Jump to content

glenn239

Members
  • Posts

    7,838
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by glenn239

  1. Agreed, Ukraine is certainly a more nuanced case than others are. Not as hopeless as an A-stan and probably will not collapse unless pressured externally, but still very corrupt and backwards.
  2. The point I made to you is that there are two very clear schools of thought on what to do about Ukraine. The second train of thought runs that Ukraine is like Iraq or Afghanistan, that it is a perpetually weak and failed state that cannot endure a month past the date when all the money pouring in from the West to prop up its corruption stops pouring in. When the West goes all-in on this type of state, the result invariably is failure. Therefore, the West should do nothing for Ukraine because the outcome will be failure.
  3. The syrup reserve is only to be released in case the global economy is about to pancake.
  4. Less sun? Maybe Gomel pointed north then? :^)
  5. Basically there are two schools of thought here for the last decade on NATO's eastern frontier. The one is that the West is still sufficiently dominant economically and militarily that we can advance into difficult to access areas like Ukraine (or Taiwan) and successfully exert effective deterrence against a power like Russia, that currently threatens the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The other viewpoint is that the West has long since peaked globally and its failure in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply confirm that we're in a state of relative decline, and that attempting to support Ukraine in a war with Russia will result in the loss of that war because the overall geographic and military situation in this region is much worse for us than in Iraq, and we did not win in Iraq. You write that Seahawk is being "stupid" when he suggests that Russia's future borders could more closely match its past borders. Yet Russian history says that Russian fortunes run in cycles of expansion and contraction, both economically and territorially. Ukraine has become independent before, only to be reannexed at a later date. The question for NATO is, how much risk should we take to do something about it? Neocons seem even unable to grasp that there are grave risks for us involved. They also don't seem to get that, for these risks, there seems to be nothing in the way of a payoff, in that for the United States its no better off in terms of national economy and interests if Ukraine is annexed than if it is independent. My personal opinion since about 2004 is that the West needs to focus on its core territories and not entertain crusades into places like Ukraine, where victory seems impossible. That if we try to protect Ukraine, the most likely result will be the partition of Ukraine, where that country will suffer far more than if we had done nothing at all.
  6. You want me to draw you a map with little arrows on it?
  7. I got promoted to leader of the forum? The end times are truly amongst us.
  8. I just reasoned with Laser Shark in the post above.
  9. 253 posts guy asking if longstanding member Seahawk is a troll? How about shut the fuck up first and earn the right to talk smack around here about members later?
  10. Whose the great leader of history that did not at least once roll the iron dice?
  11. Yes, but if you had to choose, which is it? Win the lottery or marry the super model?
  12. Two things. First, why would China start a war with Taiwan that Taiwan would have a chance of winning? Xi strikes me as pretty authoritarian, but he doesn't strike me as stupid. Second, even if Taiwan proclaims independence, what difference is that going to make to the ultimate outcome?
  13. China's strategic oil reserves are estimated at 400 million barrels, on 12.7 million barrels consumed per day. Capacity is estimated at 500 million barrels, and this will continue to climb past 500 million towards a billion. The 12.7 million consumed could probably be more like 4 million per day with rationing, and the 680,000 barrels per day from Russia is only a fraction of the 11 million barrels per day Russia produces. Figure 1.5 million barrels from Russia daily if necessary, 5 million domestically, and rationing to 8 million barrels per day consumed, the 400 million barrels in the Chinese reserves would last over two years. Of course, that assumes the Chinese can't ration down to 6 million barrels a day in comsumption, in which case, China can outlast an oil blockade indefinitely. Japan exported about 6.5 billion USD of food in 2019. It imported 65 billion dollars of food in 2019, so Japan is a net importer of food to the tune of about 60 billion per year. So, from that, I'm not sure Japan can win the game you're urging her to play.
  14. I think they'd have landed in Halifax, but Siebel Ferries can't cruise that far.
  15. I'm not too concerned about WW3 breaking out over Ukraine. It's the overall trajectory, the baggage that's accumulating over time that worries me. Sir Edward Grey once remarked about the origins of WW1 that crises had this way of suddenly cropping up, being resolved, then going underground to spring back up elsewhere and unpredictably. Each time a crisis happens and is resolved, both sides build up resentment and things circle a bit closer to the drain, and in the next crisis, the impetus to walk away is a bit less. I've no idea what to make of the coup attempts stories. I kinda think that if Putin is attempting a coup, the first Zelensky will know of it is when the Iskander lands on his bedroom. Then again, I never believed the Russians would be so key stone cops as to do the Skipral poisonings either, so who knows.
