How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

20 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

And China is cheering their best buddy Vlad on. The Middle Kingdom is only too happy to repopulate all those hinterlands, which they would've done in the Ming dynasty had they known it contained useful stuff.

Russia has also done a good job of bleeding out the descendants of the Great Khans since about 1650, so they no longer become China's rulers at various intervals.

 

Meh. China resolved its strategic problem with migratory Asia itself through conquest, infrastructure and diplomacy before the Russians swept in. Ironically, that set it up for a period of inattention to defense just as Europe came calling from the opposite direction.

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Meh. China resolved its strategic problem with migratory Asia itself through conquest, infrastructure and diplomacy before the Russians swept in. Ironically, that set it up for a period of inattention to defense just as Europe came calling from the opposite direction.

What I can see China itching for is not direct conquest, but an extension of its New Silk Road (Belt & Road) policy.  If Russia breaks up, the most logical thing to happen is China establishing political and economic dominance over the Asiatic provinces without having to directly manage them.  That fits China's existing policies and, frankly, is smart for short-medium term goals.  Long term?  Having a bunch of exploited states, with the impoverishment and resent me that goes along with it, on its borders might not turn out to be a good thing.

Anyway, to sort all of this out... China has a strong national interest to dominate Russia's Asiatic provinces economically, politically, and militarily.  There is no doubt in my mind it is looking at Russia's current position and seeing promise that in the near future it will be able to do that without firing a shot or moving in a single PLA unit.  So to LLF's original point... China is in a sorta win-win situation here.  Russia gets weaker, US gets distracted.  No matter who comes out on top, China will benefit from this war more than anybody else I can think of.

Of course, China has a huge set of domestic problems to deal with.  Those could undermine whatever it gains from the war.

Steve

[Kinophile]

50 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Really really wanting this to be true, and significant.  Now I'll be checking here every 15 minutes all day hoping for confirmation.

Arguably,  it's only happening because of those heavy attacks,  both the UKR effort the RUS at Avdiivka. Both have used up and pinned significant Russian forces, including units transferred from the Dniper shore. 

The question I'm waiting to see answered is if UKR has enough available to make this new Kherson offensive an actual operational threat?  Or will it stay at a larger tactical scale,  but no more than that..? 

[danfrodo]

Just now, Kinophile said:

Arguably,  it's only happening because of those heavy attacks,  both the UKR effort the RUS at Avdiivka. Both have used up and pinned significant Russian forces, including units transferred from the Dniper shore. 

The question I'm waiting to see answered is if UKR has enough available to make this new Kherson offensive an actual operational threat?  Or will it stay at a larger tactical scale,  but no more than that..? 

For sure, Kinophile.  Hopefully this starts the much hoped for cascading series of collapses we've all been wanting.  I doubt it but hopium springs eternal, as they say.

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Hapless said:

Let's see how this pans out:

If true, then we're looking at a successful infantry-focused river crossing to compare-contrast with the failed heavy metal Russian attempts at Bilohorivka.

I'd be thrilled if this is true, but I don't see why it would be.  Russia is likely better off committing to hold Ukraine where it is than to move back and try some other place.  And if Russia doesn't think it can hold Ukraine in its current positions, what on Earth would make it think it can hold further back?

Steve

[Kraft]

I dont see any indications of a breakthrough/retreat in Ru TGs. I would ask where these platoon+ units could break through to, at maximum footpace speed under air bombardmend.

Mashovets noted yesterday the Russians have not commited the majority of their reserves in this region

Edited November 13, 2023 by Kraft

[danfrodo]

1 minute ago, Kraft said:

I dont see any indications of a breakthrough/retreat in Ru TGs. I would ask where these platoon+ units could break through to, at maximum footpace speed under air bombardmend.

Mashovets noted yesterday the Russians have not commited the majority of their reserves in this region

yeah, that's what I was wondering.  What could foot mobile troops do that would cause RU to make significant pullback?  UKR would need to have cut multiple roads which they don't seem to be close to doing yet.  Once again, I let my hope overwhelm my frontal lobe.  

