https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60355295

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... in-ukraine

I still have my doubts about something serious happening, but I guess it pays to be prudent. But if Putin is crazy enough to start a major conflict with Ukraine, relations between Russia and the West will be chilly for years.

Well Psaki said the attack was imminent 2 weeks ago so it makes sense.

NIKV69 wrote:

Well Psaki said the attack was imminent 2 weeks ago so it makes sense.

WSP says whatever the NSC briefers tell them to say.

NIKV69 wrote:

Well Psaki said the attack was imminent 2 weeks ago so it makes sense.

If only we were still with the last administration where no mistakes were made and no lies were told eh.

Virtual737 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Well Psaki said the attack was imminent 2 weeks ago so it makes sense.

If only we were still with the last administration where no mistakes were made and no lies were told eh.

I think it’s always worth reminding that the last commander in chief of the US military literally saluted a North Korean general…

Please remember to provide a link to your source when statng facts or make it clear you are stating your opinion. Thanks.

FGITD wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Well Psaki said the attack was imminent 2 weeks ago so it makes sense.

If only we were still with the last administration where no mistakes were made and no lies were told eh.

I think it’s always worth reminding that the last commander in chief of the US military literally saluted a North Korean general…

This is for the mod. I didn't know about it but it took me literally 2 seconds to find the article that it actually happened, and to boot it has the clip as well. -

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-sa ... fc01fc91c1

The only thing I would say for the last administration, poor Whitehouse staffers, my sympathy will always be with them as they had to work with a baby who had no control over himself.

Can we agree now that if Russia doesn't invade it will be a great Biden victory (and others) ? I'm sure if the opposite happens it will be put as his failure, so if not, it has to be a success.

I would not say it is Biden's victory as long as Ukraine is under threat of invasion. In fact, Biden's declaration not to fight Russia in Ukraine is almost an invitation for Putin to invade.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmi ... e-ukraine/

Putin will not just take on Ukraine, when he is done, he will turn his Army against Belarus with he already has over 30 000 soldiers within. Lukashenko is too stupid to see this. That's my opinion.

Germany's Foreign Ministry advised its citizens to leave Ukraine on Saturday after it said conflict in the region "cannot be excluded" while fears remain that Russia plans to invade its neighbor.

https://m.dw.com/en/german-nationals-ur ... a-60754593

Who would have better info from Kremlin than German government?

SAS A340 wrote:

Putin will not just take on Ukraine, when he is done, he will turn his Army against Belarus with he already has over 30 000 soldiers within. Lukashenko is too stupid to see this. That's my opinion.

Possible but really unlikely. Why would Putin do this when Lukashenka is a willing participant to this point, to include supporting the CTSO action in Kazakhstan.

Aesma wrote:

Can we agree now that if Russia doesn't invade it will be a great Biden victory (and others) ? I'm sure if the opposite happens it will be put as his failure, so if not, it has to be a success.

The victory will lie with the deterrent effect of a mass uprising of Ukrainians against an invasion. At this point in the correlation of forces, its the only real wild card, and its a threat the Russians either have to honor, or they potentially accept at the peril of the whole invasion.

To put things in perspective, the numbers of active insurgents in Iraq at any given time, to include Sunni foreign elements and Iranian sponsored proxies was actually pretty low, but was still an active threat to Coalition forces outside of Kurdish areas.

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

Interesting movement over Ukraine and Crimea!

Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

Oschkosch - would you be kind enough to repost the image ? I can't get it to load

jetwet1 wrote:

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

Restore the Soviet Union in all its "glory". Legacy is all that matters to Putin right now. He knows too well, that certain usual suspects would yap about "need for more dialogue with Kremlin" even if he nuked Kiev.

jetwet1 wrote:

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

I don't see any real advantage in invading, it will be costly in terms of troops and support. Russia already has access to the Sea of Azov, minerals and wheat are biggest exports but I don't think Russia is that desperate for them. A lot of this is about Putins standing at home, he has invested a lot of personal Face in this.
If there can be a diplomatic solution it would have to be one that leaves him with the upper hand to show at home. The West has said that if he does cross the boarder sanctions would be unlike any that have gone before, he could retaliate with something like a no fly zone over Russia to western airlines, making some routes impractable. I'm sure that the real loser in this,if it happens, will be the Ukrainian public.

oschkosch wrote:

Interesting movement over Ukraine and Crimea!Screenshot_20220212-163852_Flightradar24.jpg

Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

I've noticed that the skies above Ukraine have gotten pretty quiet recently. Is this a recent development or something that has always happened ?

should work now!

Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

RAF weapons drop maybe?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

readytotaxi wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

I don't see any real advantage in invading, it will be costly in terms of troops and support. Russia already has access to the Sea of Azov, minerals and wheat are biggest exports but I don't think Russia is that desperate for them. A lot of this is about Putins standing at home, he has invested a lot of personal Face in this.
If there can be a diplomatic solution it would have to be one that leaves him with the upper hand to show at home. The West has said that if he does cross the boarder sanctions would be unlike any that have gone before, he could retaliate with something like a no fly zone over Russia to western airlines, making some routes impractable. I'm sure that the real loser in this,if it happens, will be the Ukrainian public.

Well for example a kind of Blitzkrieg to negociate with a full hand.
Say invade all the east of Ukraine in 2 days, then go to peace negociations and retreat back after getting full possession to Donbass.
Russia apparently makes concessions to give back some parts of Ukraine, but in reality Ukraine gets back whatever Russia wants to leave.

I found this article interesting. It appears that a large group of hardline retired Russian generals is against the invasion, and not for reasons of "softness". They are just saying that it's not worth the cost in lives, money and ostracization. A conspiracy theorist might think that this was publicized as a way for Putin to back down without personal disgrace. "I wanted to invade but my generals said it was a bad idea" sort of thing.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/07/ex-russia ... -invasion/

johns624 wrote:

I found this article interesting. It appears that a large group of hardline retired Russian generals is against the invasion,

Where do you see "large group of hardline generals being against the invasion" mentioned or implied in the article?

jetwet1 wrote:

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

Maybe his meeting with Xi last week before the opening ceremony in Beijing saw some sort of agreement that makes whichever economic sanctions the West might impose more or less moot... Russia is one of the few countries in the world that could conceivably sustain an autarkical economy and if they cut themselves a nice deal for some foreign currency influx by selling rare earths and gas to China, who knows.

Putin knows that no NATO member is willing to send their citizens to fight for a non-member like Ukraine, risking to spark a literal world war? Not going to happen. So if he considers returning Russia to its old "glory", he might as well go for it.

Don't like the man one bit but you've got to admit he has NATO and the EU basically in a checkmate situation at this point:

If he does attack, they can choose between starting WW3 by intervening or letting him have at it.

And even if he doesn't, he has all but assured a continued influence over Ukrainian politics because if they eventually tried to make true on their stated goal of joining NATO the same catch-22 applies:
Either the second Ukraine becomes a member all hell breaks lose because the (still ongoing!) conflicts in the Donbass would, according to NATO Art. 5, make every single NATO member immediately declare war on Russia.
To avoid that, Ukraine would have to concede at least Crimea, but probably also the Donbass before joining, thereby also accepting the results of the 2014 invasion and basically giving Russia a Carte Blanche to take whatever they want in Eastern Europe.



Honestly, the conspiracy theorist inside me believes that China might be very happy about the US moving resources to NATO's Eastern flank at the moment. A temporary shift in US focus from the Pacific to Eastern Europe might be all it takes for them to launch an assault on Taiwan, in which case we'd all be in some deep geopolitical sh*t.

jetwet1 wrote:

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

He will assume that any sanctions will only be temporary, or will be dropped after some token compromise.

What may keep Putin from invading Ukraine is the effect on the Baltic region. If a Ukraine invasion pushed Sweden and perhaps Finland to join NATO then the Baltic sea would effectively become NATO territory, and that would be a strategic loss for Russia.

jetwet1 wrote:

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

Who is going to cut Putin off?
The invasion needs to happen while winter weather is going on so that those who need gas to keep warm will be silent supporters.

readytotaxi wrote:

I don't see any real advantage in invading, it will be costly in terms of troops and support. Russia already has access to the Sea of Azov, minerals and wheat are biggest exports but I don't think Russia is that desperate for them. A lot of this is about Putins standing at home, he has invested a lot of personal Face in this.
If there can be a diplomatic solution it would have to be one that leaves him with the upper hand to show at home. The West has said that if he does cross the boarder sanctions would be unlike any that have gone before, he could retaliate with something like a no fly zone over Russia to western airlines, making some routes impractable. I'm sure that the real loser in this,if it happens, will be the Ukrainian public.

