population. End of the two China problem. I think Xi would consider that a win.

The rest off China might or might not agree with him. Like any autocrat he is invincible right up until he gone. And there are clearly factions in the leadership, or senior cabinet officials and the equivalent of four star generals wouldn't keep disappearing. China looks shakier than Russia in that regard, and they haven't even started losing war yet.

[chuckdyke]

23 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

EVERYBODY did warcrimes. Those who deny that fact know nothing about war.

Lots if not all Elite units can't by their very nature take POWs. Commando raids, paratroopers and the like. Easy to have judgement of the likes of Roland Speirs in Band of Brothers when he offered a last cigarette and then mowed them all down. What do you think their briefing was on the 5th of June 1944? How do you feed and provide care 100 km behind the lines? Natural when you deal out Victor's Justice you need the Geneva and the, The Hague codes. The worst crime during a war is to wage war against your own people. So no excuse for the holocaust even an anti-Semite like the German Kaiser had not much time for Hitler.

Edited October 3, 2023 by chuckdyke

[kimbosbread]

34 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

On the other other hand, IF Taiwan were able to do that, Taiwan would lose 100% of it's population. End of the two China problem. I think Xi would consider that a win.

China would barely exist as a country anymore and would no longer have any chance to be a major power. A war would completely seal the destiny demographics has already given them. I don’t think Xi would consider giving America another century or three as undisputed hegemon and outright ownership of the Moon and Mars, as a win.

[holoween]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

The rest off China might or might not agree with him. Like any autocrat he is invincible right up until he gone. And there are clearly factions in the leadership, or senior cabinet officials and the equivalent of four star generals wouldn't keep disappearing. China looks shakier than Russia in that regard, and they haven't even started losing war yet.

Yes as experience tells us killing civillians breaks their morale and leads to regime change... oh wait no it does the exact opposite.

[kluge]

52 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Make it very clear this will hurt you more than it will hurt us. Because that is what deterrence actually means. I would still love a missile that could do it without conventional explosives. That might or might not be possible, but the math needs doing. I would feel bad about writing this if what China has done in Xinjiang was not exactly what it wants to repeat in Taiwan. It is also the near exact model of whole country gulag Russia want want to inflict on Ukraine. 

It is deterrence but it is also proliferation.

The moment the world figures out that a small island government (an unrecognized one, no less!) is credibly deterring an invasion via the acquisition of weapon capable of causing mass destruction, there will be no shortage of nations lining up to do the same within a couple of years time.

Sidenote: If history is any indicator, the dam is hardly a major point of failure. It was, after all, built on a floodplain prone to catastrophic flooding. A new flood would certainly be destructive but its not like the previous ones wiped the cities off the map.

Regardless, deterrence can be achieved without the need for extra big badda boom explosions. I hear there's a scrappy country currently getting the upper hand on a modern navy while zipping around on the likes of rubber rafts and jet skis....

[Teufel]

15 hours ago, Jiggathebauce said:

Guess I'm a criminal then. My belief that people who work and create wealth deserve the fruits of their labor, and democratic say over what is done with surplus is truly the worst crime of all. Second in heinousness to the reasonable conclusion that the current system, like all preceding systems, is inherently doomed and will give way to new forms of organization and modes of production to resolve its contradictions. 

I'm in the trotskyist corner that actively supports Ukraine's self determination, and we regularly oppose  stalinists who make no distinction between Putin 's war on "global homo" and the "woke west" and an imagined utopia under Stalin and his bureaucracy, and defend them both.  Horrible men making hard times for the good, as I said before.

Firstly, thank you for being this forthcoming and levelheaded. Would like to know if we have different definitions of communism. In my book, communism is revolutionary Marxism, i.e. you come into power with force, you maintain power with force, and you spread the wealth with force. All those aspects disqualifies differentiation from any other anti-democratic system. Which IMHO equals support for criminal activity no different from white supremacy, organized crime syndicates, fascism, and in fact even corrupted corporate greed, etc.

Anybody is entitled to think and believe anything, it’s our democratic right. Thank God that we have yet to arrive at thought crime principles, as such you are by definition of the law no criminal by harboring revolutionary Marxism ideals. That’s your given democratic right, in principle and practice mind you. But am I given the such rights in the  Marxist system? You don’t need to answer that, been there experienced that first hand in practice.

I agree with the social democratic ideal of sharing is caring. I suspect you are not in the Marxist/Stalinist corner but rather closer to the socialist ideal of Scandinavia. Speaking of those countries, they have clearly demonstrated the benefits of such. It’s not perfect system, far from but it clearly shows legitimacy of social democracy. I may not be in that corner but I do respect it’s track record.

Drawing a line between socialism and communism as above, yes communist are threats to democracy and are in my book criminals. Not though criminals but knowing first hand how that works in reality, I don’t want to accept anything that doesn’t accept my own freedom of choice. Long reply that didn’t answer your concern of taking freedoms to sentence communists to prison. It doesn’t change the reality of what such people do to their own citizens once in power.

Edit: not going to tell you how to identify your own political views, but ever considered if you are better off calling yourself socialist than communist?

Edited October 3, 2023 by Teufel

[chuckdyke]

Click of the mouse stops us from reinventing the wheel. Here about communism nowhere it states it as being criminal.

Communism - Marxist Theory, Class Struggle, Revolution | Britannica

[JonS]

Do you guys understand you are openly advocating for warcrimes?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-56?activeTab=undefined

 

[Rokko]

51 minutes ago, JonS said:

Do you guys understand you are openly advocating for warcrimes?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-56?activeTab=undefined

 

Honest question: Isn't retaliation to a nuclear first strike also a war crime then? Blowing up a major dam as retaliation for an invasion seems similar to that me, albeit on a lesser scale

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Rokko said:

Honest question: Isn't retaliation to a nuclear first strike also a war crime then?

Innocent till found guilty and to be found guilty you need to lose the war. 

[JonS]

"an eye for an eye" isn't a legal defence.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

12 minutes ago, JonS said:

"an eye for an eye" isn't a legal defence.

Sometimes it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisal

[chuckdyke]

14 minutes ago, JonS said:

"an eye for an eye" isn't a legal defence.

Out of context. The purpose is you shall not escalate. In this context everybody is guilty of war crimes.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Rokko said:

Honest question: Isn't retaliation to a nuclear first strike also a war crime then? Blowing up a major dam as retaliation for an invasion seems similar to that me, albeit on a lesser scale

Not how it really works.  Mainly because “the law”.  The international community has never passed laws on the use of nuclear weapons.  Restrictions and limitations on their use are all managed by treaties.  The employment of nuclear weapons is essentially off the legal map.

As JonS pointed out, striking a large dam that would lead to massive civilian casualties is against the law.

Fellas can we not drift into “let’s do warcrimes because XYZ?”  C’mon, we are supposed to be the adults in an internet of children.  No, we can not condone warcrimes because Russia did them (and oh we made a lot of noise when they blew that dam down by Kherson).  We cannot condone them because “back in WW2 everyone did it” - doesn’t freakin matter, take a look at your calendar…what year does it say.  Most international law on warcrimes were written after WW2 because everyone was doing them.  WW2 was an example of what a total war looked like when everyone sat around after WW1 and did nothing.  So we decided that was a bad thing and passed a whole bunch of laws to prevent it from happening again.

We do not do war crimes for some very good reasons:

Unity.  If Ukraine (or anyone else) starts playing fast and loose with unrighteous targeting, we risk splitting the coalition of support for Ukraine.  Canada for instance would lose its mind and likely start turning off the taps.

Escalation.  Ok, we take out a dam, kill a bunch of civilians.  Russia potato-in-the-exhaust-pipes a nuclear power plant.  You see where this goes.

Post-war justice.  You want criminal prosecution for Bucha?  Might want to skip committing warcrimes of your own.

Utility.  It won’t work.  A mass killing of Russian civilians anywhere will very likely drive enormous active support into Putin’s arms.  We will wind up with a stronger Russian Will, not a weaker one.

So can we please skip warcrimes week…again?

