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

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

@J.C.MacSwell...who needs German land without Germans on that land (i.e. businessmen, investors, etc. etc.) It is as good (useful) as any other land they already have..

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe they could suggest a part of Germany they could offer Putin?

That was of course a rhetorical question. 

[SergUpstart]

The EU is creating a hub in Moldova to battle organized crime, particularly arms smuggling from war-roiled neighboring Ukraine, an official said Monday.https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/07/11/eu-moldova-hub-arms-ukraine/

So the talk of selling the Caesar howitzer is not without reason.

And a logical question arises, if Ukrainian thieves have sold weapons even to their enemy Russia, then they will definitely sell them to ISIS terrorists if they can. And if a terrorist attack is carried out with the help of these weapons, then who will be to blame for this?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

And if a terrorist attack is carried out with the help of these weapons, then who will be to blame for this?

Probably Harry Potter, who is as equivalently fictional as your scenario. 

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

if Ukrainian thieves have sold weapons even to their enemy Russia, then they will definitely sell them to ISIS terrorists if they can. And if a terrorist attack is carried out with the help of these weapons, then who will be to blame for this?

When your little "what if" fantasy comes true I'll get back to you with an answer.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

And if a terrorist attack is carried out with the help of these weapons, then who will be to blame for this?

I would say Putin for starting it all, but I guess one could always say society is to blame...Russian society.

Anything else you might like to ask?

[SergUpstart]

Assistant to the US President for National Security Jake Sullivan said at a briefing that Iran is allegedly preparing to transfer unmanned aerial vehicles to Russia, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-11/iran-preparing-to-send-russia-weapons-capable-drones-us-says

[swansont]

16 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

And a logical question arises, if Ukrainian thieves have sold weapons even to their enemy Russia, then they will definitely sell them to ISIS terrorists if they can. And if a terrorist attack is carried out with the help of these weapons, then who will be to blame for this?

I'm guessing the thieves would be blamed. As they are not a government entity, why is this relevant to a discussion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (i.e. action of a sovereign state)?

[iNow]

A less covered impact from the war:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/141a9e85-19ed-47d4-be48-bb9febc76c98

Ukraine’s budget crisis has become acute because of a slump in tax revenues and customs duties since the invasion began almost five months ago together with higher war spending.

A halt to grain and steel exports has deprived Kyiv of foreign currency earnings. Ukraine is being forced to burn through its foreign exchange reserves at an accelerating pace, as the central bank purchases government bonds to plug its financing gap.

…The finance ministry said its assessment of the gap was still $5bn a month but even that was way more than western capitals had so far provided.

…The fiscal strains are showing more broadly. Naftogaz, the state-owned energy company, on Tuesday asked holders of $1.5bn of its bonds to accept a delay in payments as it seeks to preserve cash for purchasing gas. It would amount to the first default by a Ukrainian state entity since the war began.

[Trurl]

I am for supporting the Ukraine. But I come to the conclusion that they should have avoided war and surrendered to Russia.

Yes I know it is more honorable to fight. But I don’t think fighting was in its best interest. They could fight a battle they can win. But more importantly look at the loss of life. At least with surrendering civilian lives are saved. And there would be open peace talks.

I don’t like to see them be given ineffective weapons because airplanes and missiles are what they need. From what I hear on the news the can’t attack Russian soil.

I want them to prevail but I don’t like to see all these people dying for lack of diplomacy.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

I am for supporting the Ukraine. But I come to the conclusion that they should have avoided war and surrendered to Russia.

Yes I know it is more honorable to fight. But I don’t think fighting was in its best interest. They could fight a battle they can win. But more importantly look at the loss of life. At least with surrendering civilian lives are saved. And there would be open peace talks.

I don’t like to see them be given ineffective weapons because airplanes and missiles are what they need. From what I hear on the news the can’t attack Russian soil.

I want them to prevail but I don’t like to see all these people dying for lack of diplomacy.

The actions of the V.P., and historical data to date, indicate that the russkies, after capturing a region, annihilate, mass murder all opposition and intelligence, in the region, in order to have "peace and quiet", just slaves obedient to their rules.. slaves like their own citizens..

Why do you think they put eastern and southern Ukrainians (from occupied regions) in "filtration camps" and send others to the far eastern regions of Siberia and Asia.... ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps

Millions of Ukrainians have "disappeared"..

 

I am surprised Ukrainians didn't destroy bridges on Dnieper to Kherson.. if/when V.P. forces will be forced to escape Kherson, they will certainly destroy them anyway.. so, better take them into blockade, when there is time for it, than give them route of escape to other side of the river.. (Dnieper is ~ 500m wide in that area)

The more V.P. units captured in Kherson, the better (for Ukrainians)..

 

Ukrainian forces must be well prepared to cross the Dnieper River without any bridge.. or southern Ukraine is lost..

 

[SergUpstart]

China demanded to cancel the sale of weapons to Taiwan for 108 million dollars. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/china-demands-us-cancel-potential-arms-sale-taiwan-2022-07-18/

 

 

[iNow]

It will be interesting to see what steps China plans to take if the US ignores this demand and proceeds with the arms sale to our Taiwanese ally. 

