6 ms·

There is a theme here - these predictions don't account for the existence of Asia. Chinese military planners have probably noticed that after it is done with R

by roenxi 2y ago

There is a theme here - these predictions don't account for the existence of Asia. Chinese military planners have probably noticed that after it is done with Russia the US will be focusing on China. It is very favourable to them to fight the US in a proxy war rather than with Chinese troops. The resources the US is using to try to coerce Russia are probably the same that it will use against China, so if the US fails in Russia it may be exhausted of the ability to resist China. If I were China's (one of the world's largest creditors, I might note) leadership then there is a pretty good chance I would backstop Russia's debt in this case just to see how badly it hurts the US. Bonus points that then there is financial leverage over a resources superpower who's resources are needed for China's industry.

UltraSane 2y ago
What is your preferred out outcome for the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
- throwaway23812 2y ago
  Why are you testing loyalties? What roenxi does is the same speculation that is done daily by the U.S. state department and the CIA. It is tiresome in 2025.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      if it wasn’t for the russians you’d be writing this comment in german
      - credit_guy 2y ago
        Very unlikely, for the simple reason that the US built the bomb. If Nazi Germany had not capitulated in May '45, it would have had one or several of its cities leveled by some nukes. The outcome of the war would have been the same, with the possible exception that Eastern Europe would not have fallen under Soviet influence.
      - UltraSane 2y ago
        I live in the US. And the US gave the Soviet Union a TON of military hardware to fight the Germans. Vehicles: 400,000 vehicles, including jeeps and trucks Aircraft: 14,000 aircraft Tanks: 13,000 tanks Tractors: 8,000 tractors Other supplies: 4.5 million tons of food, 2.7 million tons of petroleum products, millions of blankets, uniforms, and boots, and 107,000 tons of cotton Other items: Guns, ammunition, explosives, copper, steel, aluminum, medicine, field radios, radar tools, and a Ford Company tire factory Total value: $11.3 billion in goods and services from 1941 through 1945, which is equivalent to $180 billion in 2016 dollars
      - vibrio 2y ago
        Yeah. 1930s Poland and Ukraine would like to Thank Joesph for the humanitarian-driven altruism. Molotov–Ribbentrop really set Adolph straight. /s
      - red-iron-pine 2y ago
        if it wasn't for The Soviets it would be German
      - tim333 2y ago
        Perhaps but WW2 may not have started if the Russians hadn't enthusiastically partnered with Hitler in 1939 to invade Poland together. Most of the stuff we think of bad about WW2 - killing lots of people to take their lands, slaughter of jews was pioneered Russia before Hitler was born.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Well I suppose the ideal state would be that people conclude war is expensive and brutal then we enter a sort of global pacifist state. But if you want me to get myself in to trouble I'm happy to oblige because someone has to keep saying it: 1) Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. It was stupid strategy and eventually got them invaded. 2) They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying. 3) They should still surrender on day 1,050. That'd get them a much worse deal and they've suffered who knows how many 100,000s of casualties for nothing. But it'd at least be over. 4) If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far the worst case is the other side of the coin flip on things like: > The U.S. intelligence pointed to a 50% chance that Putin would use tactical nukes... ~ https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-biden-nuclear-weapons-90cb3bb3499a5e211095b3f93173a575 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-biden-nu... and there are a lot of deaths. I mean, hopefully Bob Woodward is a known liar because that is not a can of worms to open over questions like whether Moscow controls Kyiv. Many of us have lived in a world where Moscow controled Kyiv, it isn't that wildly new. While terrible it just isn't that big an issue. We've coped with the US invading multiple random countries in the Middle East, and while it is icky and unpleasant it is not as bad as the tactical nuke taboo breaking or something like the million casualties we're seeing in the Ukraine war from the West's policy of escalation.