Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
1 635
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Serbia 🇷🇸 has sold USA 🇺🇸, Spain 🇪🇸, and the Czech Republic 🇨🇿 $850 million usd worth of Soviet caliber 122mm and 152mm artillery shells. Contracts continue and the Serbs continue to produce said ammo.

Even Putin’s friends have a price. Aleksandar Vučić may present himself as pro-Russian, but he still sells ammunition to Ukraine’s friends if the price is right.
 

chibiyabi

Contributor
Messages
516
Reactions
3 438
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Togo
Don't give a shit about Bosnia and as I recall, I never asked you to. Did I? I just said do not use my country for your idiotic discourse.
Remember, 1,8 million of us managed to survive. A little Holland controlled you, millions of you.
That's the undeniable FACT . Obviously we don't have the same quantities, if we have, we would disappear a long ago .
So don't philosophies, concentrate on yourself.
just to be clear, when ducth comming, there was no Indonesia. when indonesia nationality formed, only in 5 years, we defeat the dutch an confront the battle hardenned allies forces, to gain our independence.
 
Last edited:

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,588
Reactions
12 2,580
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Even Putin’s friends have a price. Aleksandar Vučić may present himself as pro-Russian, but he still sells ammunition to Ukraine’s friends if the price is right.
His government would be betraying the people to not take 4x the value of an artillery shell as compensation. That's really good money for the Serbian defense industry.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Putin is not a well intentioned person. He is a corrupt, autocratic tyrant. Couple that with Russian ultranationalism and a massive Russian military capability and you have a very dangerous man who has turned the country he rules into a very dangerous country.

I don't think that such a leader's territorial ambitions should be accommodated or appeased. I think a better idea is to thwart those ambitions in a fashion so costly that Russia is severely weakened. If the choice is between appeasement or fighting Russia into resounding economic, financial and military defeat, I prefer the latter.

The longer this war lasts, the more damage Russia suffers financially, economically and militarily. Ukraine suffers similarly but is backed by countries having roughly 50% of the world's GDP and 50% of the world's military power. What Russia - supported by Iran and North Korea - can muster to prosecute this war is tiny in comparison. If the allies mentioned continue to support Ukraine, Russia should end up broken economically and financially.

Putin is what a true politician is, He is:

  1. Corrupt
  2. Lie all the time
  3. Untrustworthy
  4. Having a lot of lust for power
  5. trampling morality when it comes to own preserverance
  6. etc.
He is in the league of Sunak, Scholz, Biden, Zelensky, Macron and basically all politicians in general. Do not even try to bullshit me on this.

Russia does have some form of ultranationalism, but so is the NATO member state. The problem is Russia's ultranationalism stems from their perception of their own power, while NATO's ultranationalism stems from its perceived power of the US and the US ability to save their asses if SHTF. You will find the most vocal supporter of this war turn out to be those small chihuahua state in the Baltics and Poland (and Romania).

See ? there's really no difference between you guys. Putin is just doing what a statesman should do, especially when his dominion is threatened by a hostile power near its border. And Ukraine is a clear threat to his dominion, this military ops should have been done 10 years ago not now.

You keep talking that Russia will collapse as the war persists, but I've never seen any of you guys becoming critical of Ukraine's manpower problem, which will soon collapse faster than any pipe dream of a Russian economic collapse.

I'm sure you haven't read my post #27,343, because if you did, it's clear that long-term warfare meant the eventual collapse of the U.S itself. Simply put the US is sustaining the war effort with money they don't have.

I'm also sure you haven't read my post #27,225 because if you did, it's also clear that GDP alone won't win you wars, especially true if you're not directly fighting those war and your ally is a democracy which is characterized by their weak faith in everything.
 
Last edited:

Spitfire9

Well-known member
Messages
395
Reactions
8 514
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
You keep talking that Russia will collapse as the war persists, but I've never seen any of you guys becoming critical of Ukraine's manpower problem, which will soon collapse faster than any pipe dream of a Russian economic collapse.
I feel sure that Russia and Ukraine both have manpower problems. When I say that, I speak of labour available to either create wealth or not create wealth (eg by working in the military).

