5 ms·

> Where are we exactly? Your prediction has not been proven correct. Even as much as things are escalating, war does not appear imminent nor certain. We’re muc

> Where are we exactly? Your prediction has not been proven correct. Even as much as things are escalating, war does not appear imminent nor certain. We’re much closer than we were 20 years ago. Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine; nor that Xi would be foolish enough to scare away Taiwan by muscling in on Hong Kong. Unless the CCP forces Xi out, their hardliners and the middle-kingdom mindset have all but made some level of warfare certain.

nirav72 4y ago
>Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine Who is 'Nobody' in this context? Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory. Even the U.S defense establishment knew this and were preparing the Ukrainians for since 2015.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Excuse my hyperbole. The better term would be “divided”. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-between-russia-ukraine-2021-11-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-bet... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/3/how-real-is-the-threat-of-a-russian-invasion-of-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/3/how-real-is-the-thr... vs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/us-warns-russia-plans-large-scale-attack-on-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/us-warns-russi... for example.
  - thrashh 4y ago
    They’re just random news sites you’re linking though. They’re not even political news magazines. News editors don’t enact policy. Who cares what they thinks.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      Gaslighting doesn’t work here. I provided my evidence. Show me proof of the contrary.
      - thrashh 4y ago
        You didn't provide evidence. Your argument is that "the government didn't take Russia seriously enough" Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time. It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles.
        nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time. > It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles. It reflects public sentiment. Analysts aren’t the ones in power. Public sentiment and leadership’s will to bend the public sentiment are what matters. See GWB’s bullshit invasion of Iraq.
        serf 4y ago
        >See GWB’s bullshit invasion of Iraq. on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation. Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time. The analyst groups supporting that decision just sped the steamroller.
        nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation. I remember the UN inspectors unable to convince the US leaders that evidence was lacking. > Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time. My point exactly. A bullshit war was waged by persuasion with only tenuous evidence: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassi... It’s leaders and public will, not analysts.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory. That’s very much untrue. It was hard for experts to form a solid opinion after the Crimean invasion. It had some characteristics which the current one doesn’t have which made it rational from a realpolitik point of view. The invasion had a clear strategic benefit: keeping access to Sevastopol, came at a time when the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was quickly shifting and was made easier by the complicated relationship between Crimea and Ukraine. None of these applies to the current conflict.
eftychis 4y ago
I disagree about the Russia Ukraine prediction statements in this discussion. Nobody wanted to admit a "full blown invasion would happen" is better wording. Russia invaded and was meddling with Ukraine back in 2014. It invaded Georgia in an actual war back then over the same act. EU vetoed related action and was preaching that everything is going to be fine because Germany was using all their power to not ruin their profitable trade with Russia. We have to call things with their own name. Related to the average Joe's beliefs: they would believe their leaders telling them everything is fine and nothing bad will happen because they want to believe it. No thinking or prediction was involved in any of this.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  > Nobody wanted to admit a "full blown invasion would happen" is better wording. That’s still a spectacular failure in its own right. It means we’re not willing to admit the obvious until it becomes a far bigger problem. A weakness of a democratic process without the right leaders.
  - thrashh 4y ago
    Are you suggesting someone should have pre-emptively invaded Russia after Crimea, thus instead of worrying about a possible full-blown invasion, get it out of the way and just guarantee one? Because as far as I know, the right people expected something to happen — there is just the issue of “well, what do you do about it?”
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      > Are you suggesting someone should have pre-emptively invaded Russia after Crimea, thus instead of worrying about a possible full-blown invasion, get it out of the way and just guarantee one? That’s quite a leap of logic there. I think it’s enough to recognize that many believed a full invasion wasn’t in the cards. > Because as far as I know, the right people expected something to happen — there is just the issue of “well, what do you do about it?” The main issue here is that we let down our guard against hostile leaders and nations. And there still seems to be a a large portion of Western civilization in denial. But a deadman-switch NATO membership? Prop up their defensive capabilities? Put pressure on Germany with regards to gas and overly cozy relationships with Russia? Hindsight is easy and I’m sure others have better ideas; that’s besides the point.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MisterBastahrd 4y ago
You are making a bunch of statements that virtually nobody who has paid attention to either scenario would agree with.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  You believe it was universally accepted in 2021, that Russia would full-scale invade Ukraine? Because a quick google search will easily disprove that notion.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine Plenty of people believed that Russia would launch a major invasion as part of their war with Ukraine launched in 2014. As a general concern it was raised many times by many people during the period after 2014, and that went into overdrive in the months before the actual invasion.
another_story 4y ago
I wouldn't say any actions are idncidcating we're closer. There have been numerous conflicts across the strait in the last half century. If the KMT takes control of the presidency in the next election it'll calm down a lot.
webkike 4y ago
Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine? They've been at war since 2014. A full blown invasion was a legitimate possibility for anyone paying attention since Russia invaded Georgia in 2008
Aunche 4y ago
>We’re much closer than we were 20 years After the collapse of the Soviet Union settled, it has been the most peaceful time in human history (at least for semi-developed nations). A moderate amount of hostility is to be expected as China has approached superpower status. This is still no where near Cold War levels. >Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine This was always a possibility after Crimea. People just assumed that Putin wasn't stupid enough to through with it. >nor that Xi would be foolish enough to scare away Taiwan by muscling in on Hong Kong. Ever since the British gave up Hong Kong, China has agreed that they will allow it to be autonomous until 2047. We're already at the half way point, so China is slowly tightening it's grip on them. One big difference between Taiwan and Ukraine is that Russia shares a large land border with it. Traditional wisdom dictates that you need at least 1 troop for every 40 inhabitants, which is over half a million for Taiwan. China simply does not have the navy to move that number of personale. If they ever hope to invade Taiwan, they would have to prepare for a D-Day level of operation, which would be immediately obvious to intelligence.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  I imagine Taiwan would be ground down by a war of attrition and isolation. They are not self-sufficient: https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/2570 https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/2570 Isolation practice: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-03-08/taiwan-suspects-china-cut-islands-internet-cables https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-03-08/taiwan...
  - pvarangot 4y ago
    If China wants the semiconductor factories producing magic 5nm chips they can't bomb much of the country or fuck with the middle class that much by making the country shitty. Of course if they just want to destroy Apple and NVIDIA and make consumer electronics unaffordable for a generation they can just get the fucking island by raining rockets on it for a week but that would be insanity.
uejfiweun 4y ago
This is not true. Many people predicted a Russian invasion of Ukraine. You can look back at books like The Next 100 Years (2009) or The Accidental Superpower (2014) which predicted the war almost to the T.
8note 4y ago
Warfare with China is pretty inevitable while the US and its allies aims for containment and control over china's access to the Pacific ocean and shipping lanes. China has a strategic need for ocean access, regardless of who is in charge, and everyone else is looking for a military confrontation on that. If china controlled the whole US east coast's access to the Atlantic ocean, and the US needed Chinese permission to go to sea, the US would have attacked already
- lixtra 4y ago
  When were Chinese shipping lanes threatened by the west last time? A potential threat does not count. China potentially threatens the destruction of the west coast by nukes, so by your argument the US should have gone to war long ago if potential threats count.

