Jump to content

glenn239

Members
  • Posts

    10,075
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by glenn239

  1. So that makes it pretty clear which side is bombarding the Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant then.
  2. Looks about right. They'll need to start relying more on China going forward, or gradually slip further behind in many different areas.
  3. And you for Russia, year on year, since 2014.....:^)
  4. NATO satellites can provide the necessary real-time targeting data, but the Russians know when these are overhead so presumably can keep their ferries in motion during these periods? Or perhaps cheap ferries made out of expednable pontoon sections are just too low-level a target to waste precious HIMARS resources on?
  5. Sure, whatever. Let's see if anything comes of it first. There's been rumors before of expeditionary forces that have not materialized.
  6. You're an expert in North Korean domestic politics too? Wow, you need to write a series of books....
  7. I'm just pointing out that your opinion is incoherent and you should fix it. You argue on one hand that the military balance prevents China from taking Taiwan for the forseeable future, then on the other hand you argue that China has no interest in proxy wars that would disperse and weaken the US military near Taiwan. If the PLA sees no possibility of taking Taiwan then the Chinese will need to engage in proxy wars elsewhere to weaken the US coalition. Neither of those things have occurred so far. Russia poses no conventional invasion threat to NATO as things stand. That does not mean that a Russian threat in Europe does not still tie down large numbers of NATO forces to make that so, forces that could otherwise ship over to Asia to defend Taiwan.
  8. They'd ship their equipment via the Trans-Siberian, fly in their troops on Chinese airliners, and rely on the Russians for supply once in place. It would certainly take months.
  9. Switch in topic, but in reviewing the Russian ministry announcements today, they are reporting some sort of either mutiny, surrender, or mass exodus of troops from the battlefield from three (59th, 61st, 35th) Ukrainian brigades. Any further information on this story?
  10. The Syrians were played out and the Russians obviously couldn't get enough volunteers signed up to make an expeditionary corps worthwhile. The North Koreans can simply order their forces to entrain for Ukraine. In terms of what would be in it for North Korea if the report is actually true, its the advantages of a battlefield laboratory on their combat readiness. Assuming they establish a 100,000 man expeditionary force and then rotate hundreds of thousands of troops through, they'll emerge with a far more capable army than beforehand, and with the Sino-Russian alliance more solidly on their side than any time since 1953. From China's perspective, I should imagine a North Korean army in Europe would actually be quite useful politically.
  11. I just did a quick google on the status of negotiations with Turkey and it seems that no progress has been made. I'm having a hard time balancing the stated interest of Finland and Sweden joining NATO with the apparent lack of progress to reaching that end.
  12. Your conclusion is that China CANNOT invade Taiwan because between Taiwan and the allies, an invasion force will be destroyed under the conditions that will exist for the foreseeable future. You also conclude that China doesn't "give a shit" about Ukraine. I'm simply observing that these two conclusions are contradictory, so you need to reconcile them beyond the surface polish type stuff in the excerpt above that I'm quoting. If China cannot create the military conditions to take Taiwan because there is too much Allied (read, American) firepower in the region, then China must 'give a shit' about Ukraine because it is vital that the US be distracted by other regional wars elsewhere. Only if China can create the military conditions to take Taiwan regardless of the US military situation elsewhere could China be a position to not "give a shit" about Ukraine. In fact, the logical conclusion from your own argument is that China has a vital interest in a Russian victory in Ukraine in order to force the US to reinforce Europe and the Middle East and set the conditions for the successful annexation of Taiwan. If Beijing is reluctant to embrace that conclusion, it will be for purely economic reasons, not because the conclusion itself is wrong.
  13. Someone hit the prison with sufficient precision that an accident is unlikely. If the Ukrainians, then a war crime probably at the highest levels of the Ukrainian government. If the Russians, then also a war crime. Both sides immediately blamed the other for the attack.
  14. A guess, not a statistic. 2,000 artillery pieces firing 20 rounds each per day for 160 days = 6.4 million rounds fired.
  15. Plus the prison attack a few days ago. Whatever the facts of that one, it was a false flag.
  16. The Russians could have fired something in the order of 4-7 million artillery shells in this conflict already, mostly with spotting for maximum effect. Assuming 1 casualty for every 20 rounds fired, that's easily in the ballpark of 200,000 to 300,000 total casualties inflicted, not even including the missile and air forces. 191,000 if anything seems on the low side.
  17. So by your own logic as outlined above, what China needs to avoid the scenario you describe is a series of successful proxy wars in Ukraine and elsewhere to drain and divert the US from the Pacific and sets the stage for the annexation of Taiwan with the US distracted. Conversely, should Russia lose the Ukraine war and revert into impotence, NATO will send reinforcements to the Far East to exploit their success, and make the Chinese task you outline above even more impossible.
  18. Can't speak for the average Chinese recruit, but over here in Canada the armed forces is increasingly unable to meet its recruiting targets and the news is filled with stories suggesting that the military is increasingly obsessed with human resources issues rather than warfighting skills.
  19. Maybe, but Nancy just asked Beijing to move that date up to 2030.
  20. 5 years at least I'd say. They just don't have the numbers on key programs like the J-20 as of yet.
  21. The Ukrainians have mobilized many hundreds of thousands of men, so if the report is correct and they've lost 200,000 so far, this does not mean that they don't have the half trained replacements to throw into the line.
  22. The past discussion Stuart mentions about the USN becoming too vulnerable pertains to the future, not the present. Odd that he would forget that fact. Or, perhaps, not that surprising at all. The Chinese threat is evolving quickly, but the US still has the upper hand for at least the next few years, IMO.
  23. Iran puts a number on the rockets and missiles stockpiled near Israel if war breaks out, Iran warns Israel that «more than 100,000 missiles» are «ready» in Lebanon if war breaks out (msn.com) No doubt mostly unguided and the total number probably exaggerated. Does not appear to include stocks in Syria or Gaza.
  24. Yes, if there is one thing that American history has taught us, it's the critical nature of Finland to American national security. There's a strong Jeffersonian trend in the Right in US that considers many recent American allies to be posers, hangers on, and groupies, that are trying to leverage American power for their own interests, hence the fact that the speech has gone viral. When it comes to Finland and Sweden, these are longstanding EU members and responsible partners in the Western club in which their participation in NATO is good to close a loop where part of the EU was outside of NATO, hence the fact that only 1 vote went against.
×
×
  • Create New...