From what I read, Russia is reportedly starting to suffer wage inflation due to a shortage of labour. Labour is needed to either produce goods and services or to serve in the Russian military. There is not enough labour in Russia to meet the labour needs of both. The sweet spot for the Russian economy is said to be about 4% unemployment but unemployment has dropped to 2.7%. A spike in wage inflation can be expected as Russian industry and the Russian military compete for a scarce resource.

Ukraine may be suffering much more severe economic problems (I have not checked). The Russian government has to finance its spending with little ability to borrow. Ukraine does not face that problem.
 
Last edited:

Spitfire9

Well-known member
Messages
395
Reactions
8 514
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
I'm sure you haven't read my post #27,343, because if you did, it's clear that long-term warfare meant the eventual collapse of the U.S itself. Simply put the US is sustaining the war effort with money they don't have.
US historically has a high national debt to GDP ratio compared to other countries. If the US borrowed a trillion dollars to support Ukraine, that would represent a marginal increase in the US national debt to GDP ratio. Nothing near what would be needed to collapse the US.

What is the value of the aid the US has given to Ukraine? Less than $200 billion, I think. I say 'value' because a lot of the weaponry provided comes from stock, stock that was paid for years ago, so needing no additional spending by the US government.

Your assertation that supporting Ukraine will collapse the US does not hold water.
 
Last edited:

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
1 635
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
I'm sure you haven't read my post #27,343, because if you did, it's clear that long-term warfare meant the eventual collapse of the U.S itself. Simply put the US is sustaining the war effort with money they don't have.

I remember seeing an interview with Fidel Castro sometime ago, and he was talking about the Cuban crisis in the nineties after the Soviet Union collapse. The most funny part was when he said something like “we were all expecting the US to collapse, but instead the Soviet Union collapsed“.

You seem to be on the same level of delusion like Fidel was at the time if you think the US help for Ukraince can cause the collapse of the US. Just like with the Cold War, the Ukrainian war will result in the collapse of the much weaker economy, which is Russia.

Supporting Ukraine is not very costly for the wealthy NATO countries, but for Russia it will drain all its resources resulting in its eventual collapse.

Putin’s supporters will be very disappointed on how this situation will evolve, just like Fidel Castro was shocked to see his ally disintegrated when he was waiting for the US to collapse instead.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
US historically has a high national debt to GDP ratio compared to other countries.
Umm no, America's debt to GDP ratio used to be at the prosperous 1990s, reaching a low of 32 percent in 2001.

The war in the Middle East, the recession and Covid-19 and now it soared at 99% that.

Here's from the committee of federal budget:

" In 2001, the federal government ran a $128 billion budget surplus and was projected to pay off the national debt by 2009. Since then, the government has borrowed an additional $23 trillion, bringing the national debt held by the public to a near-record 98 percent of GDP and transforming that surplus into a $1.7 trillion deficit. "

Looking at the policy changes enacted since the beginning of 2001, we find:

  • Debt is 37 percent of GDP higher due to major tax cuts, 33 percent higher due to major spending increases, and 28 percent higher due to recession responses.
  • Most debt – 77 percent of GDP – can be attributed to bipartisan legislation.
  • Absent these tax cuts and spending increases, the debt would be fully paid off.
In terms of discretionary spending, we estimate there were about $5.9 trillion of net spending increases – nearly all bipartisan – including normal appropriations increases as well as one-time spending for wars, natural disasters, emergencies, and other initiatives.


Ahh yes, the mighty 'bipartisanism' of the US state.


If the US borrowed a trillion dollars to support Ukraine, that would represent a marginal increase in the US national debt to GDP ratio. Nothing near what would be needed to collapse the US.

What is the value of the aid the US has given to Ukraine? Less than $200 billion, I think. I say 'value' because a lot of the weaponry provided comes from stock, stock that was paid for years ago, so needing no additional spending by the US government.

Your assertation that supporting Ukraine will collapse the US does not hold water.

That's not what people with actual knowledge think.