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

You should have went with the “drinking” off ramp.  Been awhile since I did Asian history but let me just say I have some reservations about your overall theories here.  First off the Mongol Empire began fracturing in the 14th century, with Mongol-Chinese rule failing completely by late 1300s.  They seem to have had aspirations after this but were kept in check by the Ming dynasty.  Main cause was Chinese internal rebellion (Black Death did not help).  The entire Empire had fractured by 15th century, last Mongolian Emperor dead by 1370.  I can accept “it was complicated” but not really seeing a conative origin story here.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mongol-empire/The-Yuan-dynasty-in-China-1279-1368

This was all well before the rise of imperial Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia

Mulan btw is a legend from as early as the 4th century…so really muddling here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Mulan

So I am not entirely sure I buy Russia put Mongolia in a box and kept them there while China yearned for several million acres of Siberian wastelands…on the other side of the freakin Gobi Desert.

Now to your main point - Chinese Lebensraum.  Ok, there have been some pretty intense “border skirmishes” between these two nations.  But has China ever demonstrated any expansion aspirations in that direction?  Great Wall says “nope”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China

Ming Dynasty had their chance for a few hundred years between 1400-1700 to “go north” but built a big @ss wall instead.

So I guess what my poor North American fixed brain cannot see is a real theory here based on real estate.  Now what does make a lot more sense is one thing China has definitely demonstrated a desire for…energy.  Russia has a lot of it an China wants it on the cheap.  If recent history holds, China does not want to own the land and people that energy comes from (they are already flush with human capital) they just want cheap and easy access.  So Russia weak and vulnerable - to which this war is helping immensely- is advantageous to China in the short to middle term.  In that vein China supporting, but not too much while cheering Russian quagmires in Ukraine begins to make sense.  Russia as a Chinese propane tank to pay for this senseless war makes a lot of sense.  Now if they want to keep some of their population happy by owning more of the Risk board, then this may provide options.

So What?  Why argue if we land on the same square?  The reason I oppose any weird Chinese land expansion theories is that they feed into a Conquest Dragon narrative.  First the Island chains, then Taiwan, then Nebraska!!!!  Wake up Sheeple!  The issue with China is far more complex and Chinas strategic objectives far more nuanced than “Evil Empire Redux”.  That sort of thinking dooms us to a war we do not want.  Are we in for vigorous, even hostile, negotiations, oh ya.  But simplifying the Indo-Pac down to land grabs with Disney sound bites is not the way to go. 

The thing is at any point before 1900, perhaps even later than that, the Chinese assessment that the northern grasslands/tiaga wasn't worth fighting for was correct. The value of that territory has increased for at least four reasons. Most obvious of course is vast oil and mineral wealth that can be exploited with modern technology. The second is that global warming will probably make farming at those latitudes far more productive. The third, and closely tied to the second, that same warming will make farming in what have historically been some of Chinas biggest grain producing areas less productive. Last but not least while China may have hit it peak population, it is just really crowded.

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/world/asia/china-xi-asia-pacific-summit.html

But back in China, in meetings with the military, Mr. Xi was warning in strikingly stark terms that intensifying competition between a rising China and a long-dominant United States was all but unavoidable, and that the People’s Liberation Army should be prepared for a potential conflict.

 

And then there is the small problem of the guy in charge of the other side. The kind of people who rise to power in autocratic systems just seem to want to pick fights whether it makes any sense or not, Putin being example A. None of this makes an even worse conflict inevitable, but it certainly justifies a great deal of wariness.

[Battlefront.com]

Here's an interesting one.  Russian soldiers decide to take cover from a drone inside a burnt out BTR.  Well, it didn't work out very well for them:

Another video that Kherson Cat posted shows the aftermath of a strike on one of Kadyrov's units.  No timeframe for when it was filmed as far as I can tell.  Shows at least a dozen dead in tightly packed rooms.  No need to repost here, however I was wondering if anybody has heard of a recent strike on Kadyrovites.  Often those get noted in OSINT.

