War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Water cuts through rock not because of its power, but because of its persistence. /NodsToDimreepr

Sneaky, dirty fighters.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

And it’s this piece I’m hoping to explore further 

Just for clarification, should we assume a military intervention and discuss the likely US response or does the discussion include the likelihood of military actions in the first place?

 

[iNow]

I’m taking as a given that aggressive acts have already occurred, that they’ll include standard troop deployments and kinetic assaults over borders plus more modern cyber attack vectors, and that the US will be forced to either sit back and watch or respond. It’s the US response (or whether the US should even respond at all) where I feel most uncertain. 

[SergUpstart]

On 12/5/2021 at 8:40 AM, iNow said:

Intelligence suggests Russia is planning to invade Ukraine in January apparently with the intent to take it over. Likewise, China has been stepping up plans to seize Taiwan. Have been talking about it for years, but seem to sense more opportunity in todays global political climate.

Should US respond if/when either of those two things happen? If so, how and for how long? Does your answer change if both events happen at the same time?

And if Aliyev and Erdogan also seize Armenia

Earlier, Aliyev had already stated that Yerevan belongs to Azerbaijan

Edited December 7, 2021 by SergUpstart

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, geordief said:

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sorry I had one too many shandies and thought of 'Young Frankenstein' as a witty response.

My point is, if England hadn't declared war on Hitler, the outcome would be the same, it's only the death count that would be different and we simply can't tell which path would lead to the greater number. 

There's nothing wrong with sabre rattling, just don't draw a line in the sand with it...

Edited December 7, 2021 by dimreepr

[geordief]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sorry I had one too many shandies and thought of 'Young Frankenstein' as a witty response.

My point is, if England hadn't declared war on Hitler, the outcome would be the same, it's only the death count that would be different and we simply can't tell which path would lead to the greater number. 

There's nothing wrong with sabre rattling, just don't draw a line in the sand with it...

 A wonderful film

Sadly ,though philosophy ,whilst a worthwhile activity does not really come to our aid when momentous decisions have to be taken and there is no time for delay.

Of course the best course of resolving such conflicts is to cut them off at the pass (so they don't develop into full out war )but I think the debate as to whether Britain could have avoided  WW2 by wise councel has been very sadly relegated to history.

 

Do the lessons from that time apply now?Probably not  so much as conflict avoidance between the major powers at almost any cost  seems even more necessary at this stage in human history.

[paulsutton]

On 12/5/2021 at 2:41 PM, iNow said:

Exactly. This plus the increasing rise of authoritarian tendencies and simple minded support for narrow populist messages across the planet has me wondering what happens next and what a weakened US could even achieve. 

Another challenge is that people (John Q. Public) are so distracted and occupied by catnip social issues like anti mask and anti vax and abortion and inflation and related topics that they never even bother to engage with the actual big deal issues like hundreds of thousands of troops preparing to invade sovereign countries. 

Indeed,  here in the UK the situation in Ukraine  does seem to  make the news, but takes lower priority over the pandemic.  While The west dithers and divides. Other countries are stepping up to take our place.    While the west cuts military,  Russia / China seem to have been building theirs up.

China is clamping down on the time students can spend playing games, so people CAN study, like that or not it seems sensible if they want a future well trained / educated workforce.  Or at least that is how  interpret their motive(s) on that one.

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Sadly ,though philosophy ,whilst a worthwhile activity does not really come to our aid when momentous decisions have to be taken and there is no time for delay.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man... 😉

[SergUpstart]

22 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

While the west cuts military,  Russia / China seem to have been building theirs up.

Russia has approved the defense budget for 2021-2023 — it was reduced by 10%. Despite this, it guarantees the combat readiness and development of the country's Armed Forces.

Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Tatyana Shevtsova told the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda about this.

https://360tv.ru/news/army/rossija-sokratila-bjudzhet/

At the same time, military salaries have been increased in Russia, so the cost of purchasing weapons will be reduced even more.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Russia has approved the defense budget for 2021-2023 — it was reduced by 10%. Despite this, it guarantees the combat readiness and development of the country's Armed Forces.

Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Tatyana Shevtsova told the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda about this.

https://360tv.ru/news/army/rossija-sokratila-bjudzhet/

At the same time, military salaries have been increased in Russia, so the cost of purchasing weapons will be reduced even more.