I think the objective of the Russian state is to maintain and strengthen its strategic depth advantages particularly in the Caucasus. If Ukraine does join NATO, the West could hypothetically cut off Russian access to the Caucasus with a swift military operation in case of War. The moves in Ukraine are aligned to that goal - retain strategic depth by ensuring NATO is contained to the West of Ukraine.

SAS A340 wrote:

Putin will not just take on Ukraine, when he is done, he will turn his Army against Belarus with he already has over 30 000 soldiers within. Lukashenko is too stupid to see this. That's my opinion.

I dont think Belarus is the next target. With a puppet in place there already, I personally think they will turn their attention next towards Poland and the Baltic region. Detaching Poland from the Western sphere can have significant benefits for Mother Russia!

alberchico wrote:

I've noticed that the skies above Ukraine have gotten pretty quiet recently. Is this a recent development or something that has always happened ?

It has been quiet since MH17. Donbas is a no-fly zone and so is Crimea, so Europe-Asia flights that used to fly over Ukraine now fly either more to the north (over Belarus) or more to the south (over the Black Sea, south of Crimea).

In addition, Russia and Ukraine have closed their airspace for each other's aircraft, so Russian airlines have to fly around Ukraine.

Is it me or has Germany really not been a part of this whole thing?

L410Turbolet wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I found this article interesting. It appears that a large group of hardline retired Russian generals is against the invasion,

Where do you see "large group of hardline generals being against the invasion" mentioned or implied in the article?

I read an article earlier that was more in-depth but can't find it now. He wrote it as head of, and in the organization's official newsletter, which means it had others' backing.

LabQuest wrote:

Is it me or has Germany really not been a part of this whole thing?

Yep. Germany wants to be the leader of Europe, but nary a peep.

johns624 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

Is it me or has Germany really not been a part of this whole thing?

Yep. Germany wants to be the leader of Europe, but nary a peep.

Why is that?

LabQuest wrote:

johns624 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

Is it me or has Germany really not been a part of this whole thing?

Yep. Germany wants to be the leader of Europe, but nary a peep.

Why is that?

I don't know, ask the Germans around here. I have my suspicions but I'll keep them to myself.

I have said this in other threads which seem to have been deleted but I will say it here. Why does this even matter to the US? The US Has absolutely no interest in Ukraine, and getting involved militarily is only going to get more troops killed with absolutely no benefit to the US. I don't like Putin, but this is not our issue, period. Of course, the corporate media who is in bed with the Military-Industrial complex would have you believe otherwise, so that the Warmongers can profit big time, Deficits and the lives of our Men and Women be damned.

apodino wrote:

I have said this in other threads which seem to have been deleted but I will say it here. Why does this even matter to the US? The US Has absolutely no interest in Ukraine, and getting involved militarily is only going to get more troops killed with absolutely no benefit to the US. I don't like Putin, but this is not our issue, period. Of course, the corporate media who is in bed with the Military-Industrial complex would have you believe otherwise, so that the Warmongers can profit big time, Deficits and the lives of our Men and Women be damned.

I was just going to say - Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon certainly care.

This is Europe's decision. The Ukraine is not part of Nato so the USA hasn't done much as... per my opinion, there is no support here for any expeditionary adventure; in particular post Afghanistan. There is support for NATO, but one has to question why the USA should shoulder the burden?

https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato- ... %20Time%3F

readytotaxi wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

I don't see any real advantage in invading, it will be costly in terms of troops and support. Russia already has access to the Sea of Azov, minerals and wheat are biggest exports but I don't think Russia is that desperate for them. A lot of this is about Putins standing at home, he has invested a lot of personal Face in this.
If there can be a diplomatic solution it would have to be one that leaves him with the upper hand to show at home. The West has said that if he does cross the boarder sanctions would be unlike any that have gone before, he could retaliate with something like a no fly zone over Russia to western airlines, making some routes impractable. I'm sure that the real loser in this,if it happens, will be the Ukrainian public.

Russia has food and energy Autarky with the Ukraine.

