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

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I admire NATO for what they're really there for

NATO is there to raise the stakes. Just like nuclear weapons do. Raising the stakes is fine, until someone goes all in. 

Anybody would think that Vietnam never happened, they way you talk. What the west says, and what it does, is two very different things. After WW2 Churchill wanted to carry on and invade Russia. He didn't get his way, but the intent was there. 

[MigL]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

After WW2 Churchill wanted to carry on and invade Russia. He didn't get his way, but the intent was there. 

I bet a lot of Easter Europeans, and especially Ukrainians right now, wish he had gotten his way.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

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

And yet Russia attacked anyway even when Ukraine avoided joining NATO so as not to provoke the Russian bear. The logic of your position is... unfindable. 

[SergUpstart]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

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

Exactly. "The barking of NATO at the gates of Russia led to this conflict." It wasn't me who said it, but Pope Francis 

https://thefrontierpost.com/nato-barking-at-the-doors-of-russia/

1 hour ago, MigL said:

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.

From whom did NATO defend itself in 1999 when it bombed Yugoslavia?

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

They've been pretty communicative over the last 30 years, and not once has NATO been the aggressor.

Yugoslavia, 1999.

[MigL]

Yugoslavia 1999 was an EU operation; not NATO.
And it provided the basis for the EU Armed Forces.
See here    Defence forces of the European Union - Wikipedia

[SergUpstart]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

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

And your posts are only in support of Ukraine. And in my posts, Ukraine is in second place, and in the first place is that the US hegemony is ending. 

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yugoslavia 1999 was an EU operation; not NATO.

Were American bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles part of the EU armed forces?

[MigL]

3 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

and in the first place is that the US hegemony is ending. 

Russia's ended a long time ago; they just don't realize it yet.
Maybe their first clue should be that any of the conventional forces of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, or even Poland could 'mop the floor' with the Russian forces, as evidenced by the criminal war in the Ukraine.

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

And your posts are only in support of Ukraine.

You didn't answer my question.

[SergUpstart]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Russia's ended a long time ago; they just don't realize it yet.
Maybe their first clue should be that any of the conventional forces of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, or even Poland could 'mop the floor' with the Russian forces, as evidenced by the criminal war in the Ukraine.

Let them try, and as for the end of the US hegemony, it's about the economy.

[MigL]

10 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Let them try, and as for the end of the US hegemony, it's about the economy

The ppoint you fail to understand, is that they won't.
Russia, on the other hand, thinks it can, and will.
That is the reason for NATO.

12 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Let them try, and as for the end of the US hegemony, it's about the economy.

HaHa
Most Americans might find gas and food a little more expensive, but they still have more vehicles than household members, and are too well fed to the point of obesity.
What are the Russian people eating these days ?
Do you remember the bread lines of the 80s and 90s ?

Maybe V Putin should stop buying weapons, and be a little nicer to the Ukrainians who supply Russia with wheat, instead of just taking it and letting Ukrainians starve by the millions, like J Stalin did.

[Sensei]

53 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

From whom did NATO defend itself in 1999 when it bombed Yugoslavia?

You don't seem to understand/know/taking into account true reasons for NATO and EU interventions.. i.e. massacres, mass executions, war crimes, concentration camps..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars#War_crimes

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

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

 

In early '90:

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

in late '90:

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

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yugoslavia 1999 was an EU operation; not NATO.

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

 

[SergUpstart]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

HaHa
Most Americans might find gas and food a little more expensive, but they still have more vehicles than household members, and are too well fed to the point of obesity.
What are the Russian people eating these days ?
Do you remember the bread lines of the 80s and 90s ?

Maybe V Putin should stop buying weapons, and be a little nicer to the Ukrainians who supply Russia with wheat, instead of just taking it and letting Ukrainians starve by the millions, like J Stalin did.

There were no queues for bread, there were for sugar and many other things for what. But now Russia has ensured its food security. Ukraine has not been transporting grain to Russia for a long time. Russia itself is the largest grain exporter. Belarus carries a lot of meat and dairy products to Russia. And if now there was a question about the unification of Russia and Belarus and the election of the president of the united country, then I would vote for Lukashenko.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

 And if now there was a question about the unification of Russia and Belarus and the election of the president of the united country, then I would vote for Lukashenko.

A man with one of the worst human rights violation records on the planet. He forces the disappearance of those who stand against him. He doesn't allow the populace to be surveyed or polled on their opinions on the government. Do you like him because you're afraid, or because you're like him?

[SergUpstart]

51 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

He doesn't allow the populace to be surveyed or polled on their opinions on the government. Do you like him because you're afraid, or because you're like him?

Everyone knows about the oligarchs in Russia, about the fact that officials in Russia steal a lot and until February of this year bought a lot of real estate in the west. And name me at least one oligarch from Belarus, and show me at least one luxury villa of a Belarusian embezzler. Lukashenko basically retained the manufacturing industry left over from the USSR. Clearly, Lukashenka has done much more for the people of Belarus than Putin has for the people of Russia.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Clearly, Lukashenka has done much more for the people of Belarus than Putin has for the people of Russia.

Lukashenko is clinging to power the way Trump did, and for the same reasons. Both face prosecution by the courts when they're no longer president and their immunities are stripped from them. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ten-belarusians-file-criminal-case-against-lukashenko-germany-2021-05-05/

Quote

Lawyers who brought the case for the 10, who are now living across Europe, cited universal jurisdiction laws that allow Germany to try crimes against humanity committed anywhere in the world.