The cost of weaponry, is understanding...

[paulsutton]

21 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Russia has approved the defense budget for 2021-2023 — it was reduced by 10%. Despite this, it guarantees the combat readiness and development of the country's Armed Forces.

Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Tatyana Shevtsova told the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda about this.

https://360tv.ru/news/army/rossija-sokratila-bjudzhet/

At the same time, military salaries have been increased in Russia, so the cost of purchasing weapons will be reduced even more.

Being ready is the key to all of this,   any country needs to be ready to deploy at the shortest of notice,  it seems that  Russia can do this.

 

The UK seems to be damaging the steel sector here,  rather than investing in it.   Great, we seem to need steel to build warships,  carriers etc, so lets buy it from Chiba (cheap). Problem from my view point,  we upset China  --> China blocks steel exports --> we can't build warships as we no longer have the capacity to produce the materials needed.

Now apply that to other industries that now rely on china and we are stuck.

 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The cost of weaponry, is understanding...

So what is the link between salaries and cost of weapons ?

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

Being ready is the key to all of this,   any country needs to be ready to deploy at the shortest of notice,  it seems that  Russia can do this.

Why is what you want, more important?

[SergUpstart]

21 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

So what is the link between salaries and cost of weapons ?

The military budget consists of expenses for the maintenance of military personnel, expenses for the purchase of weapons and other purchases not related to weapons. If the cost of maintaining personnel increases, it is at the expense of other expenses.

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m taking as a given that aggressive acts have already occurred, that they’ll include standard troop deployments and kinetic assaults over borders plus more modern cyber attack vectors, and that the US will be forced to either sit back and watch or respond. It’s the US response (or whether the US should even respond at all) where I feel most uncertain. 

If we assume that the policy of strategic ambiguity ultimately failed and we enter an open conflict I am fairly sure that the US will have to intervene. There is rare bipartisan support for the defense of Taiwan (be it due to ongoing commitments, stance against China and it expansive ambitions, protection of other allies in the pacific and so on).

There are calls to end strategic ambiguity, but in favour of a more open commitment to defend Taiwan. And again, much of it is fueled by the view of China as the more important strategic threat (compared to Russia).

As a whole, I see more elements in play that favour an intervention in a China-Tawan conflict as between Ukraine and Russia. In addition the stability in Taiwan also makes it difficult to justify a Russia-style takeover. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, paulsutton said:

While the west cuts military,  Russia / China seem to have been building theirs up.

Actually, military spending in the US continues to increase, not get cut. This is also not the topic of this thread. The question is how we might wind up using that spending which has already been approved and allocated and debited. 

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As a whole, I see more elements in play that favour an intervention in a China-Tawan conflict as between Ukraine and Russia

I tend to agree, but the Ukraine thread is more proximal. Ukraine is also a key area in protecting the NATO alliance and keeping oil flowing throughout Europe.

Biden and Putin speak today. My hope is much of this troop movement from Russia to Ukraine is little more than a shrewd negotiating tactic from Putin, but that seems hopelessly optimistic and a bit like fairy dust thinking to me. 

[SergUpstart]

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As a whole, I see more elements in play that favour an intervention in a China-Tawan conflict as between Ukraine and Russia. In addition the stability in Taiwan also makes it difficult to justify a Russia-style takeover. 

The majority of the population of Taiwan does not want Taiwan to join China, but the majority of the inhabitants of Crimea wanted to join Russia.

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Biden and Putin speak today. My hope is much of this troop movement from Russia to Ukraine is little more than a shrewd negotiating tactic from Putin, but that seems hopelessly optimistic and a bit like fairy dust thinking to me. 

The movement of Russian troops near the borders of Ukraine is pressure on Ukraine not to launch an offensive on Donetsk and Lugansk.

[TheVat]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is ready to warn Vladimir Putin during a video call Tuesday that Russia will face economy-jarring sanctions if it invades neighboring Ukraine as Biden seeks a diplomatic solution to deal with the tens of thousands of Russian troops massed near the Ukraine border.

Biden aims to make clear that his administration stands ready to take actions against the Kremlin that would exact “a very real cost” on the Russian economy, according to White House officials. Putin, for his part, is expected to demand guarantees from Biden that the NATO military alliance will never expand to include Ukraine, which has long sought membership. That’s a non-starter for the Americans and their NATO allies.

