New thread on this here:
On the other hand, they might defer moving on Taiwan if they perceive more immediate benefit to weakening Russia and playing Russia against the US. The Chinese government is playing a long game, or at least is able to do so.
One man’s reckless is another man’s audacious.
They could tell you, but you know the first rule about Encanto.
It’s not realistic for there to be no cities in orange. Military experts have been saying that it’s a given that some cities will fall.
There problem is that no one really knows what the end game looks like right now. The sanctions will hurt the Russian economy. They have certain costs for invading Ukraine. How long can the Ukrainians hold out? How much damage can they take?
Here is one example of an article quoting a retired general.
Simply looking at a few cities being captured doesn’t tell the whole picture.
I’d give a buck to read the transcripts of every plaintive phone call that the Russians made to China, begging for help on this one.
They obviously put their best Kellyanne Conways (appallingly competent, but unabashedly evil) on the job.
But how could they spin this:
“Forget what we did. Forget why we did it. We’re in trouble here, and could use some help. What, exactly, would you want …”
?
The (older) Russian citizenry may well be vulnerable to Russian propaganda, but that doesn’t automatically mean that the other world powers are.
China knew perfectly well what Russia was going to do…and probably even had a good idea on when and why as well. I’d say that China and Russia had definite plans for how China would mitigate the expected sanctions and other blowbacks as well. The trouble is, Xi and China are out for Xi and China, and things have changed wrt the amount of anger and sanctions that have happened. European response, in particular, has been a lot stronger than anyone, including Putin, thought it would be. As this thing drags on, I’d say the chances of China openly supporting Russia are diminishing, though I fully expect them to do all the under-the-table assistance (a la North Korea) they can get away with.
Excellent point, IMHO. China’s ideal is for both Russia AND Ukraine to come out of this as weakened as possible. So, their policies will fluctuate as the fortunes of the war fluctuate. Right now, it’s Russia that needs a little help, to keep this thing going. Next month, it might be Ukraine.
I have trouble believing China is going to provide Russia with “aid.” I think they’ll happily SELL things to Russia, or trade them. China sees someone panicking and possibly willing to sell the cow for a few magic beans.
The likelihood is that no one will ever see her in person again. Bravery indeed.
“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
–George Orwell
Things are happening now:
The global hacker army has been mobilized
Two Harvard student create website to link refugees and hosts in US
All kinds of charities large and small are organizing aid.
There’s an endless news stream of stuff like this from all over the place. It’s heartening. I also think that the sense of helplessness that millions of people have endured for so long due to both Covid and the degeneration of the political landscape is contributing to this outpouring.
I read a tag this morning that said her lawyer has been unable to contact her since her arrest.
"Anton Gashinsky and Marina Ovsyannikova in court
Photo: Sergei Badamshin’s telegram channel" (translation)
Good to know they are least going through the formalities before shipping her off to Siberia.
We are in total agreement.
I earlier said that I was focused on the likely “follow the money” aspect to the invasion. I still don’t have my arms around it, but it still seems plausible that not only the Putin administration, but the oligarchs and the Chinese may have been part of some promised quid pro quo.
But as most of us are saying: regardless of how this unfolds after today, it’s hard to imagine that events to date have met with Putin’s expectations or lived up to the likely scenarios he laid out for those whose buy-in he sought before the invasion.
I still haven’t read that Britannica article I posted, and chased down the rabbit hole of what Ukraine has that Russia/China either need or could profit handsomely from, but neither have I ruled out this component.
For whatever that’s worth.
Absolutely. I doubt either Putin or Xi expected anything like this, and it’s got to have been a huge shock to both and their henchmen that things have gone the way they have. I think Putin is in serious damage control mode at this point, and Xi is trying to on the one hand support Putin…under the table…while ensuring that the US and Europe don’t see China as taking Russia’s side or helping them. It’s going to be a difficult balancing act for China, and they may get to the point where they have to at least be seen to be distancing themselves from Russia, especially wrt trade, or face western sanctions themselves.
Oh, I’m sure they both were. Hell, we know China had made a pretty extensive deal with Russia prior to the invasion that looks, especially in hindsight (though it was really clear at the time for anyone paying attention) to be an attempt at trade sanctions mitigation designed to offset the expected sanctions the US and, maybe a few Europeans would have thrown up in token protest over the invasion. China was definitely getting plenty of squid pro roe for this, including more access to Russian gas, coal, oil, and, for the first time in a long time, wheat. Plus, gods know what else was on the table that didn’t get mentioned…my WAG is more tech transfer from Russia to China but could be a lot of things.
I don’t know that I agree. Fundamentally the goals of the war and/or victory conditions are set by the civilian leadership. “Unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan” is an example. It’s Clausewitz’s “War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means.” at its core. War’s one more tool of the politicians to achieve policy goals, and like anything else, those policy goals have to be clearly defined and articulated, and the purpose of the war needs to also be clearly defined and articulated, so that there is a defined role and goals for the nation’s military.
But in say… Vietnam, Iraq (the insurgency stage) or Afghanistan, what were those goals and conditions? AFAIK those were absolutely never clearly articulated in a way that the military could work toward fulfilling.
I’d argue that the US military did indeed win, and win big in all three, when there was some kind of clear military goal in mind- destroy the Iraqi Army, defeat the NVA in the Tet Offensive, remove the Taliban from power.
But when they were pushed into “Occupy Iraq and… help the Iraqis build a state”, things became dramatically more vague and exponentially harder to determine what winning and losing were.
You’re absolutely right in that in a democratic society, a lot of that vagueness falls right at the feet of the electorate and politicians’ interpretation of its will as time progresses.
But it’s hard to lay the blame for say… Vietnam or Iraq at the feet of the military. They’re a tool meant to do one thing very well- fight other nations and win in the furtherance of the government’s foreign policy objectives. It’s not meant to occupy and pacify nations, build nations, etc… even though it gets used to do that all too frequently. So they take their wins where they can- small battles, mid-sized policies, etc… are all celebrated, even though the overall grand strategy is irreparably flawed and will result in a “loss” in the history books.
Yeah, I broadly agree with this. In each of the cases you mentioned, militarily they were clear victories. The issue was the nebulous political goals. This isn’t ‘some nebulous “other”’, it’s the political leadership that is often fractured on exactly what their goals actually are. And the public, which is often even more fracture on what it is they really want…and what price they want to pay for it.
In terms of this invasion, I’d say that Putin et al probably did have specific political goals for this campaign (say, the complete annexation of portions of Ukraine into the Russian federation, with, perhaps, the rest of Ukraine becoming a puppet state controlled by Russia), but my WAG is their military goals to achieve that were less than clear. Kind of the direct opposite to how US adventures usually go. It’s also possible that the Russian military simply wasn’t up to the task, especially with the initial constraints that might have been put on them, to achieve the goals of Putin and his cronies.
Incredible. This might concentrate a few minds in Beijing.
Chinese stocks listed in Hong Kong had their worst day since the global financial crisis, as concerns over Beijing’s close relationship with Russia and renewed regulatory risks sparked panic selling.
The Hang Seng China Enterprises Index closed down 7.2% on Monday, the biggest drop since November 2008. The Hang Sang Tech Index tumbled 11% in its worst decline since the gauge was launched in July 2020, wiping out $2.1 trillion in value since a year-earlier peak.
The broad rout follows a report citing U.S. officials that Russia has asked China for military assistance for its war in Ukraine. Even as China denied the report, traders worry that Beijing’s potential overture toward Vladimir Putin could bring a global backlash against Chinese firms, even sanctions.