  16. The United States has sent tens of thousands of tanks into battle since 1917. Every last single one of them was over at the neighbour's place.
  17. IMO, the US status as global currency reserve has little or nothing to do with the strength of the American greenback. If the US packed up and went home from everywhere tomorrow, the dollar would still be the world's go-to currency.
  18. American globalism was always a bit of a Washington hobby horse, so yes, they can afford to step back. Biden sent the UK a message in Kabul about that business. The Americans did nothing while the Argis plugged half a dozen ships off the Falklands in 1982, so I would think that the British should think long and hard before they assume that they can wag the dog in Washington in 2021.
  19. Looks to me like Putin's patience with Washington on Ukraine has snapped. If this is so, then the US's best move is to fold and walk away from the table. Expanding NATO into Ukraine was always a stupid bet, they should have never even thought about doing it.
  20. Dunno futon, I just don't think Japan getting into a war with China over Taiwan is a good idea. For the Australian submarines, I think they make sense for Australia for home defense because they're a big country with lots of coast. But when they start talking about Australian submarines defending Taiwan, I don't think that's a good idea for Australia either.
  21. No, that's not my assumption at all. My assumption is that a nuclear war is not only quite possible, it actually makes sense for an Asian land power to fight one in certain circumstances. That is, a nuclear war fought under tight engagement protocols could completely smash pretty little brittle things like the ability to produce aircraft or have big naval ships. As I've mentioned here about a hundred times, if the Russian and American navies and air forces destry each other in an orgy of conventional and tactical nuclear destruction Russia will still be sitting in the middle of Asia, but the US will be back in the Americas, not in Asia. So, my assumption is that the risk of a nuclear war is not symmetrical, that it is much greater for the US (which is the seapower that relies on all sorts of very delicate instruments of global power projection) than it is for Russia, (which is a land power and can still exert political influence after such a war in its own near abroad). That makes a nuclear war very possible, and very much not within our interests. This article, All options fraught with risk as Biden confronts Putin over Ukraine | US foreign policy | The Guardian Outlines the US dilemma, why they should have never placed a bet in Ukraine in the first place. One minute they're escalating in a shit hole of no value to the US, the next minute Texas is on the phone saying that much of the F-35 production capacity is gone. Was a shithole worth that?
  22. I'd suggest thinking more of Putin as looking towards his legacy, to be known as one of the greatest leader in Russian history rather than as you implicitly suggest here, sort of a cowardly global hyena. Why would Putin want Ukraine to implode into chaos when what Russia really benefits from is a strong, vibrant Ukraine that is again not only an ally of Russia, but ideologically in lockstep with the whole 'we're all Russians' thing. Putin wants to rebuild a political federation to replace the Soviet Union, and stop NATO in its tracks. The only advantage to Ukraine imploding would be to prevent NATO expansion; that does nothing towards rebuilding a pan-Russian federation. But Putin can prevent that militarily too, so its not as if he needs Ukraine to implode in order to block NATO expansion. There is another option, the one I've recommended for 8 years. That is for NATO to completely sever military relations with Ukraine, tell Kiev to go fuck itself, that it will never be part of NATO and must go to Moscow and work it out with Putin. Putin gets along with ass hats like Erdogan, he can get along with ass hats in Kiev too. At the same time, go to Russia and indicate that sanctions relief will be part of a Russian-Ukrainian rapprochement. The problem with that approach is that globalists and western elites see Russian only as an adversary, the evil meme in their advertising campaigns. Ukraine is a pawn on a much larger chessboard, and doing sanctions relief to ease Ukrainian-Russian tensions is simply not in the playbook - they would prefer Ukraine to be invaded instead, because that will look better on the globalist advertising campaign. Lots of propaganda in that one, and the more dead Uks the better. If NATO does as you suggest and puts a military 'blanket' over Ukraine, then, since Russia is undeterrable at this point, this will trigger an invasion and NATO will very rapidly be in a situation where it must either backstab Ukraine, (like France and Britain let down Poland in 1939), or it must fight a war in which the outcome could be far worse than having done nothing at all.
  23. Very tragic. If only they'd had something like a Siebel Ferry, that would not have capsized.
×
×
  • Create New...