nirav72 4y ago

>Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine Who is 'Nobody' in this context? Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory. Even the U.S defense establishment knew this and were preparing the Ukrainians for since 2015.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
Excuse my hyperbole. The better term would be “divided”. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-between-russia-ukraine-2021-11-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-bet... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/3/how-real-is-the-threat-of-a-russian-invasion-of-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/3/how-real-is-the-thr... vs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/us-warns-russia-plans-large-scale-attack-on-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/us-warns-russi... for example.
- thrashh 4y ago
  They’re just random news sites you’re linking though. They’re not even political news magazines. News editors don’t enact policy. Who cares what they thinks.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Gaslighting doesn’t work here. I provided my evidence. Show me proof of the contrary.
    - thrashh 4y ago
      You didn't provide evidence. Your argument is that "the government didn't take Russia seriously enough" Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time. It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles.
      - nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > Proper evidence would be an study of government officials in power and their position at the time. > It is not 3 hand-picked private industry news articles. It reflects public sentiment. Analysts aren’t the ones in power. Public sentiment and leadership’s will to bend the public sentiment are what matters. See GWB’s bullshit invasion of Iraq.
        serf 4y ago
        >See GWB’s bullshit invasion of Iraq. on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation. Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time. The analyst groups supporting that decision just sped the steamroller.
        nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > on that point, I seem to remember all (most) of the analyst think-tanks for public policy (RAND corporation, etc) pointing the administration at the time towards the idea of war and 'obvious' WMD proliferation. I remember the UN inspectors unable to convince the US leaders that evidence was lacking. > Also public sentiment was pretty on-board with (apparent) retribution after 9/11. The country got tired of the war effort quick, but the trumpets were blowing pretty loud for a long time after 9/11, both from government and the people around me at the time. My point exactly. A bullshit war was waged by persuasion with only tenuous evidence: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kve3z/the-cia-just-declassi... It’s leaders and public will, not analysts.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> Because most analysis on this since Russia took Crimea in 2014 have predicated that Russia would make further attempts at capturing Ukrainian territory. That’s very much untrue. It was hard for experts to form a solid opinion after the Crimean invasion. It had some characteristics which the current one doesn’t have which made it rational from a realpolitik point of view. The invasion had a clear strategic benefit: keeping access to Sevastopol, came at a time when the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was quickly shifting and was made easier by the complicated relationship between Crimea and Ukraine. None of these applies to the current conflict.

