Japanese foreign minister just made a surprise appearance in Kyiv.
2 Likes
Russian losses per 09/09/23 reported by the Ukrainian General Staff.
+600 men
+15 tanks
+13 APVs
+36 (!) artillery systems
+3 MLRS
+1 AD system
+18 UAVs
7 Likes
With regards the likelihood of invasion and starting a war, I see far more differences between Russia and China than I do similarities. China does have an authoritarian government and a strong military, and it does lay claim to an island 130 km off its coast.
By all means the West should take preparatory action in case of future wars and continuing diplomacy to reduce the possibility. But I think the idea that people should fear a war with China, or be convinced a war is likely, is not just a misrepresentation but in itself counterproductive to possible improved and strong economic and social exchange.
China does engage in border wars, but it has no long history of invasion, colonisation or large scale expansion outside the mainland, as we obviously do in the West. They have every right to arm themselves after what they endured in their century of shame. They are overly aggressive in the south china seas - from our perspective - but so are we (US/UK/Aus) when we think itâs necessary to protect our interests.
Having an authoritarian government doesnât mean they are about to start a world war. If we depict China as an enemy which we may soon be at war with, this can only expand the idea in the minds of the Chinese that we are their enemy.
6 Likes
Gosh he has a veritable fountain of BS gushing day and night. He has come out with some howlers since the SMO started but this pronouncement is the most absurd piece of nonsense yet.
2 Likes
Pretty sure we debated this at length about 5000 posts ago. Without having to go back through it all, this statement is incorrect.
Also whilst i like the optimism, i dont share it and i doubt the Philippines, hong kong, Taiwan, or the Indian border troops and many others share it either.
Be good to have a better relationship, but treating it as hostile is more factual than anything.
1 Like
So all your counter-argument to @stir_fried_ewokâs comment that âChina does engage in border wars, but it has no long history of invasion, colonisation or large scale expansionâ is to cite actions on Chinaâs borders but no examples of âinvasion, colonisation or large scale expansionâ outside its region.
2 Likes
I said im not going to rehash a discussion from 5000 posts ago.
Forget about historical arguments about past postures and intentions, the world - and Chinaâs place in it - has changed greatly and fast, so they are largely moot. The Peopleâs Republic of China of right now is powerful, aggressive and expansionist. It has a different leadership with different objectives and is a totally different entity, politically and militarily, from what it was even pre-2012, let alone 2002 or 1992. But it still has grand historical axes to grind.
2 Likes
The large and consistent losses of Russian artillery over time must be telling, reducing the amount of bangs.
4 Likes
268,000 dead/wounded Russians.
Throw in a the UKR and civilians and weâd be talking 500,000 people.
About 800 - 900 per day.
Thatâs a lot of inecessary death.
3 Likes
I think the worst part is you estimate another 600k+ dead, plus 2m displaced over the next year to push russia out and back to its borders. Fkn pointless
2 Likes
I agree with:
- They are very different.
- Having an authoritarian (or even fascist) government does not necessarily imply they are âabout to start a world warâ (eg fascist Spain and Portugal a few decades ago, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel now).
- It is nevertheless necessary to prepare against the possibility (in particular others who might have such an inclination are unlikely to acquire the capability in any relevant planning period, but China could and has embarked on a military program greatly exceeding defensive needs and its previously non-aggressive posture).
- There is a Western campaign stoking fear that war is likely which already does spill over into barriers to economic and social exchange and should be opposed.
But one reason for emphasizing the need to prepare and especially to do so by ending the Russian fascist regime is that the Chinese regime began running a domestic campaign to deflect hostility against the regime into militaristic ultra-nationalism against external enemies before the recent counter productive responses to it. Also it accelerated this more recently by domestic campaign presenting Ukraine war as result of Western aggression and has accompanied it by accelerated military buildup (already including larger navy than US as well as superior drone forces).
So a far less counter productive measure than cutting economic and social exchanges is ensuring rapid destruction of the Russian regime and its replacement by a Russian democracy. That would discourage any Chinese regime inclination to think it can resolve the problems it has with its own people in the way the Russian regime attempted to by invading Ukraine. It would do so at much less cost to the West, China and relations between the peoples of both than any plausible result of failing to do so.
3 Likes
I agree, utterly pointless. All those deaths and destruction and yet RU still wonât win. Then there are the sanctions and confiscation of assets that could have been used to invest in their future.
2 Likes
Unnecessary on the Russian side
Crucial for Ukrainian sovereignty
5 Likes
Powerful - agree
Aggressive - relative to what? Compared to USA/UK, are not aggressive at all
Expansionist - making noise on Taiwan and occupying disputed islands close to the Chines mainland go is not that expansionist.
1 Like
HiMARS on a budget is what it sounds like in the article.
1 Like
But what about buying land? Wouldnât that be expansionist?
Given the propensity of RU propaganda to play fast and loose with the truth, can anyone here confirm the claim that a T80 wiped out an entire UA column of vehicles? It doesnât sound like something that UA would allow to just happen, without a response. In terms of tactics UA is more savvy than that.
As I understand in Australia about 14% of land is in foreign âownership â, and China is now the largest just in front of UK, Netherlands and USA. Ownership though includes leaseholds and most of the agricultural land under Chinese âownershipâ is leased. Bit like the Bombers at the Hangar.
Not sure you can label this expansionist, though I would prefer if land could only be owned by Australian citizens.
2 Likes