Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    16121

  • Stuart Galbraith

    11338

  • glenn239

    5039

  • Josh

    3789

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

China had people to burn, even then. I doubt it was a major concern of the CCP. In retrospect, Mao might have preferred if that pissing contest hadn't started, but once the US was brushing up against the Yalu there wasn't any other choice from their perspective.

Posted

Once again, the problem was less the war, than how long it went on, about 2 years after they had settled the border problem. And remembering how keen McArthur was to bomb north of the Yalu, including with nuclear weapons, it was hardly risk free.

And Mao did it again. in 1958,he  came within 2 hours of being nuked during the Quemoy crisis, again, entirely of his own making.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/us/politics/nuclear-war-risk-1958-us-china.html

 

Posted

Mostly TASS reporting is endless repetition of the same types of stories, but this posted today is interesting,

Over 10,000 Ukrainian fighters surrender since summer using special radio frequency

According to the source, the radio frequency operates in all directions of the line of engagement in the special military operation zone

MOSCOW, September 27. /TASS/. About 10,000 Ukrainian servicemen have already surrendered to Russian forces using the special 149.200 "Volga" radio frequency, which has been operating since mid-summer, operational services told TASS.

"Now more than 10,000 Ukrainian servicemen have already chosen life and used the 149.200 'Volga' frequency to surrender. The captives are being fed; they are being provided with all necessary medical care," the source said, noting that the dedicated radio frequency operates in all directions of the line of engagement in the special military operation zone.

He pointed out that the number of captives surrendering has increased recently. This is due, among other things, to the pro-Russian underground, whose activists spread information about the option of surrendering in the special military operation zone in those cities controlled by the Ukrainian armed forces.

"There have already been cases in [the frontline village of] Rabotino when Ukrainian fighters made use of the 149.200 'Volga' frequency to surrender in entire groups," the Union of Veterans of the Special Military Operation told TASS.

The 149.200 frequency, which can be accessed on any digital radio, is specially designated to be used by Ukrainian servicemen as a channel for communicating their intention to surrender to the Russian military, which can then locate them and take them captive safely, thus saving the Ukrainian servicemen from risking their lives crossing minefields to reach the Russian lines. The project has been operational since mid-summer.

Posted
4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

As many as they're ready to take, as they're fighting a war of national survival, China wasn't doing that in the 1950.

The purpose of crying over the enemy's dead is to hope that they stop the war, just like the purpose of saying, 'there is no total too high for..." is in hopes that Ukraine will not stop the war.   What I find curious is that the ratio of what Stuart said was probably too much for China (roughly 1 in 650) is not entirely out of line with the ratio of what I had said some time ago was worth it for Ukraine to contest an invasion before falling back and asking for a ceasefire, (20,000 KIA, or maybe 80,000 casualties or roughly 1 in 500).

Posted

10 000 sounds rather unlikely amount, number I saw about surrendees via 'Volga' channel on some Russian TG channel was something like 600 to 800. Whether that number has any bearing to reality, idk.

Posted
5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, the point you don't seem to grasp is that is Ukraines choice, not yours.

It was different with China, the casualties were purely down to Stalin who didn't allow the war to stop.

Nice conflation of two entirely  different situations though.

It isn't Ukraine's choice either. When the west says the war stops, it ends. By the west, I mean the USA.

Posted
On 9/26/2023 at 8:09 AM, Josh said:

It seems unlikely Minsk would have solved the problem permanently. It would have just set up the next conflict instead. Russian war aims were clearly much more than simply securing the break away areas, or even taking the entire oblast areas still under Ukrainian control. The Russia war effort clearly attempted to decapitate Ukraine and the stated goal is still to destroy it as a political and cultural entity. That isn't consistent with Minsk being the final word on the subject pre war.

 

Something drastic would have to change for Russia to take significant territory, IMO. The only thing keeping their head above water right now is the extensive defenses and mine fields.

You do have a point about whether or not things would have been settled permanently with the solidification of Minsk. That said, it was not implemented so we don't know.

With that, I think Russian war aims have morphed as the conflict has dragged on. I don't know what those are. 

I am still of the opinion that this is round two of the cold war, as I believe to to some extent WW2 was round two of WW1.

Perhaps conflict in Ukraine was unavoidable given the parties involved and the human condition. I am digressing to the philosophical so I will end. 

 

Posted
On 9/26/2023 at 10:32 AM, Stefan Kotsch said:

I would have given up the territories conquered by Russia in 2014/2015 and redrawn the Ukrainian-Russian border. Then Ukraine would be conflict-free and could have become a member of the EU or NATO. But that was absolutely not politically feasible in Ukraine.

The Minsk Agreement was already dictated by Russia because the West felt disturbed when doing business with Russia and wanted peace at any price. However, the so-called limited autonomy to the break-away areas would have brought nothing to Ukraine except a constant dictate from Moscow. In the long term, Ukraine would have become a willless subject of Russia.

Btw. By referring to the extremely solid defensive line, I meant that Russia has apparently recognized that this is the maximum achievable extent of the conquered areas. That wasn't the goal of the war, but it was better than nothing.

I follow your thinking. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Yama said:

10 000 sounds rather unlikely amount, number I saw about surrendees via 'Volga' channel on some Russian TG channel was something like 600 to 800. Whether that number has any bearing to reality, idk.

Yes. 10000 is nearly the total of uk pow 

Posted

There was no point in giving up the separatist territories unless there was some kind of concrete security guarantee like NATO membership or something similar. And no one would have given Ukraine any such guarantee. Ukraine has been in a hopeless position since Crimea; outside of grinding war or giving Russia anything it wants, there weren’t any choices.

Posted
16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

China felt precisely the same way over North Korea. When it was over they had something like 900000 casualties, and had barely achieved anything other than the survival of North Korea, who prefered to suck up to the USSR for the rest of the Cold War. Beware of sunk cost fallacies.

When you put it that way China achieved a lot. It kept a friendly nation on their border and prevented escalation from the other side. The line holds today. China was used to heavy casualties, significant loss as a nullifier to victory  is a western argument (which I agree with). We are forgetting that at the time the Norks and Chicoms were very politically close.

A more apt suck cost fallacy would be Iraq, Afghanistan in this century. We got just about nothing from those. The people that live in those areas even less. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, mandeb48 said:

Yes. 10000 is nearly the total of uk pow 

Especially since Russia isn’t know for its tenderness towards Ukrainians…

Posted
1 minute ago, ex2cav said:

When you put it that way China achieved a lot. It kept a friendly nation on their border and prevented escalation from the other side. The line holds today. China was used to heavy casualties, significant loss as a nullifier to victory  is a western argument (which I agree with). We are forgetting that at the time the Norks and Chicoms were very politically close.

A more apt suck cost fallacy would be Iraq, Afghanistan in this century. We got just about nothing from those. The people that live in those areas even less. 

Largely with this assessment.

Posted
10 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Online reports of the daily video strikes suggest in the past two weeks little Ukrainian activity for reasons I do not understand, and increasing Russian activity.  In particular FPV drone strikes (maybe about 20 per day now) and FAB glide bomb strikes are sharply on the increase.   The latter in particular is noteworthy because it means that the Russian air force is in the heavy bombardment game.  The other notable September trend is that the number of Ukrainian artillery pieces being reported as destroyed is very high.  This would explain the need to use HIMARS as a substitute.

I think HIMARS days are also probably numbered, as the industrial technical means to hunt and destroy them further behind the front lines surely is in the Russian pipeline.  I picture some sort of drone  being produced in large numbers that lands scouts on the ground far behind Ukrainian lines and waits for targets to reveal themselves before striking or calling in reinforcements.

As of now, the Russians haven’t offered concrete proof they destroyed a single HIMAR launcher. So I wouldn’t hold my breath that HiMARs days are numbered based on this 

Posted

Getting back to topic…

Past few days, there has been very little movement on either side. Heavy fighting but no territorial changes.

Also, talk of Ukrainians going through first Russian line of defense….there is a difference between a breach and a breakthrough. They have sent some units across including some vehicles, but as of now are holding off on an actual armored thrust. Issue is that the area the Ukrainians control is too narrow for a successful armored thrust to take place (meaning, Russian helicopters and ATGM crews will have a field day picking off vehicle after vehicle). Instead the Ukrainians are simply sending in smaller squads of men through certain areas, which makes progress excruciatingly slow, but don’t see any other choice given Russian defenses. 
 

Doesn’t seem like the Russians are trying to do much in the east either. 
 

If there isn’t much territorial changes by the time rains come in, war will have reached stalemate for much of the year it seems. 

Posted
8 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Mostly TASS reporting is endless repetition of the same types of stories, but this posted today is interesting,

Over 10,000 Ukrainian fighters surrender since summer using special radio frequency

According to the source, the radio frequency operates in all directions of the line of engagement in the special military operation zone

MOSCOW, September 27. /TASS/. About 10,000 Ukrainian servicemen have already surrendered to Russian forces using the special 149.200 "Volga" radio frequency, which has been operating since mid-summer, operational services told TASS.

"Now more than 10,000 Ukrainian servicemen have already chosen life and used the 149.200 'Volga' frequency to surrender. The captives are being fed; they are being provided with all necessary medical care," the source said, noting that the dedicated radio frequency operates in all directions of the line of engagement in the special military operation zone.

He pointed out that the number of captives surrendering has increased recently. This is due, among other things, to the pro-Russian underground, whose activists spread information about the option of surrendering in the special military operation zone in those cities controlled by the Ukrainian armed forces.

"There have already been cases in [the frontline village of] Rabotino when Ukrainian fighters made use of the 149.200 'Volga' frequency to surrender in entire groups," the Union of Veterans of the Special Military Operation told TASS.