eftychis 4y ago

I disagree about the Russia Ukraine prediction statements in this discussion. Nobody wanted to admit a "full blown invasion would happen" is better wording. Russia invaded and was meddling with Ukraine back in 2014. It invaded Georgia in an actual war back then over the same act. EU vetoed related action and was preaching that everything is going to be fine because Germany was using all their power to not ruin their profitable trade with Russia. We have to call things with their own name. Related to the average Joe's beliefs: they would believe their leaders telling them everything is fine and nothing bad will happen because they want to believe it. No thinking or prediction was involved in any of this.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
> Nobody wanted to admit a "full blown invasion would happen" is better wording. That’s still a spectacular failure in its own right. It means we’re not willing to admit the obvious until it becomes a far bigger problem. A weakness of a democratic process without the right leaders.
- thrashh 4y ago
  Are you suggesting someone should have pre-emptively invaded Russia after Crimea, thus instead of worrying about a possible full-blown invasion, get it out of the way and just guarantee one? Because as far as I know, the right people expected something to happen — there is just the issue of “well, what do you do about it?”
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    > Are you suggesting someone should have pre-emptively invaded Russia after Crimea, thus instead of worrying about a possible full-blown invasion, get it out of the way and just guarantee one? That’s quite a leap of logic there. I think it’s enough to recognize that many believed a full invasion wasn’t in the cards. > Because as far as I know, the right people expected something to happen — there is just the issue of “well, what do you do about it?” The main issue here is that we let down our guard against hostile leaders and nations. And there still seems to be a a large portion of Western civilization in denial. But a deadman-switch NATO membership? Prop up their defensive capabilities? Put pressure on Germany with regards to gas and overly cozy relationships with Russia? Hindsight is easy and I’m sure others have better ideas; that’s besides the point.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

You are making a bunch of statements that virtually nobody who has paid attention to either scenario would agree with.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
You believe it was universally accepted in 2021, that Russia would full-scale invade Ukraine? Because a quick google search will easily disprove that notion.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine Plenty of people believed that Russia would launch a major invasion as part of their war with Ukraine launched in 2014. As a general concern it was raised many times by many people during the period after 2014, and that went into overdrive in the months before the actual invasion.

another_story 4y ago

I wouldn't say any actions are idncidcating we're closer. There have been numerous conflicts across the strait in the last half century. If the KMT takes control of the presidency in the next election it'll calm down a lot.

webkike 4y ago

Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine? They've been at war since 2014. A full blown invasion was a legitimate possibility for anyone paying attention since Russia invaded Georgia in 2008

Aunche 4y ago

>We’re much closer than we were 20 years After the collapse of the Soviet Union settled, it has been the most peaceful time in human history (at least for semi-developed nations). A moderate amount of hostility is to be expected as China has approached superpower status. This is still no where near Cold War levels. >Nobody believed Russia would actually invade Ukraine This was always a possibility after Crimea. People just assumed that Putin wasn't stupid enough to through with it. >nor that Xi would be foolish enough to scare away Taiwan by muscling in on Hong Kong. Ever since the British gave up Hong Kong, China has agreed that they will allow it to be autonomous until 2047. We're already at the half way point, so China is slowly tightening it's grip on them. One big difference between Taiwan and Ukraine is that Russia shares a large land border with it. Traditional wisdom dictates that you need at least 1 troop for every 40 inhabitants, which is over half a million for Taiwan. China simply does not have the navy to move that number of personale. If they ever hope to invade Taiwan, they would have to prepare for a D-Day level of operation, which would be immediately obvious to intelligence.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
I imagine Taiwan would be ground down by a war of attrition and isolation. They are not self-sufficient: https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/2570 https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/2570 Isolation practice: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-03-08/taiwan-suspects-china-cut-islands-internet-cables https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-03-08/taiwan...
- pvarangot 4y ago
  If China wants the semiconductor factories producing magic 5nm chips they can't bomb much of the country or fuck with the middle class that much by making the country shitty. Of course if they just want to destroy Apple and NVIDIA and make consumer electronics unaffordable for a generation they can just get the fucking island by raining rockets on it for a week but that would be insanity.

uejfiweun 4y ago

This is not true. Many people predicted a Russian invasion of Ukraine. You can look back at books like The Next 100 Years (2009) or The Accidental Superpower (2014) which predicted the war almost to the T.

8note 4y ago

Warfare with China is pretty inevitable while the US and its allies aims for containment and control over china's access to the Pacific ocean and shipping lanes. China has a strategic need for ocean access, regardless of who is in charge, and everyone else is looking for a military confrontation on that. If china controlled the whole US east coast's access to the Atlantic ocean, and the US needed Chinese permission to go to sea, the US would have attacked already

lixtra 4y ago
When were Chinese shipping lanes threatened by the west last time? A potential threat does not count. China potentially threatens the destruction of the west coast by nukes, so by your argument the US should have gone to war long ago if potential threats count.