History in the Making: Russian Invasion

I think the general analysis is that it's the Ukrainians who are being worn down there.  There are estimates of the Ukrainians loosing 100-200 people a day in the area, with the Russians taking far fewer.  The reason, as stated, is the Russians are just pounding the hell out of the Ukrainian positions with artillery and the Ukrainians don't seem to have the ability (or enough of an ability) to knock out the Russian artillery or do effective counter battery fire.  Realistically I suspect they are doing some damage to the Russian artillery, but the Russians are just taking it (they have a lot) and there is just too much.

It almost look likes they are playing into the Russians advantage, but they have always been rather clever (and have a lot of intel support from the west). Maybe something else is going on. Who knows.

I'm very confident Ukraine wants all of Ukrainian back, but if the US and Europe are not interested in financing that, that will be almost impossible.  I think at this point they may have  until November ish' (based on money give and burn rate) to do what they are going to do before the west needs to make a decision.

My suspicion is they may be setting up for an offensive in the southwest. The Russian appear to be setting up defense in depth (multiple layers) in that area, so maybe not totally unexpected.

Hitler lost because he couldn't fight two fronts at once.   Do the same thing to Russia with China going for Russian gold and oil and Russia loses. 

frenchyd said:

Hitler lost because he couldn't fight two fronts at once.   Do the same thing to Russia with China going for Russian gold and oil and Russia loses. 

China would probably rather build a couple high speed trains and get that stuff for free.

China has exactly zero reason to invade Russia. It can get access to the very same resources by leveraging Russian access to technology prohibited to it by sanctions. It gains nothing from a further weakened Russia, and occupation of a significant portion of Russian territory would be a hugely expensive burden on an economy already feeling strains from domestic consumer pressures (which an invasion of Russia would do nothing to relieve, and would in fact likely exacerbate considerably). Besides, China has made it clear that its primary security concerns are naval, not land-based. Put another way, China can easily survive without access to Russian material resources, but it cannot survive without a secure maritime access to markets and resources only available overseas.

China will gladly pay Russia just enough to keep their workers in bread lines while they appear to be saviors. They would not have to shoulder the cost of Russian welfare. Remember the Chinese are convinced that sleeping at work and being there 100% of the day is acceptable. The Russians would not fit that employee profile well.

Russia needs to be stopped and the borders restored in Ukraine to prevent our children from being in the same position as we are, 25 to 50 years from now.

Have a look here at Post Soviet conflicts from Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Soviet_conflicts

I am not saying the the US government is not guilty of some of the same things.  (i.e starting wars, civilian bombing ect.) But at this point in  2022 I would hope the world is tired of the wanton destruction and waste of resources and would learn and move on.

Unlikely, I know.

In reply to red_stapler :

There are almost a million Chinese citizens in that area now, in fact there may be almost as many Chinese  in the area as Russians. 
   The trillions of dollars of natural wealth of the Russian Siberia that is there is a mighty tempting target for a country with almost no natural resources of its own.  It's like an open bank with no local police.  
 The Russian military  pilots in the area are lucky to  get 50-70 flight hours a year barely enough to ensure their proficiency at taking off and landing. Let alone  any combat skills.  
     

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

China will gladly pay Russia just enough to keep their workers in bread lines while they appear to be saviors. They would not have to shoulder the cost of Russian welfare. Remember the Chinese are convinced that sleeping at work and being there 100% of the day is acceptable. The Russians would not fit that employee profile well.

I'm not saying take over Russia.  I'm saying take the Siberia with it's trillions of dollars worth of resources. Oil,  Gold, Timber, minerals.   The total Russian population in the area is trivial.  Plus there are already nearly a million Chinese or people of Chinese decent already in the area.  

In reply to frenchyd :

A direct conflict on their own territory between two nuclear powers is unprecedented(except for a few border skirmishes with India and China).  I suspect China (and Russia) would prefer it stays that way.

Edit - added a caveat about India and China

02Pilot said:

China has exactly zero reason to invade Russia. It can get access to the very same resources by leveraging Russian access to technology prohibited to it by sanctions. It gains nothing from a further weakened Russia, and occupation of a significant portion of Russian territory would be a hugely expensive burden on an economy already feeling strains from domestic consumer pressures (which an invasion of Russia would do nothing to relieve, and would in fact likely exacerbate considerably). Besides, China has made it clear that its primary security concerns are naval, not land-based. Put another way, China can easily survive without access to Russian material resources, but it cannot survive without a secure maritime access to markets and resources only available overseas.

You and I totally disagree. You claim China has zero reason?   What about the trillions of dollars worth of wealth in Siberia?  Oil, Gold, timber, minerals, water, plus land that could be used to grow the Food China needs?   
      Think North Korea would like to eliminate the debt it owes Russia?   
     Between China's military and North Korea, what chance is there for Russia in its weakened state  to defeat  those two militaries?  
 Actually the cost of China's border security  would be lessened.   The East West border is longer than a North South border would be.  
 