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    " Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. " Citation please. This sounds exactly like the lies Putin says to justify the invasion. "They should have surrendered on day 1." So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"? "If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far " What decisions would those be? Zelensky has done a very good job in a very difficult situation.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-shadow-war-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-... Or refer to Trump Impeachment 1, the fuss at the time involved sending military aid to Ukraine. > So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"? Yes. If a bloody loss is inevitable that is explicitly what I'm saying. If we were invaded by the likes of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea then I'd probably be OK with fighting. But we were going to be the site of a proxy war the smart thing to do is fold immediately and ask the majors to go elsewhere. Australia wouldn't survive a China-US proxy war if it has reached the point of an actual invasion, we'd be better off surrendering and making do. Although I'd be pointing that out after having attempted to flee the country for obvious reasons.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> if the US fails in Russia it may be exhausted of the ability to resist China Russia exposed the West’s military unpreparedness. We’re correcting to the tune of trillions of collective dollars of defence investment. > then there is financial leverage over a resources superpower who's resources are needed for China's industry China already practically has this. That said, yes—the article’s analysis fails to account for a likely Chinese bail-out of the Russian banking system.
- roenxi 2y ago
  The US started this war ~$30 trillion in debt, with the worlds largest military budget by a big margin. Colour me sceptical that billions more dollars will help. The US tried that, it didn't work out. Last I saw, the interest on the debt was higher than its military spending; from the peanut gallery it looks more like more spending will get them a classic over-extension and collapse. The US wants to live in a backwards world where massive debtors can sustain wars indefinitely but creditors will get exhausted. It'd be great for them if that works, but I'd tag that sort of thinking as a big contributing factor in Trump returning to the White House. They don't seem to have the juice to pull a war with Russia off.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Not sure how any of this is relevant to what we were just discussing. > US wants to live in a backwards world where massive debtors can sustain wars indefinitely but creditors will get exhausted Weird side street to get lost in while discussing Russia getting financially bailed out by China.
  - cycrutchfield 2y ago
    >They don't seem to have the juice to pull a war with Russia off. My brother in Christ, Russia can’t even pull off a war with its much smaller neighbor who is using NATO’s scraps and hand-me-downs.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      I have a tough time seeing it. That requires me to believe that NATO is unhappy about Russia invading Ukraine, capable of turning Russia back and actively choosing not to. But willing to make a mortal enemy of the Russian military by getting a lot of Russians killed. And actively spinning up new military capability because, while obviously they aren't in a hard spot, they need to move to a better place ASAP. I have a much easier time believing that NATO has given Ukraine all the support it can and it wasn't enough to halt the Russian advance. The Russians are clearly paying a terrible price, but NATO doesn't believe it can charge any more than that.

by roenxi 2y ago

UltraSane 2y ago

What is your preferred out outcome for the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

throwaway23812 2y ago
Why are you testing loyalties? What roenxi does is the same speculation that is done daily by the U.S. state department and the CIA. It is tiresome in 2025.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    if it wasn’t for the russians you’d be writing this comment in german
    - credit_guy 2y ago
      Very unlikely, for the simple reason that the US built the bomb. If Nazi Germany had not capitulated in May '45, it would have had one or several of its cities leveled by some nukes. The outcome of the war would have been the same, with the possible exception that Eastern Europe would not have fallen under Soviet influence.
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      I live in the US. And the US gave the Soviet Union a TON of military hardware to fight the Germans. Vehicles: 400,000 vehicles, including jeeps and trucks Aircraft: 14,000 aircraft Tanks: 13,000 tanks Tractors: 8,000 tractors Other supplies: 4.5 million tons of food, 2.7 million tons of petroleum products, millions of blankets, uniforms, and boots, and 107,000 tons of cotton Other items: Guns, ammunition, explosives, copper, steel, aluminum, medicine, field radios, radar tools, and a Ford Company tire factory Total value: $11.3 billion in goods and services from 1941 through 1945, which is equivalent to $180 billion in 2016 dollars
    - vibrio 2y ago
      Yeah. 1930s Poland and Ukraine would like to Thank Joesph for the humanitarian-driven altruism. Molotov–Ribbentrop really set Adolph straight. /s
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      if it wasn't for The Soviets it would be German
    - tim333 2y ago
      Perhaps but WW2 may not have started if the Russians hadn't enthusiastically partnered with Hitler in 1939 to invade Poland together. Most of the stuff we think of bad about WW2 - killing lots of people to take their lands, slaughter of jews was pioneered Russia before Hitler was born.
roenxi 2y ago
Well I suppose the ideal state would be that people conclude war is expensive and brutal then we enter a sort of global pacifist state. But if you want me to get myself in to trouble I'm happy to oblige because someone has to keep saying it: 1) Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. It was stupid strategy and eventually got them invaded. 2) They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying. 3) They should still surrender on day 1,050. That'd get them a much worse deal and they've suffered who knows how many 100,000s of casualties for nothing. But it'd at least be over. 4) If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far the worst case is the other side of the coin flip on things like: > The U.S. intelligence pointed to a 50% chance that Putin would use tactical nukes... ~ https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-biden-nuclear-weapons-90cb3bb3499a5e211095b3f93173a575 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-biden-nu... and there are a lot of deaths. I mean, hopefully Bob Woodward is a known liar because that is not a can of worms to open over questions like whether Moscow controls Kyiv. Many of us have lived in a world where Moscow controled Kyiv, it isn't that wildly new. While terrible it just isn't that big an issue. We've coped with the US invading multiple random countries in the Middle East, and while it is icky and unpleasant it is not as bad as the tactical nuke taboo breaking or something like the million casualties we're seeing in the Ukraine war from the West's policy of escalation.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  " Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. " Citation please. This sounds exactly like the lies Putin says to justify the invasion. "They should have surrendered on day 1." So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"? "If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far " What decisions would those be? Zelensky has done a very good job in a very difficult situation.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-shadow-war-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-... Or refer to Trump Impeachment 1, the fuss at the time involved sending military aid to Ukraine. > So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"? Yes. If a bloody loss is inevitable that is explicitly what I'm saying. If we were invaded by the likes of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea then I'd probably be OK with fighting. But we were going to be the site of a proxy war the smart thing to do is fold immediately and ask the majors to go elsewhere. Australia wouldn't survive a China-US proxy war if it has reached the point of an actual invasion, we'd be better off surrendering and making do. Although I'd be pointing that out after having attempted to flee the country for obvious reasons.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> if the US fails in Russia it may be exhausted of the ability to resist China Russia exposed the West’s military unpreparedness. We’re correcting to the tune of trillions of collective dollars of defence investment. > then there is financial leverage over a resources superpower who's resources are needed for China's industry China already practically has this. That said, yes—the article’s analysis fails to account for a likely Chinese bail-out of the Russian banking system.

roenxi 2y ago
The US started this war ~$30 trillion in debt, with the worlds largest military budget by a big margin. Colour me sceptical that billions more dollars will help. The US tried that, it didn't work out. Last I saw, the interest on the debt was higher than its military spending; from the peanut gallery it looks more like more spending will get them a classic over-extension and collapse. The US wants to live in a backwards world where massive debtors can sustain wars indefinitely but creditors will get exhausted. It'd be great for them if that works, but I'd tag that sort of thinking as a big contributing factor in Trump returning to the White House. They don't seem to have the juice to pull a war with Russia off.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Not sure how any of this is relevant to what we were just discussing. > US wants to live in a backwards world where massive debtors can sustain wars indefinitely but creditors will get exhausted Weird side street to get lost in while discussing Russia getting financially bailed out by China.
- cycrutchfield 2y ago
  >They don't seem to have the juice to pull a war with Russia off. My brother in Christ, Russia can’t even pull off a war with its much smaller neighbor who is using NATO’s scraps and hand-me-downs.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I have a tough time seeing it. That requires me to believe that NATO is unhappy about Russia invading Ukraine, capable of turning Russia back and actively choosing not to. But willing to make a mortal enemy of the Russian military by getting a lot of Russians killed. And actively spinning up new military capability because, while obviously they aren't in a hard spot, they need to move to a better place ASAP. I have a much easier time believing that NATO has given Ukraine all the support it can and it wasn't enough to halt the Russian advance. The Russians are clearly paying a terrible price, but NATO doesn't believe it can charge any more than that.