The question is, will Europe really keep up sanctions when Russia cuts back energy deliveries? Last I looked, the EU was far more dependent upon Russia than vice versa, in my opinion. The one exception would be food... solved by taking the Ukraine.

AeroVega wrote:

I would not say it is Biden's victory as long as Ukraine is under threat of invasion. In fact, Biden's declaration not to fight Russia in Ukraine is almost an invitation for Putin to invade.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmi ... e-ukraine/

If Russia backs off and there is a peace plan, it will be a NATO victory. I too interpret these words that US troops will not cross the border:
https://nypost.com/2022/02/10/biden-say ... f-ukraine/

johns624 wrote:

I found this article interesting. It appears that a large group of hardline retired Russian generals is against the invasion, and not for reasons of "softness". They are just saying that it's not worth the cost in lives, money and ostracization. A conspiracy theorist might think that this was publicized as a way for Putin to back down without personal disgrace. "I wanted to invade but my generals said it was a bad idea" sort of thing.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/07/ex-russia ... -invasion/

My honest opinion is that it will depend upon how long it takes to seize Kyiv. If Russia uses their mobility advantage to take the city quickly, there will not be much of an insurrection to fight. If it takes a while, I would expect guerrilla warfare that would continue after any official surrender.

To everyone:
What will effect Putin is how long Russia can go without gas and other energy revenue. How long can the EU go without Russian energy? Sanctions won't be one way (overflights, titanium, and energy are Russia's negotiating points). Russia has, unfortunately, quite a few cards to play. If they are cut off from Western imports, they don't need the cash as they will have Ukraine grain, which takes away the #1 lever.

Sadly, all Putin needs to do is sit on all exports/overflights until the West returns to the negotiating table.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Sadly, all Putin needs to do is sit on all exports/overflights until the West returns to the negotiating table.

Lightsaber

Correct, and this is an even bigger chip as the pandemic winds down.

People may be quick to dismiss Ukraine as strategically unimportant and 'not their problem' but the reason why this should matter to the US and the rest of the World is that China will be watching this annexation very closely...

If the West won't raise a finger for Ukraine - aside from giving a green card to Putin to continue westward towards Europe - there's little chance they'll do anything about Taiwan, or the rest of the South China sea, or the disputed territories at the border with India or Nepal, etc.

Hitler started in 1938 with small scale invasions of the Sudetenland, which had been tacitly endorsed at the Munich agreements by Western democracies jaded by WWI and resigned to let Germany have its 'small' territorial claims to avoid plunging Europe into another war... the rest is history.

Of course, the situation is different today than pre-war Europe, but the parallels and broad similarities are worrying, starting with the rise of authoritarianism, dictatorships and their various ideologies across the World, mostly in China and Russia, both of which are militarizing quickly and have eyes on forceful territorial expansions. Like in the 30's, the Western democracies are also being haunted by their own internal struggle with far right extremism, as perfectly exemplified by what is happening in the US right wing movement or the rise of various extreme nationalistic parties in Europe and elsewhere.

Ukraine is not the endgame for Putin. It is an experiment for him and his allies in China to test the resolve and willingness of the other World powers to resort to violence to defend their values. Judging by public opinion against war in both the US and Europe, it seems they may well get their (satisfactory) answer.
It is a good thing to prefer peace over violence, but the problem with peace is that it takes all sides to agree on it... We're living in a World where the appetite for imperialism, totalitarianism and war has awakened again in the fading memories of the atrocities of the last century, and I'm afraid that the option to sit idle and do nothing about it hoping it will not happen will only make the outcome worse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/worl ... ofing.html

This article explains how Russia could cope with the effects of sanctions or decreased natural gas sales to Europe. For those who don't have access, Russia has amassed a staggering 631 billion in currency reserves to withstand the effects of heavy sanctions. This is a brief excerpt:

"Moscow can use those reserves to keep the ruble propped up if another wave of sanctions hits. It can also use them to cover government and corporate balance sheets."

"Mr. Putin has also learned how to keep Russia’s all-important political and business elite (who keep him in power the way that voters keep democratic leaders in power) loyal even under sanctions."

However the sanctions that Biden is proposing are so harsh that even the Kremlin was likely shocked when they first heard of them. Which leads me to believe that ultimately nothing will happen. Once the exercises in Belarus are over Putin will order the remaining forces to return to their barracks and no attack will take place, if there ever was any such thing planned.