If you cling your hope that the US will simply cheat what the Athens, Habsburgs, Ottomans and your own country faced in the past after surging debts, you'd be in the wrong side of history buddy.


I remember seeing an interview with Fidel Castro sometime ago, and he was talking about the Cuban crisis in the nineties after the Soviet Union collapse. The most funny part was when he said something like “we were all expecting the US to collapse, but instead the Soviet Union collapsed“.

You seem to be on the same level of delusion like Fidel was at the time if you think the US help for Ukraince can cause the collapse of the US. Just like with the Cold War, the Ukrainian war will result in the collapse of the much weaker economy, which is Russia.

Supporting Ukraine is not very costly for the wealthy NATO countries, but for Russia it will drain all its resources resulting in its eventual collapse.

Putin’s supporters will be very disappointed on how this situation will evolve, just like Fidel Castro was shocked to see his ally disintegrated when he was waiting for the US to collapse instead.

Talking about the Soviet Union, The US is at a stage close to what to Soviets were just before their collapse.

  • Declining healthcare service
  • Rise of senile and gerontocratic leaderships
  • Drop in life expectancy
  • rise in public cynicism about nearly all institutions
  • an overextended highly expensive military that keeps failing to deliver the political objectives of the war.


I was not under any delusion, what you're seeing now is basically what a late-stage empire looks like, it's no longer the matter of IF it will fall, but WHEN.
America, just like all empires will fall, and once it does, it will be the end of Western hegemony (that doesn't mean that the West will collapse back into the stone age tho) and their 3 centuries-long hold on global power.

If the U.S falls, basically the entire democracies will fall one after the other. No, I'm not talking about Taiwan, Ukraine etc. I'm talking about democracies in Asia, Africa, Middle East and eventually Europe themselves. Because without the U.S doing the heavy lifting each and every one of these democracies will fall, just like South Viet Nam, just like Afghanistan. Ukraine is simply the drain I'm looking for. So it's wrong to attribute me with labels like 'Putinists', 'Putin supporters' etc. I'm not interested in Putin's Russia, I'm interested in the service that he's doing now for my own personal ambition.

Even if Russia somewhat fails, the sheer amount of stress that the war brought to America is IMO, enough for it to alter the military, economical and most importantly political health of the US.

I rest my hope on the militants in the Middle East, Russia's war in Ukraine, and the final blow: The upcoming Chinese invasion of Taiwan to make this a reality.
 
Last edited:

Spitfire9

Well-known member
Messages
395
Reactions
8 514
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Gary, you seem to think that paying off national debt is important. That is not what most economists think. Keeping it serviceable is important. In the link you will see that US national debt has increased every year for the last 50 years.


Note that while the US debt/GDP ratio has become very high (and should be lowered IMO), it has been falling for a few years.
 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
1 635
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Even if Russia somewhat fails, the sheer amount of stress that the war brought to America is IMO, enough for it to alter the military, economical and most importantly political health of the US.

You greatly overestimate the cost of the Ukrainian war for the US. So far, most of the weapons delivered to Ukraine were from existing inventories, older weapons that were already paid for.

Also, the spending on new weapons systems goes back in the US economy, and considering the increased spending on weapons from US allies as well, the negative effect of this war on the US economy is marginal at best.

The money giveaways during the Covid shutdowns were a much higher burden to the US budget than helping Ukraine. Also, during Covid the economy was greatly affected by the shutdowns, so it was a lot worse than what is hapoening now.

Even if the US will collapse in the future, it won’t be because of this war, but because of many other poor decisions. Helping Ukraine is one of the few good decisions made by the US leadership in the last two decades.

I rest my hope on the militants in the Middle East, Russia's war in Ukraine, and the final blow: The upcoming Chinese invasion of Taiwan to make this a reality.

What you call the “final blow” would be a gift from Heaven for the US and the West. It is obvious to anyone watching the mainstream media that the US is trying to bait China into invading Taiwan, just like it did with Putin in Ukraine.

Unlike Russia, China is a real long term threat to US hegemony because of its very advanced economy, and the US leadership knows that a war now is preferable to a war 20 years later.