Edited October 3, 2023 by The_Capt

[Beleg85]

OK, to change the topic a little: here excelllent article from pravda.ua about one of historical questions of this war: still not-sufficently resolved issue of Russian sudden capture of Ukrainian South:

https://www-pravda-com-ua.translate.goog/articles/2023/09/18/7420200/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pl&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Autotranslator is pretty decent; not perfect but one can understand if only knows little context.

It seems gen. Sokolov  only had 1,5k troops (1 brigade + Marine battalion) to cover almost entire front there, with little additional preparations taken in case muscovites succeed in breaching defences. He claims he only had single tank company detached at his own initiative, screening entire Melitopol sector. It show how grevious in consequences was decision not to mobilize earlier; likely, it would still be not enough to oppose Russian advance in this area, though.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Beleg85

[Letter from Prague]

5 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

China would barely exist as a country anymore and would no longer have any chance to be a major power. A war would completely seal the destiny demographics has already given them. I don’t think Xi would consider giving America another century or three as undisputed hegemon and outright ownership of the Moon and Mars, as a win.

The global world is so connected, that in case of war between China and some other power, most of countries would barely exist as countries anymore. You think the supply chain impact of COVID was bad? This would be several orders of magnitude worse. Think "famine only killed 20 % of population of US and EU counts as a win" kind of situation.

Almost the same goes just for Taiwan, by the way. Most of modern high performance microchips are made there. Remember when chip shortage made new cars unavailable and prices of used cars went up like crazy and never went down since? That's nothing, I hope your computer, phone, car, AC unit, fridge, dishwasher, washing machine, elevator, ..., power plant, water tap control and all of industrial machinery lasts next 20 years, because you're not getting new one any sooner.

Also, blowing up the Three Gorges (also known as "doing the funni" on reddit) is projected to kill like 400 million people. That is not "strategic bombing" scale, that is a scale of destruction world has never seen.

[Bulletpoint]

Interesting little detail from the latest Denys Davydov video (16:29):

 

"About our leader Zelensky, I have my own opinion about him, but I will not say it to you right now - I will wait till the war is over".

Doesn't exactly sound like his opinion is all that positive.

The comment comes in the context of fighting corruption in Ukraine.

[billbindc]

9 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

You lack sufficient imagination. Let me go all Mr Rogers for a second and take you to the neighborhood of make-believe...

In the world of make-believe, there is a country that decided to build an epic dam. The dam to end all dams, the biggliest and yugest of all time. It's upstream of two major cities; one the world center of pharmaceutical manufacturing and a major center for disease research, the other, a major financial center, whose financial district is built entirely on reclaimed land in the river delta. And there are several other important cities, including the traditional imperial summer capitol downstream. Obviously there are various military bases, and naturally some nuclear plants. And the river that is dammed splits the country in half, neatly. Roughly speaking, downstream of the dam is a quarter to a third of this countries population (say 300 million inhabitants to be conservative), and half the fish production, and over half the rice. And this is for a country that is not self sufficient in food.

Obviously in the world make-believe the rules are different, but I believe they also have the concept of a single point of failure.

Alison doesn't lack sufficient imagination. Alison has superior local knowledge. 

China locked down it's population during covid for reasons beyond epidemiology. It was to both demonstrate to the West and prove to itself that state capacity was such that it could exert that level of control on its population for a year or more during a significant crisis. Dam busting on that scale is just a one-weird-trick approach to the threat China poses to Taiwan. You'd be better off leaving it to late night tv where it belongs. 

[LongLeftFlank]

17 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

Just "Breaking Red Army" isn't going to work.

The Red Army is Russia. These aren't separable from each other. Russians love Putin. Russians want the war. Millions of Russians can turn into mobiks on moments notice. Millions of Russians are fine with working in factories to make tanks and artillery shells and most importantly drones for terror strikes. Red Army is Russia and Russia is Red Army.

There is no breaking the Red Army without breaking Russia.

(And of course China is always willing to sell them what they need, and Iran is always willing to exchange drones for nuclear secrets.)

The deeper and more fanatic Russia gets, the less realistic it is that there are any other options than 1) Ukraine capitulates 2) Forever war in different degrees of frozenness 3) Destroyed Russia in free fall.

The world will have to chose, sooner or later.

Almost 3000 pages, and I think you have basically nailed it....

(1) never gonna happen.

Option (3) is actually the far better outcome for the average Russian, compared to (2), which benefits absolutely nobody other than the walking dead figure in the Kremlin.

....However distant and unsavoury it may appear to us now, Russia *must* rejoin Europe, on Europe's terms. 

Their only other option is becoming  fragmented vassals of the resurrected Chinese empire, with the first fruits of (resource) empire flowing to the Throne of Heaven, not Moscow.

[billbindc]

6 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

China would barely exist as a country anymore and would no longer have any chance to be a major power. A war would completely seal the destiny demographics has already given them. I don’t think Xi would consider giving America another century or three as undisputed hegemon and outright ownership of the Moon and Mars, as a win.

I would be curious to hear your opinion taking as a given that Xi has already realized that China is not going to over take the US economy, that the demographic bomb has already gone off and will get far worse every decade going forward, that American military abilities are being recalibrated at speed to be specialized expressly to face China and that Chinas diplomatic/Belt and Road initiatives have failed signally to achieve the PRC's geopolitical goals.  

[Rokko]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Not how it really works.  Mainly because “the law”.  The international community has never passed laws on the use of nuclear weapons.  Restrictions and limitations on their use are all managed by treaties.  The employment of nuclear weapons is essentially off the legal map.

Somewhat ironic.

Killing civilians: Highly illegal

Killing all the civilians: Well, that's a legal grey area.

 

Something else I saw yesterday:

Ukrainian soldier cuts DPICM shell open to extract the bomblets. Might mean nothing, but might also hint at a certain dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of cluster munitions. In any case, I hope the soldier in question consulted with tech support before carrying out the procedure.

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Rokko said:

Somewhat ironic.

Killing civilians: Highly illegal

Killing all the civilians: Well, that's a legal grey area.

Welcome to my world. 

Even crazier - killing the right civilians = legal.  International law allows the legal targeting of anything directly tied to the war effort - less hospitals and humanitarian stuff (obviously).  So if you are a janitor working in a power generation plant that is feeding production of tanks...guy with mop goes boom.  Kill that janitor while he is dropping his kids off at school = warcrime.  HVTs are even more messy.  At what point does a person themselves become intrinsically linked to the war no matter where they are?  Political leadership, military civilian leadership - easy.  Defence scientists?  Ideological figures?  Influencers?

There is a reason we have damned lawyers in the kill chain.

But trust me, this is better than taking the cuffs off the Red God entirely.

[Battlefront.com]

Let's leave the China thing behind.  However, to close out the discussion I will reiterate my point that Russia has just taught us that Western logic means absolutely nothing when trying to predict what an autocrat of a long standing compliant population views as "risky".  The list of rational reasons that Putin should not have attacked Ukraine was extremely long.  A combination of hubris, ignorance, desperation, and (dare I say) stupidity caused him to pull the trigger.  Believing China thinks more like a Westerner than a Russian is not a defensible position, therefore one has to be prepared for China to be "that kind of stupid".

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

If you Galeeeeev / they put a man on the moon (man on the moon)

(btw for my money, THE best song lyric of all time, utterly Joycean)

https://nitter.net/kamilkazani/status/1708491834253615405#m

Oct 1

1. There is a high chance of the US getting into a military conflict with China

2. Likely resulting in a drastic collapse in the living standards

3. The only plausible scenario for the conflict *not* to happen is China thinking it can’t win

4. Improve your military efficiency

Improve your military efficiency = improve your production capacities

You will pay dearly unless you learn to produce a lot, quickly, and at a low cost

(I think there was something similar once, written in Latin)

...Or alternatively, be able (*and* ready) to enforce your will on your globalised supply chain (said enforcement can be 'carrot' as well as 'stick', btw, which it always was in truly successful and long-lived empires).

****

P.S. This is 95% OT, but anyone here play these boardgames?

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/692317/war-too-serious-matter-entrust-military-men-and-wa

Primitive accumulation (and top hats), ftw!