Steve

[billbindc]

52 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What I can see China itching for is not direct conquest, but an extension of its New Silk Road (Belt & Road) policy.  If Russia breaks up, the most logical thing to happen is China establishing political and economic dominance over the Asiatic provinces without having to directly manage them.  That fits China's existing policies and, frankly, is smart for short-medium term goals.  Long term?  Having a bunch of exploited states, with the impoverishment and resent me that goes along with it, on its borders might not turn out to be a good thing.

Anyway, to sort all of this out... China has a strong national interest to dominate Russia's Asiatic provinces economically, politically, and militarily.  There is no doubt in my mind it is looking at Russia's current position and seeing promise that in the near future it will be able to do that without firing a shot or moving in a single PLA unit.  So to LLF's original point... China is in a sorta win-win situation here.  Russia gets weaker, US gets distracted.  No matter who comes out on top, China will benefit from this war more than anybody else I can think of.

Of course, China has a huge set of domestic problems to deal with.  Those could undermine whatever it gains from the war.

Steve

China is in a win-win in a very narrow sense. It gets more of a resource hinterland in Siberia but it also has to take on security that will add to its already huge domestic concerns in that arena. Also, China loses in any situation in which the US concentrates on the problem China presents to American hegemony. While the world mostly talks about Ukraine, there are tectonic changes happening in NE Asia that amount to a NATO just-for-China driven by the Biden administration and well placed concerns about Chinese aggression in front line states. Japan and South Korean don't sign on to defend each other in a world that's not taking the direction Xi has indicated seriously. That's an unmitigatedly bad outcome for a regime that may have imagined it could have translated domestic unrest into revanchist expansion. 

Add in the fact that China isn't just not going to overtake the US economically but is already losing ground and it starts to look more like Beijing is making the best of it rather than forging ahead to domination.

[dan/california]

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'd be thrilled if this is true, but I don't see why it would be.  Russia is likely better off committing to hold Ukraine where it is than to move back and try some other place.  And if Russia doesn't think it can hold Ukraine in its current positions, what on Earth would make it think it can hold further back?

Steve

 

46 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

yeah, that's what I was wondering.  What could foot mobile troops do that would cause RU to make significant pullback?  UKR would need to have cut multiple roads which they don't seem to be close to doing yet.  Once again, I let my hope overwhelm my frontal lobe.  

The narrative from the fighting around Krynky and points south has consistently been that Ukrainian artillery on the right side of the river is hammering the Russians. Russian counterbatterry seems to been ineffective at best, and frequently dangerous to the guns attempting it. Ukraine also seems to have drone superiority in this area. It MAY be that the Russians have decided to pull back out of range of at least some of the Ukrainian fires in the attempt to get their losses down to bearable levels. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by dan/california

[danfrodo]

30 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The narrative from the fighting around Krynky and points south has consistently been that Ukrainian artillery on the right side of the river is hammering the Russians. Russian counterbatterry seems to been ineffective at best, and frequently dangerous to the guns attempting it. Ukraine also seems to have drone superiority in this area. It MAY be that the Russians have decided to pull back out of range of at least some of the Ukrainian fires in the attempt to get their losses down to bearable levels.

So you are thinking RU might re-position away from river to get out of artillery range?  Interesting.  If RU has arty shortage on this sector I can see how their forces would be getting clobbered and they'd want to pull back.  I hope within a couple days we'll know more.  I suppose RU would want to get UKR into position where it has to move arty onto left bank, where it would be more vulnerable due to restricted mobility for displacing after firing.

[Vet 0369]

15 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I am 73 by 2050 I won't be here any longer. Climate change is good business for these people. They don't fly economy for starters. Oh yes my electricity runs on solar and use the car twice a week. Not much the world can do about climate change even if it is caused by man. Lift the third world out of poverty and you may get the support of something like 6 Billion people. Yes that takes industry, our indigenous people lived in 50C during summer for the last 40000 years. Better get used to it. 