China is strong, but nowhere near as strong as to be able to win a war against the US, but given a few more decades of peace it will become a real challange. This is why the US hopes that Xi Jinping will do a blunder and attack Taiwan, which would ruin China and set it back a few decades. Also, an invasion of Taiwan is an impossible endeavor that is guaranteed to be a resounding failure.

If you want the US to lose its global dominance, you should pray that China doesn’t invade Taiwan anytime soon, because it would destroy its chances to challange the US dominance. As for other countries, right now all the rest are so far behind that they don’t even matter.
 

Spitfire9

Well-known member
Messages
395
Reactions
8 514
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
If you want the US to lose its global dominance, you should pray that China doesn’t invade Taiwan anytime soon, because it would destroy its chances to challange the US dominance. As for other countries, right now all the rest are so far behind that they don’t even matter.
Don't let any Indians see that last sentence !
 

Jammer

Active member
Messages
55
Reactions
45
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Don't let any Indians see that last sentence !
Well he is saying the truth. It is going take india a decade atleast to have economical and military power to even make a claim to that of chinese or the US.The thing this conflict showed is Europe is nothing without the Americans backing them up. They were in cohorts with russia before the invasion and are shills when it comes to the chinese threat.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
You greatly overestimate the cost of the Ukrainian war for the US. So far, most of the weapons delivered to Ukraine were from existing inventories, older weapons that were already paid for.

Also, the spending on new weapons systems goes back in the US economy, and considering the increased spending on weapons from US allies as well, the negative effect of this war on the US economy is marginal at best.

The US isn't only delivering weapons, but they're also literally paying the Ukrainian state to continue to function, things like government salary, emergency service budget etc, etc. Simply put if the 2000s-2010s the US was busy nation-building, right now the U.S. is busy nation-floating Ukraine. That cost will continue to grow especially as Russia intensifies its bombardment of key Ukrainian industry and energy infrastructure.

It's kinda like Vietnam all over again, at one point they will be exhausted and draw down their support.

The money they borrowed will be paid back in interest. Whatever effect it has on the overall US economy is small, but it sure does add to the ballooning debt the US had. Those debts are mostly foreign debt that is at the mercy of its Asian creditors. China knows this.

'Even if a country issues the leading reserve currency, even if a country is the dominant geopolitical power, that just doesn't bail countries out,' Cullum Clark told the WSJ.
'They do lose that status.'
Yale historian Professor Paul Kennedy warns that Asian nations, including China hold vast quantities of US debt in the shape of Treasury bonds.
He said they now hold the power to trigger a seismic threat to America's status if they 'just decided for some reason of having a political quarrel with the US to dump vast amounts of Treasury's'.

Funnily enough, the same principle where the economy grows because that money is invested back in the country's arms production applies more to Russia where their weapons factory are expanding as a result of the war. But everyone talks about Russia's economic collapse this collapse that LMAO

The money giveaways during the Covid shutdowns were a much higher burden to the US budget than helping Ukraine. Also, during Covid the economy was greatly affected by the shutdowns, so it was a lot worse than what is hapoening now.

Covid is basically a two-year panic, this war and the potential behind it could run decades into the future.


Even if the US will collapse in the future, it won’t be because of this war, but because of many other poor decisions. Helping Ukraine is one of the few good decisions made by the US leadership in the last two decades.

Bingo! now you're getting smart. This war will not collapse the U.S. in a way that will be the only reason for its collapse.

In short, we will not be seeing this anytime soon



You know there were many great powers before the US, all of them seem invincible. The predecessor of the US, the British Empire at one point held so much territory that the Sun simply wouldn't set in its territory. 2 world wars later, they failed miserably in the Suez crisis.



The British hegemony from the days of Nelson to the tactical failure of the Royal Navy at Jutland is 100 years, and from that to the Suez crisis is another 41 years. The global hegemony of the British Empire lasted only 141 years and in 1998 Hong Kong is given back to China, marking the actual end of the British empire formally.

That's a very short span of hegemony compared to past empires. The world wars, even though won, cost them their empire. In the case of the British (and French) empire, the Boer war and colonial warfare against native Africans strip them of the power necessary to stomp the Germans early in the war. Today we're seeing the Americans repeating the same mistake, where they spent trillions of dollars and 20+ years of warfare in the Middle East, and in the process weakening their heavy industy, while their competitors, mirroring imperial Germany are expanding their heavy industry necessary to fight a great power war.

Just to give you an idea what those 20+ years in the Middle East cost the US. When the US found itself tired of waging unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and were compelled to pivot to face China, this is what they figured out.

Shipbuilding-China.jpg


The goal is not the total collapse of the US, rather it's the collapse of the US-led order that I'm interested in.

Those 20 years, due to budget cuts, the shift of priority from high-intensity warfare to low-intensity warfare resulted in:

  • -The reduction of DDG-1000 class destroyer orders from 32 to only 3
  • -The cancellation of many exotic military projects like the XM2001, KEI interceptor, CGX cruisers etc.
  • -The Reduction of F-22 orders from 982 to mere 195
  • -The pause in DDG-51 production, which if not happen, we would see at least 90-100 DDG-51s in service by now instead of 74.

Many of which I believe the Americans lament and wish they could turn back time, many of these if come to fruition would have no doubt give the Americans a lot of edge against China.

Ukraine will simply drag the US attention the same way the Middle East dragged US attention. And it will cost them dearly. There are now 3 active hotspeots the US must face and they simply have to pick one.


What you call the “final blow” would be a gift from Heaven for the US and the West. It is obvious to anyone watching the mainstream media that the US is trying to bait China into invading Taiwan, just like it did with Putin in Ukraine.

Unlike Russia, China is a real long term threat to US hegemony because of its very advanced economy, and the US leadership knows that a war now is preferable to a war 20 years later.

China is strong, but nowhere near as strong as to be able to win a war against the US, but given a few more decades of peace it will become a real challange. This is why the US hopes that Xi Jinping will do a blunder and attack Taiwan, which would ruin China and set it back a few decades. Also, an invasion of Taiwan is an impossible endeavor that is guaranteed to be a resounding failure.

If you want the US to lose its global dominance, you should pray that China doesn’t invade Taiwan anytime soon, because it would destroy its chances to challange the US dominance. As for other countries, right now all the rest are so far behind that they don’t even matter.


I'm not saying the US will be easy, but if Russia alone produces 7X the artillery shells of all of NATO combined, then it's no brainer that China could produce exponentially higher than that. Unlike Russia, China doesn't have funding problems and their industry actually outweighs the West.

When it comes to training, they're actively luring NATO key personnel to train them and understand the way NATO countries would fight.


So not only do they win when it comes to military production, but they're narrowing the gap as well. In such a war, massive losses will be guaranteed for both sides, there will be no such thing as the USN carrier strike group swiftly obliterating Chinese landing forces, nor will there be China defeat the USA in 5 minutes using Dong Feng. It will be a long bloody protracted bloodbath even longer than the first Pacific war. But this time the US faced an enemy that far outpaced them in shipbuilding industries.

In such a case, the country that replaces its losses faster than its opponents will come out on top. During the First Pacific war, both sides traded blows, but the US simply produced more ships than the IJN which sealed the fate of Imperial Japan. The Japanese started the war with the best naval aviators in the world in 1941, but gradual attrition meant that by 1943 only a few skeleton crew remained, and the 1944 Mariana turkey shot sealed their fate. Today, the Chinese simply produce more STEM graduates, they simply have more men and they do not have the same problem imperial Japan faced in 1941-1944

I'm not saying that China won't suffer either. But that suffering is their problem. Just like Russia, I'm not championing China, but I appreciate what will the effect of such war to my own ambition.
Like I said, neither Europe, nor Asia is my main focus, but the Middle East. I have seen what a US power vacuum looks like. And war of such scale simply suck the US ability to police the Middle East.
 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
1 635
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Yale historian Professor Paul Kennedy warns that Asian nations, including China hold vast quantities of US debt in the shape of Treasury bonds.
He said they now hold the power to trigger a seismic threat to America's status if they 'just decided for some reason of having a political quarrel with the US to dump vast amounts of Treasury's'.