 

[StringJunky]

Russia's firing missles at Odessa when there's supposed be an agreement to use the port there for grain movements. They appear to be taking the piss.

[SergUpstart]

Will Pelosi visit Taiwan and what could it lead to?? If he does not visit, it will be regarded as a victory for China.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Will Pelosi visit Taiwan and what could it lead to??

Bluster from Mr Xi, but little else. He's not in a great position right now, and has many issues coming up that need delicate handling. China doesn't want war, Mr Xi wants a third term, and their overall growth has stagnated. He won't do anything to make the markets uneasy, but he'll rattle some sabers and show off some tanks and planes and ships so he looks strong and confident. Both he and Putin let a LOT of their countrymen die from COVID-19 through neglect and misinformation, and the pandemic has left citizens everywhere uneasy about authoritarian leaders.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Will Pelosi visit Taiwan and what could it lead to?? If he does not visit, it will be regarded as a victory for China.

China wants to aquire Taiwan, but why would they go to war when they're still negotiating the price?

[MigL]

The only difference between China and Russia is that China actually has money to build things like their new aircraft carrier.
It will however, take them some time to develop the skill set the Americans have with 80 years of operating carrier battle groups and the logistics involved in such operations.

If you think Russia has failed miserably with the invasion of neighboring Ukraine, wait till you see the logistical disaster it would be, trying to invade Taiwan across 100 mi. of ocean.

If China totally destroys the island, the world will turn against them.
If they try to take it with as little destruction and bloodshed as possible, they will fail even worse than the Russians have fared.

[dimreepr]

Unfortunately Russia isn't lead by a 'rational' sociopath. 

[geordief]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

If China totally destroys the island, the world will turn against them

Authoritarian regimes will just remain fans (if with the usual competing interests)

Democracies seem to have enough on the plates  just  defending their own political  systems.

 

What would be good would be if the Chinese people saw the monkey on their back.

[MigL]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

Democracies seem to have enough on the plates  just  defending their own political  systems.

China is the biggest 'producer' in the world.
North America and Europe ( all democracies ) are the biggest 'consumers' in the world.

IIRC, China suffered economically worse than North America did, when we stopped'buying' in 2008-9.

Mastering the use of the long bow is a lot simpler than carrier landings in bad weather/rough seas, with an engine out, with wreckage on the deck, etc.

Here's an assessment by JayinKitsap on another forum I belong to ...

"Logistics is the key, for example, an amphibious invasion of Taiwan would take a huge number of landing craft. If a 50 person landing craft is used, the first wave of 5,000 marines would take 100 craft, each added wave of 5,000 probably needs another 30 craft to cover a 30% loss. So getting 25,000 to shore the 1st day would gobble up 220 landing craft to execute the 1st day. These in turn would need 20 transports to get 25,000 to shore. Day 2 would be better but losses would consume 150 added landing craft and a 2nd batch of 20 transports. Likely 60 transports and like 500 landing craft to get 5K troops ashore each day.

Supplies to the shore is minimal the 1st day, growing fast each day. How to transport all the men and equipment across the 100 mile Strait, then bring to shore would be a huge challenge. Each landing invasion in WWII really taxed the system, with huge lessons learned from every one. After several dozen landings they started to get the things to run smoothly."

 

One idea which has been suggested is to park the aircraft carrier to the East of Taiwan, splitting Taiwan's  coastal  and AAM defenses between two opposing targets, but, as it is, their aircraft carrier is virtually useless in this situation.

Sorry Dim.
Don't know why forum software merged my answer with my previous post after you had already replied.

Oh, I see ...

[geordief]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

China is the biggest 'producer' in the world.
North America and Europe ( all democracies ) are the biggest 'consumers' in the world.

IIRC, China suffered economically worse than North America did, when we stopped'buying' in 2008-9.

Mastering the use of the long bow is a lot simpler than carrier landings in bad weather/rough seas, with an engine out, with wreckage on the deck, etc.

Here's an assessment by JayinKitsap on another forum I belong to ...

"Logistics is the key, for example, an amphibious invasion of Taiwan would take a huge number of landing craft. If a 50 person landing craft is used, the first wave of 5,000 marines would take 100 craft, each added wave of 5,000 probably needs another 30 craft to cover a 30% loss. So getting 25,000 to shore the 1st day would gobble up 220 landing craft to execute the 1st day. These in turn would need 20 transports to get 25,000 to shore. Day 2 would be better but losses would consume 150 added landing craft and a 2nd batch of 20 transports. Likely 60 transports and like 500 landing craft to get 5K troops ashore each day.

Supplies to the shore is minimal the 1st day, growing fast each day. How to transport all the men and equipment across the 100 mile Strait, then bring to shore would be a huge challenge. Each landing invasion in WWII really taxed the system, with huge lessons learned from every one. After several dozen landings they started to get the things to run smoothly."

 

One idea which has been suggested is to park the aircraft carrier to the East of Taiwan, splitting Taiwan's  coastal  and AAM defenses between two opposing targets, but, as it is, their aircraft carrier is virtually useless in this situation.

Sorry Dim.
Don't know why forum software merged my answer with my previous post after you had already replied.

Oh, I see ...

I meant defending from within.

[MigL]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

I meant defending from within.

Where did you get the idea that democracy, once established, required no further upkeep, or defense ? 🙂