[zapatos]

55 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

China demanded to cancel the sale of weapons to Taiwan for 108 million dollars. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/china-demands-us-cancel-potential-arms-sale-taiwan-2022-07-18/

 

 

Did they use a large, bolded font when they did so?

[SergUpstart]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands confirmed that the Netherlands and the United States are negotiating to ban ASML Holding NV from selling equipment and technologies used in the production of chips to China.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/us-pushing-for-asml-to-stop-selling-key-chipmaking-gear-to-china

It should be recalled that the ban on oil supplies to Japan led to Pearl Harbor.

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands confirmed that the Netherlands and the United States are negotiating to ban ASML Holding NV from selling equipment and technologies used in the production of chips to China.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/us-pushing-for-asml-to-stop-selling-key-chipmaking-gear-to-china

It should be recalled that the ban on oil supplies to Japan led to Pearl Harbor.

What is it that you are trying to accomplish here? You don't really discuss anything as your posts are mostly cheerleading for Russia. 

Do you wish to discuss anything? Are you trying to influence us?

Please tell me what your role is.

[mistermack]

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

You don't really discuss anything as your posts are mostly cheerleading for Russia. 

As opposed to your balanced approach.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

As opposed to your balanced approach.

Balance depends on the weight of your bias... 🤔

[MigL]

Balanced approach ???

We should equally criticise, or praise, Russia as we do the Ukrainians ?
We should criticise, or praise, the aggressors/invaders as we do the sovereign country that has been invaded ?
We should equally criticise, or praise the criminals as we do the victims ?

Is that what passess for 'balance' in your mind ?
Give your head a shake.
( do you hear that rattling noise ? something may be loose in there )

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Balanced approach ???

We should equally criticise, or praise, Russia as we do the Ukrainians ?
We should criticise, or praise, the aggressors/invaders as we do the sovereign country that has been invaded ?
We should equally criticise, or praise the criminals as we do the victims ?

Is that what passess for 'balance' in your mind ?
Give your head a shake.
( do you hear that rattling noise ? something may be loose in there )

We should consider the criminal as a victim, if we want a rattle free, well balanced, drive shaft... 

[mistermack]

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

We should criticise, or praise, the aggressors/invaders

Ukraine joining NATO is an aggressive move, from the Russian point of view. 

In the 1930s, Hitler built up his forces but nobody did anything. If the allies had invaded Germany when it began arming itself, millions of lives would have been saved. Doing nothing, and waiting till you are invaded, didn't appeal to Putin, and I don't blame him. He's learnt from history. And he gave Ukraine an easy alternative option to invasion, but they didn't have the intelligence to take it. 

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Doing nothing, and waiting till you are invaded, didn't appeal to Putin, and I don't blame him.

Do you have any evidence that NATO or Ukraine was interested in invading Russia? Otherwise, this seems like you and Putin are begging the question.

[MigL]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Ukraine joining NATO is an aggressive move, from the Russian point of view. 

Except that NATO is, and has always been, a defensive organization of member states, against aggression by any other state ( not just Russia or the USSR ), exactly as Russia is doing right now.
Hence, the results of many other countries, including the Ukraine, wanting to join NATO for the purpose of preventing such criminal aggression.

Does it seem to you like things are working out for Russia, and V Putin's 'point of view' ?

[mistermack]

If I was Putin I would view NATO as hostile. That's what it's for. To fight Russia. What do you think NATO is for?

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Except that NATO is, and has always been, a defensive organization of member states,

That's the spin. Hitler had no hostile intentions. So he said. If you take peoples word for it, you will get shat on. 

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If I was Putin I would view NATO as hostile. That's what it's for. To fight Russia. What do you think NATO is for?

I think that's what Putin wants people to think, so it worked on you. Has NATO ever attacked Russia? They've been pretty communicative over the last 30 years, and not once has NATO been the aggressor. It's NOT there to attack Russia, it's there to stop them from doing to NATO countries what Russia is doing to Ukraine. I admire NATO for what they're really there for, but you admire Putin for the lies he tells about them. Interesting.

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's the spin. Hitler had no hostile intentions. So he said. If you take peoples word for it, you will get shat on. 

You can take people's word, or you can look at the history of NATO and the detente they've provided since 1949. It's weird that you think NATO is behaving like Hitler. Is your part of this discussion done now?

 

[MigL]

I know exactly what NATO is for.
Maybe you should google NATO's Article 5.
Does it mention Russia, or the USSR, at all ?
Is it maybe the fact that Russia has always been an 'aggressor', and it feels targeted by a defensive alliance ???

And, if you know a little history, you'll recall that A Hitler and J Stalin had formed a pact to invade and partition Poland amongst themselves.
Hitler then went ahead and took it for himself; worse yet, he fu*ked over the Russians by launching Operation Barbarossa and invading Russia to secure supplies from the Middle East.

In case you need a history refresher, see here

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia

Russia's 'Great Patriotic War' my ass.

Edited July 20, 2022 by MigL