China has already offloaded about half of its US Treasury holdings, and nothing “seismic” happened.

From November last year:

From Februay this year:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202404/1310833.shtml#:~:text=China%20downsizes%20holdings%20of%20US,%24775%20billion%3A%20data%20%2D%20Global%20Times&text=China's%20holdings%20of%20US%20Treasury,of%20the%20Treasury%20on%20Wednesday.

As you can see, China is gradually reducing the holdings of US Treasuries without causing any effect on the US financial system or interest rates.

Funnily enough, the same principle where the economy grows because that money is invested back in the country's arms production applies more to Russia where their weapons factory are expanding as a result of the war. But everyone talks about Russia's economic collapse this collapse that LMAO

Because Russia also has to face sanctions, losing its best paying clients for oil and gas exports, sending part of its workforce to war, seeing its best and brightest leave the country, having its foreign exchange reserves frozen, etc.

Russia’s economy is barely functioning anymore. The lack of dollars and euros in the banking system has made the rouble a non-convertible currency, as Russians are unable to exchange their worthless toilet paper for foreign currency at the official rate. This type of situation is normal for countries like Zimbabwe, Venezuela or Argentina, not for countries pretending to be superpowers.

Covid is basically a two-year panic, this war and the potential behind it could run decades into the future.

A two year panic that had huge costs, versus a prolonged situation where costs are being budgeted and spread over a large period of time. It’s much easier for an economy to handle a controlled cost over a larger period, than a quick shock.

I'm not saying the US will be easy, but if Russia alone produces 7X the artillery shells of all of NATO combined, then it's no brainer that China could produce exponentially higher than that. Unlike Russia, China doesn't have funding problems and their industry actually outweighs the West.

Invading Taiwan is a totally different kind of war than the one in Ukraine. China can’t invade Taiwan by pounding it with artillery, so the production of artillery shells is totally irrelevant.

The problem for China with invading Taiwan is the nature of the conflict, where China needs to achieve the impossible task of invading a well fortified island in a modern day battlefield where ships are extremely vulnerable and satellites watch every move in real time.

Ships are too slow to be able to do a successful landing while under fire from the precise weapons of today. An attempt at a landing in Taiwan would be a bloodbath where the Chinese would be decimated while being unable to achieve anything.

This is why the US wants such a war. Because the nature of the conflict would greatly favor the US and its allies, who will only need to help from far away by sinking ships and blockading Chinese trade, something that is very easy to do compared to a landing operation against a well fortified country.

A war over Taiwan would be the ideal battleground scenario for a US confrontation with China.

In such a case, the country that replaces its losses faster than its opponents will come out on top. During the First Pacific war, both sides traded blows, but the US simply produced more ships than the IJN which sealed the fate of Imperial Japan. The Japanese started the war with the best naval aviators in the world in 1941, but gradual attrition meant that by 1943 only a few skeleton crew remained, and the 1944 Mariana turkey shot sealed their fate. Today, the Chinese simply produce more STEM graduates, they simply have more men and they do not have the same problem imperial Japan faced in 1941-1944

A war between China and Taiwan (baked by the US) would not resemble the Russia-Ukraine war, as it will be a war fought over the sea. It will be about navy and air forces, where US excels.

And the biggest problem for China is its dependence on trade. An economy like China’s would quickly collapse when put under maritime blockade. China won’t be able to last very long if maritime trade is cut off, and the US can easily block all maritime trade to China in a war situation.

The good thing is that Chinese strategists all know this, and they know they would be fighting a losing war, so they won’t attack Taiwan.

Like I said, neither Europe, nor Asia is my main focus, but the Middle East. I have seen what a US power vacuum looks like. And war of such scale simply suck the US ability to police the Middle East.

I don’t know why you hate the Middle East so much. What have those people done to you? Why do you want them to live in an unending conflict and in poverty.

You seem to hate any succesful Middle Eastern country (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Israel), and at the same time support all the terrorist organizations in the region (Houthis, Hamas, Islamic State, Al Qaida, The Taliban etc.).

You really dislike peace and prosperity in the Middle East.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Because Russia also has to face sanctions, losing its best paying clients for oil and gas exports, sending part of its workforce to war, seeing its best and brightest leave the country, having its foreign exchange reserves frozen, etc.

Russia’s economy is barely functioning anymore. The lack of dollars and euros in the banking system has made the rouble a non-convertible currency, as Russians are unable to exchange their worthless toilet paper for foreign currency at the official rate. This type of situation is normal for countries like Zimbabwe, Venezuela or Argentina, not for countries pretending to be superpowers.

Look man, Russia's economy is actually growing. Wages have gone up due to the increased value of manpower to the Russian economy. This is already known since last year.
But for the sake of simplicity, let's just assume I agree with you. Do you think war will stop just like that? Does the Syrian state stop war with the many jihadists just because the country is at an economic collapse? Do you what is the state of Syria's economy? Have you ever seen the image from coastal Syria in Govt loyal areas where they have to queue for cooking gas? I have. Yet the state's ability to continue the war persist.

As long as Putin has the men and the material, war will continue. And that's what matters to me, to continue the war. Will Russia's victory be pyrrhic? That's Russia's problem to answer. Maybe they'll make Ukraine pay once they achieve victory. I don't know.





A two year panic that had huge costs, versus a prolonged situation where costs are being budgeted and spread over a large period of time. It’s much easier for an economy to handle a controlled cost over a larger period, than a quick shock.

Yeah, as shown in Vietnam and Afgahnistan

Invading Taiwan is a totally different kind of war than the one in Ukraine. China can’t invade Taiwan by pounding it with artillery, so the production of artillery shells is totally irrelevant.

The problem for China with invading Taiwan is the nature of the conflict, where China needs to achieve the impossible task of invading a well fortified island in a modern day battlefield where ships are extremely vulnerable and satellites watch every move in real time.

Ships are too slow to be able to do a successful landing while under fire from the precise weapons of today. An attempt at a landing in Taiwan would be a bloodbath where the Chinese would be decimated while being unable to achieve anything.

This is why the US wants such a war. Because the nature of the conflict would greatly favor the US and its allies, who will only need to help from far away by sinking ships and blockading Chinese trade, something that is very easy to do compared to a landing operation against a well fortified country.

A war over Taiwan would be the ideal battleground scenario for a US confrontation with China.
A war between China and Taiwan (baked by the US) would not resemble the Russia-Ukraine war, as it will be a war fought over the sea. It will be about navy and air forces, where US excels.

And the biggest problem for China is its dependence on trade. An economy like China’s would quickly collapse when put under maritime blockade. China won’t be able to last very long if maritime trade is cut off, and the US can easily block all maritime trade to China in a war situation.

The good thing is that Chinese strategists all know this, and they know they would be fighting a losing war, so they won’t attack Taiwan.

This is a debate for another thread, if you believe this, then am fine with that. Of course, deep down we all know it wouldn't be that easy. The US no longer have that advantage they used to have.

But it's safe to say, I do not need to write an entire book on why this is not true. Suffice for me that the two are going to war, and that war will suck their entire nation's energy and attention.

China is in Asia Pacific, and Asia Pacific as I told you b4, is of little importance to me personally. Whoever wins is not my problem, although I do have my preference.


I don’t know why you hate the Middle East so much. What have those people done to you? Why do you want them to live in an unending conflict and in poverty.

You seem to hate any succesful Middle Eastern country (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Israel), and at the same time support all the terrorist organizations in the region (Houthis, Hamas, Islamic State, Al Qaida, The Taliban etc.).

You really dislike peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

I never hate the Middle East, my religion first emerged in Arabia which is in the Middle East.

Let's just say I have a political preference, and that political preference basically requires all of those states to collapse and I have newfound respect for the fact that those groups you mentioned is doing the right thing to make this a reality.

I do not have any control over what's happening and who's doing it. But funnily enough, everything in that region is working to my liking.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom