Indeed, one question I posed to the pro-US policy side to this debate is whether this was a US proxy war against Russia, using Ukraine ... or a Chinese proxy war against the US, using Russia. — boethius

Neither

Neither — frank

Well, consider the Chinese point of view, especially if what you say is true and that China is now the main player.

Of course, doesn't exclude Ukraine having it's own reasons to want to be a proxy force, likewise doesn't exclude Russia wanting to throw it in with China, but if Russia depends on China to sustain themselves economically and survive sanctions, presumably China has reason to.

Would China be so bold with these recent exercises without the Ukraine war happening?

I think the most significant player on the scene now is neither the US nor Russia. It's China. — frank

I disagree, but I would like to hear what you believe China's contribution to this conflict is, that warrants being called the most significant player on the scene.

Well, consider the Chinese point of view, especially if what you say is true and that China is now the main player. — boethius

China has been playing the situation carefully. They want good relations with the US. Xi does, anyway. The balloon launchers apparently have other plans. :grin:

I would like to hear what you believe China's contribution to this conflict is, that warrants being called the most significant player on the scene. — Tzeentch

They're a stabilizing force for Russia at this time, at the price of Russia's future submission to China. Biden has pitted himself against Putin's regime. Xi says no.

The nature of dependency in such a relationship will set Russia back at the expense of US and China here, and it will be a puppet of these two bigger players.

With Russian ambition being kept in check by both, Russia knows it won’t be able to pull another Ukraine anytime soon maybe apart from further puppet states such as Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan or even Kazakhstan.

Chinas own ambition puts it in direct confrontation with US in regards to Taiwan now encircled by China and defended by US might and power which if China thinks it can incisively take Taiwan right under US watch would be something of a coup which the US cannot afford to concede as it shows weakness.

@boethius

All true.

What are in your eyes some clear indications of China's power in the Ukraine conflict? And in a similar vein, what are in your view some clear indications of Russia's "future submission" to China?

Any specific events in which the Chinese influenced the war in Ukraine to their benefit? Or events in which Russia was made to serve Chinese interests as an indicator of China's influence over Russia?

China has been playing the situation carefully. They want good relations with the US. Xi does, anyway. The balloon launchers apparently have other plans. — frank

The several hundred billion dollar question in this situation is how intent Xi is on conquering Taiwan.

This is why my question about Russia being a proxy to China's force projection is in the form of a question. It depends on what China is trying to achieve.

If it really does want to take Taiwan in the short term, then agreeing to or even encouraging Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a geopolitical master stroke if China takes advantage of the US pivot to Europe and can and does conquer Taiwan.

Not to say China somehow engineered the situation from the beginning, US was on a collision course with Russia anyways, but rather clever geopolitical opportunism.

If China has zero intention of conquering Taiwan anytime soon and just wants to continue their economic growth for a decade or two, then the war Ukraine brings a lot of economic benefits to China such as a significant protected market for Chinese engineering services and obvious cheaper access to resources.

They're a stabilizing force for Russia at this time, at the price of Russia's future submission to China. Biden has pitted himself against Putin's regime. Xi says no. — frank

I think submission is too strong a term. Russia still has a lot of leverage in terms of resources, some key military technologies as well as thousands of nuclear weapons. Russia has also tripled trade with India which serves as a hedge against over reliance on China.

Certainly the war benefits China and removes Russia's arbitrage position selling to the West, which is bad for Russia all else being equal ... but all else isn't equal and the war also removes the West's influence in Russia as well as weakens the US' geopolitical and reserve currency position.

We'd need to know what Putin and Xi are actually intent on accomplishing to evaluate their decision making. For example, if Putin wanted to put Russia in a more authoritarian direction, the war obviously accomplished that too.

I'm quite convinced that Russia will seek to connect to Transnistria if some form of agreement cannot be reached in Ukraine.

A future invasion of Lithuania to connect to Kaliningrad is also not unthinkable. — Tzeentch

Yeah, those are part of the (open-ended) "Then what?" question of seemingly free Russian reins. :/ Except, I'd use "Putin's Russia" instead of just "Russia" — the Russia that's been regressing, too.

Poland building electronic barrier on border with Russia
^{— AP News · Apr 18, 2023}

Let's not forget that Putin instigated the invasion, enlarging the world's largest country (perhaps temporarily), and might well be the one individual that can end the war today. The attacks continue to generate hate and corrode chances of diplomacy.

I suppose, whatever might be said of Navalny he's not a coward.

Russia's Navalny faces new charges after prison 'provocation' - lawyer
^{— Kevin Liffey, Mark Trevelyan · Reuters · Apr 18, 2023}

Maybe he should have stayed in Germany.

Top Kremlin critic convicted of treason, gets 25 years
^{— Anita Snow · Associated Press · Apr 18, 2023}

Kara-Murza might also have been able to do more out of the Gremlin's (direct) reach.

Let's not forget that Putin instigated the invasion, enlarging the world's largest country (perhaps temporarily), and might well be the one individual that can end the war today. — jorndoe

The conflict started in 2014 and was Ukraine that attacked Russian speaking break away regions and the threat to Russia's naval base in Crimea due to a coup in Ukraine.

Of course, doesn't necessarily justify simply taking Crimea and propping up the separatists and then a full scale invasion last year, but it's pretty much the exact same doctrine US used to invade Iraq and also pretty much the same thing as the Western supported Saudi invasion of Yemen (following a coup that the Saudis and we Westies claim is illegitimate, justifying invasion).

I have no problem with the idea all these invasions are immoral, but if you support the US right to invade Iraq as "preemptive defence" or then the Saudi invasion of Yemen "because coup! illegitimate!" then you need to present some moral theory where "when we do it it's ok" that doesn't reduce to "meh, interests".

Hypocrisy does not make a thing in itself true or false, good nor bad, but does take the edge off moralising about it.

Iraq as "preemptive defence" — boethius

Me personally? Nope. → Mar 21, 2023

if you wanted to bring about your preferred solution, what would personally do to help (whom would you petition, what political or social action would you take)?

Or do you consider the electorate just as helpless pawns who can do more than watch as the powers play it all out? — Isaac

Not sure what country you're at, but here in US the Ukraine is for the most part a side show - it simply does not have any direct impact on people's lives. The possibility of a nuclear war is too abstract and remote for most folks to think about. If Putin were to make explicit direct threats to drop nukes on US, that would change the equation.

But as it stands there's no point in even attempting to bring about my "preferred solution". Even if I could somehow join with like minded people, petition my representatives, protest, etc and get some sort of mass movement to force Biden (or Trump in 2024) to say to Ukraine "Either go with this proposal or we'll cut off aid"? Would Putin ever agree to internationally supervised elections? Nyet!

As an aside, my "preferred solution" would be for Putin to tell the world that he was wrong to order the invasion and that there would be a unilateral ceasefire followed by an immediate withdrawal of all Russian troops. But that's not going to happen.

I would gladly be wrong, but it looks like this thing is going to drag on for years.

My guess is that the conflict will slowly freeze, with lines not only far worse for Ukraine than Russia's offer at the start of the war but also without any actual end to the war there will be little repatriation of Ukrainians that left and likewise little reconstruction. — boethius

We're all helpless pawns here.

Me personally? Nope. — jorndoe

Then we're in agreement on the fundamental morality of these situations.

We're all helpless pawns here. — EricH

I fear this to be true.

Doesn't look particularly like propaganda (or similar) to me, but feel free to fill missing pieces in...

West prepares for Putin to use ‘whatever tools he’s got left’ in Ukraine
^{— Pippa Crerar · The Guardian · Apr 18, 2023}

There appeared to be an acknowledgment in Moscow that its forces might soon find themselves on the defensive in Ukraine as Russia’s own winter offensive appeared to be slowing down.

The group said that “declarations of unwavering support” were not enough and “actions still fail to match the rhetoric” in a reflection of military assessments in European capitals and Washington.