Never say never! Only the good die young, so you might still be around in 2055!

[LongLeftFlank]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

You should have went with the “drinking” off ramp... But simplifying the Indo-Pac down to land grabs with Disney sound bites is not the way to go. 

Wow, you're on quite a tear there, O Smartest Guy on the Thread.

And nice wikipedia work, but you're the one skipping back and forth between centuries and dynasties at this point. So maybe we should take that pissing match over to a 'How Hot Is Xi'an Gonna Get' thread.

Let me restate the point that matters:

Many educated, cosmopolitan and not particularly anti-Western Chinese feel today, and have felt for quite some time, that unhappy convergences of history beginning around 1500, compounded by sheer European rapacity, placed a huge preponderance of the world's resources under Western (that's white people) hegemony by 1900. They aren't actually wrong about that.

So they are now working to shift hegemony in China's favour wherever they can. I probably would too, were I Chinese. But since I'm not Chinese, I don't see it as a good idea.

While China is buying up every mining, processing and transshipment facility it can, anywhere it can (in the absence of ability to 'send a gunboat' to enforce or void its contracts), the obvious places for them to focus lie in their own Asian backyards: Tibet-Xinjiang, Mongolia, the South China Sea basin, northern Myanmar, prospectively Afghanistan and any other 'Stans they can buy their way into.

...But well above and beyond all those is Siberia. They can buy whatever they like from there today of course by paying off the siloviki in Moscow, but that's no substitute for strengthening control over time, over generations.

And as Steve said, they are just thrilled to let Putin make those regions and their populations as weak and marginal as possible.

There's no Disney yellow hordes theory at work here (they were Huns btw, so actually 'white' for some defininition of 'white'). Nor is there some all-wise Confucian thousand-year-plan behind it.  It's just garden variety reelpolitik. China is now the world's top manufacturer, and resources (and embargoes) matter more to them now than anyone.

Edited November 13, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[JonS]

5 hours ago, fireship4 said:

Ex-PM David Cameron is new UK Foreign Secretary after cabinet re-shuffle:

That ... doesn't seem very democratic?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

Add in the fact that China isn't just not going to overtake the US economically but is already losing ground and it starts to look more like Beijing is making the best of it rather than forging ahead to domination.

I totally agree.  China has a lot of problems and everything I've read indicates that they are doing the usual thing... kicking the can down the road instead of dealing with the problems.  Democracies do this as well, but GENERALLY the nature of those governments limits which cans can be kicked how far before some sort of course correction is forced upon the political system.  Autocratic systems don't have the near term pressures that democracies have, therefore they can put off bigger problems for longer.  Unfortunately for them, the old "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" applies. 

China is probably worried about a messy Russian breakup just as the West is, however since the upsides for them is greater influence over bordering territories they have more of an upside potential for a Russian collapse scenario.  The West doesn't have the same prospects.

For sure China is facing increasing pressures in SE and NE Asia.  All the more reason for China to focus westward where they are unchallenged.  I've read quite a few articles about how the West, and US specifically, is screwing up competing with China in the former Soviet "Stans".  The distraction from Ukraine will no doubt make things even easier for China.

Steve

[sburke]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure China is facing increasing pressures in SE and NE Asia.  All the more reason for China to focus westward where they are unchallenged.  I've read quite a few articles about how the West, and US specifically, is screwing up competing with China in the former Soviet "Stans".  The distraction from Ukraine will no doubt make things even easier for China.

Steve

Just to throw one more potato on the pile, Russia trading whatever it is for N Korean ammo is probably not all that welcome in China either.  Anything that potentially causes more instability in the Korean peninsula that China doesn't have the same sort of control over is probably a source of concern.