I would also like to point out that in Kiev the mood remains exceptionally calm, despite a massive attack supposedly being just a few days away. No panic or chaos whatsoever. If the people on the front lines aren't panicking then why is everyone else ???

apodino wrote:

I have said this in other threads which seem to have been deleted but I will say it here. Why does this even matter to the US? The US Has absolutely no interest in Ukraine, and getting involved militarily is only going to get more troops killed with absolutely no benefit to the US. I don't like Putin, but this is not our issue, period. Of course, the corporate media who is in bed with the Military-Industrial complex would have you believe otherwise, so that the Warmongers can profit big time, Deficits and the lives of our Men and Women be damned.

Read this article and you understand why it does matter to the US. Geopolitics.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22900113/nato-ukraine-russia-crisis-clinton-expansion

kelval wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

The question is, why invade ? If Russia goes in they will be cut off economically from the west, or is Putin sure that will not happen ?

I don't see any real advantage in invading, it will be costly in terms of troops and support. Russia already has access to the Sea of Azov, minerals and wheat are biggest exports but I don't think Russia is that desperate for them. A lot of this is about Putins standing at home, he has invested a lot of personal Face in this.
If there can be a diplomatic solution it would have to be one that leaves him with the upper hand to show at home. The West has said that if he does cross the boarder sanctions would be unlike any that have gone before, he could retaliate with something like a no fly zone over Russia to western airlines, making some routes impractable. I'm sure that the real loser in this,if it happens, will be the Ukrainian public.

Well for example a kind of Blitzkrieg to negociate with a full hand.
Say invade all the east of Ukraine in 2 days, then go to peace negociations and retreat back after getting full possession to Donbass.
Russia apparently makes concessions to give back some parts of Ukraine, but in reality Ukraine gets back whatever Russia wants to leave.

Crimea still isn't recognized as Russian by the West after having been invaded in a "bloodless" manner so I don't see how something much more forceful could be accepted by the West. And of course it would be an invitation to do it again and again (which has already happened, in Goergia first). The West doesn't really care about Ukraine itself, hence the fact that we're not going to fight there, but if we accept an annexation by Russia, who is next ?

As I see it once Russia invades, if it does, Ukrainians will be "on their own" with material support from the West (including intel), however the West won't accept any "solution" negotiated under an occupation. So even it it's worst for Ukrainians, the situation could last a while.

johns624 wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I found this article interesting. It appears that a large group of hardline retired Russian generals is against the invasion,

Where do you see "large group of hardline generals being against the invasion" mentioned or implied in the article?

I read an article earlier that was more in-depth but can't find it now. He wrote it as head of, and in the organization's official newsletter, which means it had others' backing.

Ivashev makes Putin look like a fairly reasonable guy. He was sacked by Putin in 2002 and apparently holds some grudges against him till today. He published a similar letter a year ago in which he accused Putin's regime to be "liberal and zionist". Go figure.
The organization/newsletter where it was published follows the legacy Chornaya Sotnya. A fringe group of military personnel which orignially existed in early 1900s, with ideology based on nationalism, monarchism and antisemitism. He wants the USSR aka Russian Empire restored too, based on voluntary basis though... he claims. Here's article in Czech which might give you some more info via Google translator
https://plus.rozhlas.cz/alexandr-mitrof ... -a-8679135

Interestingly, China has not yet ordered it's citizens to leave Ukraine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... st-updates

You would think Putin to give Xi a heads-up before invading Ukraine.

Let's see when the Chinese are ordered to leave. After the Olympics perhaps.

AeroVega wrote:

Interestingly, China has not yet ordered it's citizens to leave Ukraine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... st-updates

You would think Putin to give Xi a heads-up before invading Ukraine.

Let's see when the Chinese are ordered to leave. After the Olympics perhaps.

Well, since China is one of the only countries not to order it, one might take the position that there is something more sinister going on behind the scenes between Russia and China.

As others have said, you can bet Xi is watching this closely. If Ukraine falls, who is going to stop the same from happening to Taiwan down the road.

Lots of traffic in and out of both Kiev airports IEV and KBP. Plus US AF is doing circles...