The 149.200 frequency, which can be accessed on any digital radio, is specially designated to be used by Ukrainian servicemen as a channel for communicating their intention to surrender to the Russian military, which can then locate them and take them captive safely, thus saving the Ukrainian servicemen from risking their lives crossing minefields to reach the Russian lines. The project has been operational since mid-summer.

Why does the number sound wrong? Morale is shot on the anti-Russian side and many understand that they are only fighting as pawns of the West and that it is a Russian Civil War. Surrendering to the Russian liberators seems like the right decision.

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, ex2cav said:

When you put it that way China achieved a lot. It kept a friendly nation on their border and prevented escalation from the other side. The line holds today. China was used to heavy casualties, significant loss as a nullifier to victory  is a western argument (which I agree with). We are forgetting that at the time the Norks and Chicoms were very politically close.

A more apt suck cost fallacy would be Iraq, Afghanistan in this century. We got just about nothing from those. The people that live in those areas even less. 

Yes, but it wasnt such a friendly nation was it? It was aligned with the USSR. Arguably they did was swap a belligerant Korea for a belligerant North Korea. Ok, so nobody in their right mind would do border running from the PRC to best Korea. But they still had Hong Kong for that.

China was used to casualties, but stop and think about the timing, this was right after the Civil war when they took heavy casualties. Which was right after WW2, where they took heavy casualties. You might think they would welcome a decade when they werent taking heavy castualties, but not a bit of it. Right after this they had the cultural revolution, where they took etc etc etc.

There are many reasons why china didnt make much economic progress till the 1970's, but I would argue the Korean war was at least part of that reason. Look how that started to change when they engaged with the US and came out of isolation. Completely the opposite of what the USSR had wanted of them. They could have done that a good 10-20 years earlier, as Yugoslavia did, if they hadnt got immeshed in Korea and latterly vietnam.

Looked at from Stalins point of view, it was probably ideal having all his enemies fight each other. He could sleep save in bed at night. No wonder he didnt want to stop, despite Mao reportedly requesting to end it.

 

Put all that together, Mao wasnt really such a strategic genius was he? Putin and he could swap tips.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted
22 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Why does the number sound wrong? Morale is shot on the anti-Russian side and many understand that they are only fighting as pawns of the West and that it is a Russian Civil War. Surrendering to the Russian liberators seems like the right decision.

Has anyone actually stopped to think how difficult it is to surrender to someone you are attacking?

1000, I can buy that. 10000? I think the crack pipe has been passed around once too many.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but it wasnt such a friendly nation was it? It was aligned with the USSR. Arguably they did was swap a belligerant Korea for a belligerant North Korea. Ok, so nobody in their right mind would do border running from the PRC to best Korea. But they still had Hong Kong for that.

China was used to casualties, but stop and think about the timing, this was right after the Civil war when they took heavy casualties. Which was right after WW2, where they took heavy casualties. You might think they would welcome a decade when they werent taking heavy castualties, but not a bit of it. Right after this they had the cultural revolution, where they took etc etc etc.

There are many reasons why china didnt make much economic progress till the 1970's, but I would argue the Korean war was at least part of that reason. Look how that started to change when they engaged with the US and came out of isolation. Completely the opposite of what the USSR had wanted of them. They could have done that a good 10-20 years earlier, as Yugoslavia did, if they hadnt got immeshed in Korea and latterly vietnam.

Looked at from Stalins point of view, it was probably ideal having all his enemies fight each other. He could sleep save in bed at night. No wonder he didnt want to stop, despite Mao reportedly requesting to end it.

 

Put all that together, Mao wasnt really such a strategic genius was he? Putin and he could swap tips.

I'd say it was a very, very small part. Losing less than 1/500th (I'm assuming high figures) of the population in the war won't cripple the country, introducing communism can be far deadlier in human and economic terms, especially when it's done by hardcore 'stalinists' in such an economically backward country.

Losses connected to the civil war, Japanese invasion etc. went into some tens of millions and the state remained somewhat functional. Then another tens of millions under Mao, also coupled with economic mismanagement. Korean war losses were barely a blip on the radar.

Posted (edited)

Lets not forget, those are the official Chinese figures. I seem to recall from Max Hastings book (which I read some 30 years ago now admittedly), that the figureds estimated by he Western forces are possibly much higher. For one thing it proved not very easy to calculate the number of dead when Western Forces used liberal amounts of Napalm.

Ok, so Im not getting much traction on that one. Fair enough. If nothing else we can see that it cause a estrangement with the US that held back China from economic progress for 20 years.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, seahawk said:
9 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Mostly TASS reporting ... ,Over 10,000 Ukrainian fighters surrender since summer using special radio frequency ...

Why does the number sound wrong?

TASS reporting? 😊

Edited by Stefan Kotsch

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...