[Haiduk]

Russian attempt to defend themselves against drones, flying into blindages. Kherson oblast

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Haiduk

[poesel]

One thing that China would really like to have is a harbor on the Arctic sea. That harbor will be ice-free for most of the year real soon and give China a short and mostly unobstructed route to Europe.

I can imagine some kind of reverse Hong Kong where China lends some piece of land for 99 years from Russia. Maybe in the delta of the Lena river. The Lena is navigable to Yakutsk and Yakutsk already has a railway connection to China.
That would be a massive infrastructure project, but probably still much cheaper than what they invest to get out of the South China Sea. Also, building infrastructure is something the Chinese are good at.

I don't know if this is feasible, but I would bet that someone in China already has the numbers for this project.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

Add in the fact that China isn't just not going to overtake the US economically but is already losing ground and it starts to look more like Beijing is making the best of it rather than forging ahead to domination.

You will have to excuse us out in the vassal states if we do not share your levels of confidence on the competitive trajectories of the two elephants in the room.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-s-plans-if-he-returns-to-the-white-house-include-deportation-raids-tariffs-and-mass-firings-1.6641829

[Haiduk]

Hm... It's claimed Shakhed genealogy %)

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

So you are thinking RU might re-position away from river to get out of artillery range?  Interesting.  If RU has arty shortage on this sector I can see how their forces would be getting clobbered and they'd want to pull back.  I hope within a couple days we'll know more.  I suppose RU would want to get UKR into position where it has to move arty onto left bank, where it would be more vulnerable due to restricted mobility for displacing after firing.

Yes, exactly this.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, dan/california said:

The thing is at any point before 1900, perhaps even later than that, the Chinese assessment that the northern grasslands/tiaga wasn't worth fighting for was correct. The value of that territory has increased for at least four reasons. Most obvious of course is vast oil and mineral wealth that can be exploited with modern technology. The second is that global warming will probably make farming at those latitudes far more productive. The third, and closely tied to the second, that same warming will make farming in what have historically been some of Chinas biggest grain producing areas less productive. Last but not least while China may have hit it peak population, it is just really crowded.

Ok so before I move onto LLF, I did want to come back to this one.

1.  China's main modus operandi with respect to resources it wants has not been outright occupation.  They could go that way but the appear to favor simply buying them out at the top and then paying locals pennies to mine/extract for them.  What most people do not realize is that China has really been paying attention on how West used them in the past (cheap manufacture and resources) and is doing the exact same strategy elsewhere.  In fact the infamous Belt and Road, looks a lot like the US expansion strategies of the late 1800s/early 1900s.  So I do not think they foresee invasion or some weird occupation as a requirement to get butt-@ss broke Russians to dig out REMs for them.

2 & 3.  Food security - now here you may be onto something.  Chinese external food dependency is on the rise:

 https://www.cfr.org/article/china-increasingly-relies-imported-food-thats-problem

What I am not sure is if the Siberian hinterland will suddenly become the Nile Valley based on climate change trajectories.  Climate change is not simply "north get warmer".  There some seriously impacted weather patterns that can also make an area drier or wetter.  In that region specifically I would be more worried about the Gobi Desert heading north with climate change as this is already an arid area.  Finally, again China just simply buys the stuff it needs while establishing conditions for that to be as advantageous as possible...often unfairly so.  I am not sure somehow invading Irkutsk is going to translate into calories that Chinese farmers can use.  The pressure on food security along the equator in the next 50 year will become intense.  As was noted by one venerable forum member "one can work happily in 50 degree heat", but one cannot pull enough calories out of the ground in that weather to feed Bangladesh...especially if it is underwater.

4.  Red herring.  Right now Kosovo has higher population density than China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density   China definitely has an rural versus urban demographic issue but they are not going to have to invade anyone to avoid dropping into the sea anytime soon. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by The_Capt

[poesel]

24 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Hm... It's claimed Shakhed genealogy %)

We Germans just loooove recycling

[Haiduk]

Crewman of AS-90 howitzer at the work