Gesendet von meinem SM-G781B mit Tapatalk

Francoflier wrote:

People may be quick to dismiss Ukraine as strategically unimportant and 'not their problem' but the reason why this should matter to the US and the rest of the World is that China will be watching this annexation very closely...

If the West won't raise a finger for Ukraine - aside from giving a green card to Putin to continue westward towards Europe - there's little chance they'll do anything about Taiwan, or the rest of the South China sea, or the disputed territories at the border with India or Nepal, etc.

Hitler started in 1938 with small scale invasions of the Sudetenland, which had been tacitly endorsed at the Munich agreements by Western democracies jaded by WWI and resigned to let Germany have its 'small' territorial claims to avoid plunging Europe into another war... the rest is history.
Ukraine is not the endgame for Putin. It is an experiment for him and his allies in China to test the resolve and willingness of the other World powers to resort to violence to defend their values. Judging by public opinion against war in both the US and Europe, it seems they may well get their (satisfactory) answer.

There are a few differences between Ukraine and Taiwan, I believe. First, Taiwan has a first rate military and will fight. Second, Taiwan is much easier for its allies to get to. Third, the US and Japan don't seem to be as reluctant to appease China the way some EU countries seem to not want to upset Putin. The main problem, as Lightsaber's chart above shows, is that too many EU countries have continued with their "peace dividend" while Russia has rearmed. If the European NATO countries had even half the military that they did at the end of the Cold War, Russia wouldn't even be thinking about this. In between building oversize OPVs and "stabilization frigates" that have no role in a hot war and retiring all MBTs to having lousy operational rates for aircraft, there's not threat. People (countries) keep talking about using "soft power" to influence Russia. Sorry, soft power only works if you have hard power to back it up.

johns624 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

People may be quick to dismiss Ukraine as strategically unimportant and 'not their problem' but the reason why this should matter to the US and the rest of the World is that China will be watching this annexation very closely...

If the West won't raise a finger for Ukraine - aside from giving a green card to Putin to continue westward towards Europe - there's little chance they'll do anything about Taiwan, or the rest of the South China sea, or the disputed territories at the border with India or Nepal, etc.

Hitler started in 1938 with small scale invasions of the Sudetenland, which had been tacitly endorsed at the Munich agreements by Western democracies jaded by WWI and resigned to let Germany have its 'small' territorial claims to avoid plunging Europe into another war... the rest is history.
Ukraine is not the endgame for Putin. It is an experiment for him and his allies in China to test the resolve and willingness of the other World powers to resort to violence to defend their values. Judging by public opinion against war in both the US and Europe, it seems they may well get their (satisfactory) answer.

There are a few differences between Ukraine and Taiwan, I believe. First, Taiwan has a first rate military and will fight. Second, Taiwan is much easier for its allies to get to. Third, the US and Japan don't seem to be as reluctant to appease China the way some EU countries seem to not want to upset Putin. The main problem, as Lightsaber's chart above shows, is that too many EU countries have continued with their "peace dividend" while Russia has rearmed. If the European NATO countries had even half the military that they did at the end of the Cold War, Russia wouldn't even be thinking about this. In between building oversize OPVs and "stabilization frigates" that have no role in a hot war and retiring all MBTs to having lousy operational rates for aircraft, there's not threat. People (countries) keep talking about using "soft power" to influence Russia. Sorry, soft power only works if you have hard power to back it up.

It also only works if the opposing power is led by someone rational and half-sane. Putin's messianic complex colors almost everything he does.

joeblow10 wrote:

As others have said, you can bet Xi is watching this closely. If Ukraine falls, who is going to stop the same from happening to Taiwan down the road.

One significant difference is that the US has a legal premise that the US will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."

That's fairly robust language.

The issue is if the US President considers such a "grave concern" as tantamount to a justification for war. Xi would be well advised to not consider the two situations identical from any standpoint.

Aaron747 wrote:

It also only works if the opposing power is led by someone rational and half-sane. Putin's messianic complex colors almost everything he does.

Putin is many things, mostly terrible, but to look at his actions (and the perceptions of many Russian intelligence and military personnel) as anything other than coldly calculating and in line with broad Soviet and Russian narratives and strategic calculus (extending back to Catherine the Great and Potemkin) is fundamentally incorrect.

Further, Western messaging to the Russians has been incoherent at best.