Hard to see what anyone can concede on.  We can do sanctions, which haven't really done all that much in the past.  Russian has watched NATO swallow up a lot of their old Soviet satellites in E. Europe in the past 25 years or so, so I think Ukraine with all its gas, minerals, and grain, as well as strategic location, would be viewed as the last straw.  While the US and NATO see Ukraine as a natural additon to all the recent added satellites.  

There is also the chance that Putin could fight for Ukraine and have it turn into another Afghan debacle, where the invasion turns into a giant budget-buster for Russia.   That might give him pause.  If any of this was really up to Russian citizens (i.e. on Earth 2), then I think they would be saying, hell no, not another insane land war.  

[SergUpstart]

CNN: US authorities are preparing to evacuate citizens from Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/07/politics/us-citizens-evacuation-ukraine/index.html

 

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Phi for All
link to story added

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Actually, military spending in the US continues to increase, not get cut. This is also not the topic of this thread. The question is how we might wind up using that spending which has already been approved and allocated and debited. 

I tend to agree, but the Ukraine thread is more proximal. Ukraine is also a key area in protecting the NATO alliance and keeping oil flowing throughout Europe.

Biden and Putin speak today. My hope is much of this troop movement from Russia to Ukraine is little more than a shrewd negotiating tactic from Putin, but that seems hopelessly optimistic and a bit like fairy dust thinking to me. 

How is it not pertinent to the topic?

[zapatos]

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How is it not pertinent to the topic?

It's iNow's thread. His decision.

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It's iNow's thread. His decision.

...and he might want to explain it

That way forum members can decide if they really need to open a war games thread that includes assessing the effects of  military spending.

On 12/5/2021 at 11:14 PM, MigL said:

So did russia, with their limited access to the Black Sea ( and the Mediterranean ).
Did that give them the right to annex the port of Sevastopol, or the whole Crimean peninsula ?

No. But the point was with respect to China taking Taiwan being more substantially strategical than symbolic, counter to Vat's claim it would be otherwise, not implying it was morally justifiable.

[iNow]

Biden laid out how he’d respond if Russia goes into Ukraine when he met with Putin today. It was mostly sanctions and economic restrictions, preventing Russia from being able to use certain banks and move their oil.

He also explained that the US and NATO allies will be pushing troops for “training exercises” up against Ukraine as a sort of backstop to halt Russia’s aggression. Leaders from England, Germany, France, and Italy all came out to reinforce these commitments soon after. 

Biden also made comments that the US is prepared to respond today in ways they were not in 2014 when Russia did this same sort of thing. Now, will it be enough to prevent this? I’m doubtful. 

[MigL]

I see the Taiwan situation getting out of control, IF China chooses military aggression ( highly unlikely ), neighboring countries like Japan, South Korea, even Vietnam, Australia and India will be drawn in, at which point the US will be forced to participate.

I see the Ukrainian situation more like Yugoslavia.
The US will join in only if Europe gets its act together and decides to finally police its neighborhood.
So while I can see military aggression being more likely on Russia's part, I cannot see Europe mounting a combined opposition.
Where would northern Europe get its massive oil/gas imports from if Russia shuts off the pipelines ?

[iNow]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

while I can see military aggression being more likely on Russia's part, I cannot see Europe mounting a combined opposition.

On their own? No, we agree. Seems unlikely, but following a US lead and operating in more of a supporting role? I see this as not only possible, but likely. 

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Where would northern Europe get its massive oil/gas imports from if Russia shuts off the pipelines ?

A very poignant observation, especially as we head into winter. It’s difficult prioritizing principles over petroleum; doing the right thing over staying quiet because it’s the needed thing. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 12/5/2021 at 8:10 PM, MigL said:

No idea, INow.
Our Prime Minister likes to talk the game, but doesn't have the means, or the stomach, to back it up.
Canada is, as a result, not taken seriously in international matters.

Not directed at the Taiwan situation, but Trudeau weighs in on some of China's economic tactics.

Though not directed at military concerns, I think it is relevant given the importance of politico-economic pressures, or the potential threat of them.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8466217/trudeau-china-countries-need-united-front/

"Xi Jinping’s China today is “no longer the China that we thought about 10 years ago or even five years ago in some ways,” Trudeau said."

Edited December 25, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell