4 ms·

>existential risks now Existential risk now pale in comparison to long term existential risk of irrevocably west/NATO aligned UKR, hence emphasis on eating "sh

>existential risks now Existential risk now pale in comparison to long term existential risk of irrevocably west/NATO aligned UKR, hence emphasis on eating "short/medium term loss". Soviets didn't want to hold AFG, it was peripheral counter insurgency work, on tier of Vietnam war was to PRC. UKR is reforging historic empire, it's core interest like TW is to PRC. As for holding UKR, it remains to be seen. There's very real possibly they'll Grozny the entire country and displace 20M+ which will destabilize Europe and make holding UKR feasible. >if they keep making big mistakes. Taking UKR isn't a big mistake, hasty special operations gamble was, but complete occupation isn't, especially now when RU is still capable. UKR with another 5 years US training and support would make such conquest out of reach, especially coupled with continued RU demographic/military decline. TBH for RU best time was 2014 considering how poor sanction proofing their economy went. >look at what China has managed to achieve RU isn't PRC in terms of demographics, and even PRC will eventually have to take TW / push back US aligned containment security architecture in East Asia. Common argument for PRC doing so in next 10-20 years is that's when PRC power will be maximal. RU has no peak to look forward to, is already on decline. It can't afford to wait.

zozbot234 5y ago
West/NATO aligned Eastern Europe and UKR was Russia's own doing, they should've been working on fixing that for the past 20 years. They didn't do it, arguably they didn't even try which is surprising. Even China has not made that mistake. And Russia would've found it a lot easier to appeal to Ukraine than China to Taiwan or to their neighbors more generally. Now you're saying that they might be planning to displace 20M+ people, somehow I doubt that would improve things.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  >should've been working on fixing that for the past 20 years Post USSR broken RU didn't have as many carrots as West/NATO. Their leverage was coalescing their big sticks after period of disorder. West/NATO equally culpable indulging UKR and failing to manage her as buffer led to RU resorting to sticks, because they couldn't compete on carrots. >Even China has not made that mistake Look at 1st, 2nd, 3rd TW strait crisis, PRC wasn't even capable of succeeding but they still tried. 92 consensus provided ~30 years of detente but that's gone, and PRC is building up to try again. Improving geo strategic conditions for long term security is rarely a mistake, especially considering RU headwinds. The mistake for RU is waiting this long in the first place. >appeal to Ukraine than China to Taiwan See how HK opinion on PRC shifted in a generation, and how TW's as well. That's what happens when new gen grows up in antagonistic political systems (again influenced/funded by west) - value fracture, identities diverge. Past certain point, appealing with carrots stop working. Again 1.5T RU economy can't out compete on 40T western block. Was even more lopsided 20 years ago. It's not they didn't try, they just didn't stand a chance. >might be planning to displace 20M+ people, somehow I doubt that would improve things. Destabilized europe with 20M refugees while RU has defendable UKR geography and resources is a massive long term "improvement". More than half of world's population are neutral/still need RU exports. I don't think warcriming to victory is the plan considering how kid gloves RU ROE has been so far, but it's likely the inevitable outcome if RU demands aren't met. RU peer-level military strategy is artillery slowly glassing everything. They don't have capability to prosecute a high tech war with relatively less disruption.

zozbot234 5y ago

West/NATO aligned Eastern Europe and UKR was Russia's own doing, they should've been working on fixing that for the past 20 years. They didn't do it, arguably they didn't even try which is surprising. Even China has not made that mistake. And Russia would've found it a lot easier to appeal to Ukraine than China to Taiwan or to their neighbors more generally. Now you're saying that they might be planning to displace 20M+ people, somehow I doubt that would improve things.

dirtyid 5y ago
>should've been working on fixing that for the past 20 years Post USSR broken RU didn't have as many carrots as West/NATO. Their leverage was coalescing their big sticks after period of disorder. West/NATO equally culpable indulging UKR and failing to manage her as buffer led to RU resorting to sticks, because they couldn't compete on carrots. >Even China has not made that mistake Look at 1st, 2nd, 3rd TW strait crisis, PRC wasn't even capable of succeeding but they still tried. 92 consensus provided ~30 years of detente but that's gone, and PRC is building up to try again. Improving geo strategic conditions for long term security is rarely a mistake, especially considering RU headwinds. The mistake for RU is waiting this long in the first place. >appeal to Ukraine than China to Taiwan See how HK opinion on PRC shifted in a generation, and how TW's as well. That's what happens when new gen grows up in antagonistic political systems (again influenced/funded by west) - value fracture, identities diverge. Past certain point, appealing with carrots stop working. Again 1.5T RU economy can't out compete on 40T western block. Was even more lopsided 20 years ago. It's not they didn't try, they just didn't stand a chance. >might be planning to displace 20M+ people, somehow I doubt that would improve things. Destabilized europe with 20M refugees while RU has defendable UKR geography and resources is a massive long term "improvement". More than half of world's population are neutral/still need RU exports. I don't think warcriming to victory is the plan considering how kid gloves RU ROE has been so far, but it's likely the inevitable outcome if RU demands aren't met. RU peer-level military strategy is artillery slowly glassing everything. They don't have capability to prosecute a high tech war with relatively less disruption.