G7 ministers slam Russia’s ‘nuclear rhetoric’, call on China to improve behavior
^{— Reuters via Al Arabiya · Apr 18, 2023}

The ministers said they reiterated their call for China to act as a responsible member of the international community

lol

I get that Tucker will say anything he thinks will make his base happy, but his base doesn't even like Russia, which makes the whole over the top pro-Russia stuff really weird. Like the other day he showed photoshopped copies of the recent leaks and claimed "Ukraine was losing men 7 to 1," (actually, the documents showed Russia with 2.43 times the losses) and further claimed US forces were in full combat operations against Russia (another face saving Kremlin talking points). He then went on to give an endorsement and defense of the leaker. Strange.

There are a lot of these, and they look like they should be on Russia Today:



If you want to see something really bizarre, here is back before he went to Fox rebranded: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfxnMChoMNY

IDK why you would be a pundit for beliefs you think are bankrupt (his texts reveal he never believed the 2020 election was rigged either). Especially since he is a wealth heir; it's not for money; I guess it is attention?

How is Russia going to get to the Moldovan border? They haven't exactly been making much by way of progress since last summer. Even where they have more favorable terrain, they have been impaling themselves on Bakhmut, while the Vuhledar offensive was a total disaster.

They're now using old model T-55 tanks from 70 years ago. They gave up on their missile attacks on power infrastructure, but only after resorting to using anti-ship missiles and AA missiles in ground attack mode. Their daily number of fire missions is way down. Russian aircraft rarely even enter Ukrainian airspace and sorties are way down, this, despite leaks showing how degraded Ukrainian air defenses are. They are definitely not going to start a new war when they are unable to make progress in the current one and are clearly running out of the Soviet stockpiles they have relied on to date.

If anything, they should have already stopped current offensive operations and regrouped.

And they're going to start a second war? With a NATO member they don't even share a land border with?

Don't believe me, take it from a key player in the original move to annex Crimea and the Donbas.

As goes the mother-load of sanctions against Russia, so goes US global authority. China has played a pivotal role in using its economic might to mitigate the expected damage that the sanctions were expected to cause Russia. As a result Russia's foreign reserves were restored, its inflation rate is at historical lows and its' GDP virtually at prewar levels. This stare-down, more than any results on the battlefield has fractured the aura of Western invincibility. The non-western world has gleefully enjoyed seeing, for once, the schoolyard bully and his puffed up cronies thoroughly humiliated.

There is something uniquely dynamic now happening. From Beijing to Moscow, Tehran to Riyadh, Ankara to Delhi, through South America and Africa, all over the non western world, the last 12 months have witnessed an unprecedented succession of bi-lateral and multi-lateral initiatives and investments involving large infrastructure projects, landmark trade and finance deals, and unexpected peace agreements. The non-western world may have reached an event horizon. Whilst, over in Washington and throughout the advanced western world we struggle with systemic racism, equity, inclusion, gender dysphoria and argue over how the climate is changing.

The Duran team recently aired an interesting show with India's ambassador to Russia - Mr Varma. He touched on Moscow's fear of becoming an unequal partner with China. He highlighted that India too has similar concerns with China and that China is also sympathetic to both those concerns. In short, Mr Varma - perhaps not in so many words - was suggesting that a tripartite relationship could mollify those concerns. Either way, Russia and India are actively striving to deepen their relationship further with significant joint development projects on Russia's Pacific coast.

We may well be witnessing the early stages where the economies of India, China and Russia coalesce into a single economic bloc. Such an alliance, undeniably offers advantages that are irresistibly compelling.

To make a long story short, we disagree on some key points.

Most importantly, I believe the situation for Ukraine is a lot more dire than western media are letting on.

Second, I believe the Russian approach of occupying parts of Ukraine in 'bite-sized chunks' is a deliberate strategy.

Apparently. There is a hilarious level of faith in this supposed "real Russian military," that is just waiting to take the gloves off. How many pairs of gloves must they have had on this point?

Russia has been loosing ground, substantial amounts, for most of the war. But this is part of some big scheme. The Kiev offensive was a feint. So was the Kharkiv offensive. Kherson, annexed into Russia officially, then abandoned? Another feint!

Is using old T-55s without thermals some sort of advanced ruse? Russia has modern tanks left but isn't fielding them?

Can they fly sorties and use PGMs but aren't?

What possible reason is there for firing missiles from the S-400 in ground attack mode on a regular basis if Russia isn't low on missiles?

"Bite-sized chunks" has been a few hundred meters a day around Bakhmut and no net gains elsewhere over half a year. What possible reason is there to advance a few square miles over months while you also have to retreat from the Kiev axis, retreat from the Sumny axis, get routed out of the Kharkiv axis, and then have a combination rout / retreat out of Kharkiv. Quite the interesting plan. Did it include letting Ukraine capture 500+ tanks such that Russia has been the biggest heavy equipment supplier to Ukraine since the start of their war?

From whence all the videos of the announced Russian offensive that went nowhere this winter? Sure, territory didn't change hands, but we got a flood of new videos showing Russian armored columns, a hodgepodge of new stuff and 70 year old equipment, being destroyed. Is it all fake? An elaborate ruse?

But then why are Russian milbloggers in favor of the war saying the same thing about the losses and equipment shortages?

I will agree that the Ukrainian position might be also significantly degraded. In some respects it clearly is. However, the idea that Russia is in a position to start a second war, one in which they essentially declare war on Finland, Turkey, Romania, Poland, France, the UK, and the US at once, while attacking through Belarus, thus making them protect a large area with no real military force of its own, is absolutely preposterous.


If this is "deliberate," then I'd hate to see what a disorganized offensive looks like:

Second, I believe the Russian approach of occupying parts of Ukraine in 'bite-sized chunks' is a deliberate strategy. — Tzeentch

I got a chuckle out of that. :cheer:

Apparently. There is a hilarious level of faith in this supposed "real Russian military," that is just waiting to take the gloves off. How many pairs of gloves must they have had on this point? — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is not the hypothesis, at least on this forum.

The hypothesis is things are not going better for Ukraine, and evidence seems to suggest far worse.

There are two sides to the conflict. Even if all your examples of Russian criticism are true ... there has to be some reason to believe things are not just as bad for Ukraine.

The way the Western media evaluates and presents the war is as if they presented only the picture of the face of one boxer after every round and just pointing to cuts and bruises conclude this boxer is getting a beating and will certainly lose. Obviously, all this does is beg the question of how the other guys doing.

If the Ukrainian military was just "better" then it would not be the case that Russia woul be occupying any part of Ukraine right now.

The criticism of Russia from the point of view that they aren't winning "hard enough" and "easy enough" is still Russia winning.

In any big conventional war each side has battles they win and battles they lose.

Now, we don't have all that much reliable information from the front line, but the reason to assume Russia can sustain things longer than the Ukrainians is that they are simply bigger with a bigger population and more capabilities. For example, that Russian airforce has not established total air superiority is not the same as saying their hundreds of more planes than Ukraine isn't an effective tool.

As I mentioned in a post above, my guess would be the conflict transitions into a frozen conflict with neither side able to carry out major offensives.

However, as discussed with @ssu there isn't much historical example to support that conclusion, and the nature of the fighting maybe intrinsically "unfreezeable" with simply too many drones and too much artillery and missiles. Losses would need to get to a sustainable level for the conflict to start to freeze. Indeed, even before the age of drones, frozen conflicts usually have either a formal cease fire or then some natural barrier, usually both. There's of course the Dnieper river but it does not seem politically viable to retreat to there, so if Ukrainian forces just stay in Eastern Ukraine and their losses aren't sustainable then it's unclear to me how that plays out.

Now, if you say there's some brand new 200 000 strong army well trained on an island somewhere in secret that is coming to burst through Russian lines with tanks that Russia has no weapon that can penetrate them and it's simply total carnage all the way to the Azov sea, that is hypothetically possible.

So we'll see if this new Ukrainian offensive we've been hearing about gets under way, but at least with the information that's available online, whatever problems the Russians have ... the Ukrainians also have those problems just less sustainable because they are a smaller population.

Furthermore, the factors in Ukrainians favour summer / autumn year, mainly that Russia had not yet mobilised and so the original roughly 200 000 strong force was stretched over a long line (in addition to the impact of sanctions and general disruption to Russian society of starting a massive war), sparsely defended without many fortifications ... is no longer true this year.

It is very difficult to see any factors in Ukraine's favour at this point in the war that would lead to routing the Russian our of Ukraine, or ever being able to do so.

There's the Western tanks, but I have not seen any analysis that these are significantly more effective than Russian tanks, many are older models (I believe there are a bunch of Panther 1's throw in there for example), many are having their armour downgraded as we speak, and whatever advantages these tanks may have seem countered by the lack of much experience operating these tanks and the immense logistical complexity of fielding a hodgepodge of different tanks.

Certainly better than no tanks, but does not seem a potential game changer but rather simply propping up Ukraine so as to avoid a total collapse.

As goes the mother-load of sanctions against Russia, so goes US global authority. China has played a pivotal role in using its economic might to mitigate the expected damage that the sanctions were expected to cause Russia. As a result Russia's foreign reserves were restored, its inflation rate is at historical lows and its' GDP virtually at prewar levels. This stare-down, more than any results on the battlefield has fractured the aura of Western invincibility. — yebiga

I wouldn't go so far as to say Russia surviving sanctions in itself somehow destroys US hegemony, but it certainly does form a strong experience and alternative economic network for other countries to be more belligerent, if not hostile, to US interests.

There's definitely some signs this is occurring, certainly a lot of talk of trading in other currencies, but it will take some time to see if it is more than just talk.

The non-western world may have reached an event horizon. Whilst, over in Washington and throughout the advanced western world we struggle with systemic racism, equity, inclusion, gender dysphoria and argue over how the climate is changing. — yebiga

I have mentioned a few times that (regardless of ones personal politics) most of the world is ideologically far closer to Putin than the West, and even farther from the "Woke West". The world is in general authoritarian outside the West (even in those non-Western states that are democratic).

To what extent Western policy makers and talking heads thought the world would unite around the Western banner I'm not sure, but to the extent the belief was genuine it was completely delusional and has significant geopolitical consequences.

Pictures and milbloggers don't sway me. That type of "evidence" is entirely compromised in today's day and age.

I stick with data that remains more or less undisputed, like troop numbers participating in certain battles, losses which were incurred, etc.

In my view, the Russians didn't seek to take large amounts of territory after the initial invasion.

They are instead seeking to pacify the occupied territories to avoid an insurgency from materializing. I believe that's the main goal of Russia's strategy in Ukraine, and I believe it is consistent with the theories I have shared in this thread thus far.

The actions on the ground after the initial invasion have largely been aimed at gaining local tactical advantages and degrading the Ukrainian military, which I think they have been successful at. (Even if the casualty ratios would favor Ukraine, Russia can simply afford to lose a lot more than Ukraine can).

A future invasion of Lithuania to connect to Kaliningrad is also not unthinkable. — Tzeentch

However, the idea that Russia is in a position to start a second war, one in which they essentially declare war on Finland, Turkey, Romania, Poland, France, the UK, and the US at once, while attacking through Belarus, thus making them protect a large area with no real military force of its own, is absolutely preposterous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Note the use of the word future.

_______________________________________________________________


How come you never replied to:

↪frank
What are in your eyes some clear indications of China's power in the Ukraine conflict? And in a similar vein, what are in your view some clear indications of Russia's "future submission" to China?

Any specific events in which the Chinese influenced the war in Ukraine to their benefit? Or events in which Russia was made to serve Chinese interests as an indicator of China's influence over Russia? — Tzeentch

They're now using old model T-55 tanks from 70 years ago. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Case in point, the Ukrainians are using the WWI era Maxim machine gun which is even older than the T-55. So, do we therefore conclude Ukraine is certainly going to lose for using even older equipment?

Obviously not. The reality is that a lot of weapons produced even over a hundred years ago are still better than nothing, especially in a defensive role in fixed positions along hundreds of kilometres of front and secondary and tertiary lines, an old machine gun or an old tank is not really wasting any space and is better to have than not.

In short, we can deduce absolutely nothing from the mere appearance of old weapons systems in the war theatre ... and the Maxim machine gun, which the Ukrainians are using, wins this competition in any case.

In my view, the Russians didn't seek to take large amounts of territory after the initial invasion.

So, the attempt to encircle Kiev was a feint? The attempt to encircle Kharkiv was also a feint? The Sumny axis was a feint too? Russia took Kherson just to give it back because it doesn't want to control large amounts of Ukraine?

Then why did they attack from Belarus in the first place? Why did they send out pincers to cut off all of Eastern Ukraine? They sent those columns out to be destroyed as a diversion? And they officially annexed land they were planning to retreat from?

If the Ukrainian military was just "better" then it would not be the case that Russia woul be occupying any part of Ukraine right now.

The criticism of Russia from the point of view that they aren't winning "hard enough" and "easy enough" is still Russia winning.

This is a false binary. I said that Russia cannot just waltz to the Moldovan border through hundreds of square miles of defenses and through major urban centers when they have failed to make any significant gains since last summer. Moreover, that Russia attacking NATO and opening up a second war through Belarus is preposterous.

Russia not being in a position to start a war against a second, much more powerful adversary ≠ everything is going great for Ukraine.

Second, the idea that "if Russia occupies any foreign land than it is "winning" and the other side must be failing," is overly simplistic nonsense. By this logic the Germans were winning the Second World War until August 1944 and Japan was still "winning," with huge swaths of foreign land under its control and the US in control of almost no Japanese land, on the very day it accepted terms of unconditional surrender.

Russia seems incapable, in the near term, of achieving its original objective of changing the government in Kiev. I don't think it is likely that Ukraine can expel all of Russia's forces from its borders. Indeed, I don't even know if it is in their long-term strategic interests to take back a bunch of absolutely devastated land that is also a source of separatism (although that second part may no longer be true, given both the share of Donbas men who have been killed and Russia's treatment of them a disposable secondary forces).

Is

• losing a quarter million men injured or killed,
• 1,903 tanks (including almost the entire modern tank fleet),
• 1,240 IFVs and APCs,
• 560 artillery pieces (disproportionately self-propelled),
• 191 rocket artillery systems,
• 140 AA systems,
• 79 fixed wing aircraft (mostly fighters),
• 81 rotary wing aircraft,
• 12 warships (including the flagship),
• and thousands of other vehicles (10,000+ total),
• plus becoming an international pariah and losing the EU gas market,
• having two neighbors join NATO, effectively ensuring that Ukraine and Moldova later join the EU and likely NATO,
• Massively increasing NATO military spending by European members,
• Losing influence in Armenia and Central Asia due to an inability to respond to security issues or live up to defense treaties there,
• having 3 million citizens flee abroad in the midst of serious demographic issues,
• and having your GDP contract by 2.6% (about the same as the US during the peak of the 2008 financial crisis)...

...in order to gain control of not even all of Donbas "winning?"

In short, we can deduce absolutely nothing from the mere appearance of old weapons systems in the war theatre ... and the Maxim machine gun, which the Ukrainians are using, wins this competition in any case.

This is ridiculous. We can deduce "nothing," from the fact that Russia started the invasion with much more modern tank models and is now relying on early Cold War era equipment? We can obviously deduce that they don't have additional modern or even late Cold War Era tanks to use since they obviously preferred to use more recent equipment. We are not talking about a single Maxim Gun, we are talking about their armored formations coming to rely largely on such equipment.

If these were something like the T-55S, that would be one thing. Yes, it is old, but it has modern fire control systems, thermals, etc. But the captured T-55s are just extremely old pieces of equipment with some ERA thrown on them.

Take off the fan boy hat, hold back the instinct to what-aboutism for a moment, and consider that the claim was the "the West better watch out or Russia will invade NATO while it fights a war in Ukraine." Ukraine using Maxim Guns is irrelevant. If Russia tries to roll T-55S across the Lithuanian border it would be met by nothing but Leopard 2s, M1s, Typhoons, F-22s, Strike Eagles, etc.

Old systems might be "better than nothing," in Ukraine because Ukraine itself is overwhelmingly using the same old systems, but invading NATO means dealing with thousands of modernized tanks and aircraft, operated by professional militaries trained to use them, not the few dozen modern tanks Ukraine has been given, which a mostly conscript force has been hastily trained on.

How come you never replied to: — Tzeentch

Because your question had nothing to do with my comment.

:up:

You've developed a habit of blowing hot air in this thread, and this seems to fit right into that trend.