As far as access to markets China is already addressing that issue.  If you're suggesting Europe won't buy Made in China products for moral reasons?  Since they are still buying Russian oil and Gas  I doubt that would be anything more than a minor diplomatic Tisk Tisk. 

eastsideTim said:

In reply to frenchyd :

A direct conflict on their own territory between two nuclear powers is unprecedented.  I suspect China (and Russia) would prefer it stays that way.

Oh they both will dance around Nuc's  but  that radiation would linger long enough to ruin both of them.  MAD mutually assured destruction. 

frenchyd said:

02Pilot said:

China has exactly zero reason to invade Russia. It can get access to the very same resources by leveraging Russian access to technology prohibited to it by sanctions. It gains nothing from a further weakened Russia, and occupation of a significant portion of Russian territory would be a hugely expensive burden on an economy already feeling strains from domestic consumer pressures (which an invasion of Russia would do nothing to relieve, and would in fact likely exacerbate considerably). Besides, China has made it clear that its primary security concerns are naval, not land-based. Put another way, China can easily survive without access to Russian material resources, but it cannot survive without a secure maritime access to markets and resources only available overseas.

You and I totally disagree. You claim China has zero reason?   What about the trillions of dollars worth of wealth in Siberia?  Oil, Gold, timber, minerals, water, plus land that could be used to grow the Food China needs?   
      Think North Korea would like to eliminate the debt it owes Russia?   
     Between China's military and North Korea, what chance is there for Russia in its weakened state  to defeat  those two militaries?  
 Actually the cost of China's border security  would be lessened.   The East West border is longer than a North South border would be.  
 
As far as access to markets China is already addressing that issue.  If you're suggesting Europe won't buy Made in China products for moral reasons?  Since they are still buying Russian oil and Gas  I doubt that would be anything more than a minor diplomatic Tisk Tisk. 

It's not as if all those commodities are lying around on the ground just waiting to be picked up. Russia hasn't been able to fully exploit them, which suggests the difficulty of the task (while acknowledging the limitations of Russian capabilities and finances). Sure, China would like access, but it doesn't have the force structure, the domestic political will, the historical claim, or frankly anything that would suggest it would be more beneficial to gain access militarily as opposed to using diplomatic leverage on a weakened existing Russian state. China's leadership is quite rational and has proven to be very patient. An opportunistic invasion of Russia, with great risk and uncertain reward, would be deeply out of character.

Europe is transitioning away from Russian energy faster than anyone thought possible. Chinese aggression would very likely be met with similar sets of sanctions, and given that much of what China exports is less crucial than energy, I suspect these would come into effect even more quickly.

Finally, China nuclear stockpile is relatively small but growing. MAD may well exist between Russia and China, but if there was concern about Russia using nukes because things weren't going well in Ukraine, then consider how much we should worry about an invasion of Russian territory by a peer-state competitor. If China launched a full-scale operation into Russia, there is every reason to suspect that Russia's response would be nuclear, and given their recent expenditures of conventional ordnance, they would indeed have little choice if they wanted to retaliate meaningfully.

I think that the Chinese leadership understands that the best path to secure success is benevolent economic imperialism. They have their fingers in everyone's pies, and are welcomed for their money and their goods. Once they start taking land away, they will be viewed with suspicion and mistrust by everyone and that is not to their benefit. If things go nuclear we're all berkeleyed. Even if they don't, everyone in the region will worry that they will be next. Taiwan would be just the first chip to fall. No, China's not run by idiots. They want a dependent Russia, not a fighting Russia.  

On the subject of China, also consider that it is very much to their benefit to keep Putin in power - weak, but in power nonetheless. Once the war in Ukraine comes to some sort of conclusion (or at least significant hiatus), the next question becomes who controls Russia. With Putin in power, isolated from the West by continuing sanctions, China has every opportunity to exploit that situation. But if Putin is ousted, Western sanctions will begin to fragment and Western markets will begin to open, especially if the new regime is even slightly pro-Western. That means that not only is China's leverage diminished, but it also has to contend with the prospect of a pro-Western Russia on its northern flank. China has many good reasons to take significant measures to keep Putin in control of Russia, and thus to cement Russia's isolation from the West, and thus necessarily it's dependence on China.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Putin is reported to be cancer ridden. If that is indeed  the case, wouldn't now in his weakened state, be the time to act?   
     There are two possible outcomes if China attacks.    First,  Putin is overthrown and the in-Fighting  further weakens Russia.  2nd Putin recovers and is now fighting a 2 front war.  

In reply to 02Pilot :

Which makes me wonder how broadly and how deeply potential successors to Putin feel about the need to reconstitute the USSR geographically.... 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

I think that the Chinese leadership understands that the best path to secure success is benevolent economic imperialism. They have their fingers in everyone's pies, and are welcomed for their money and their goods. Once they start taking land away, they will be viewed with suspicion and mistrust by everyone and that is not to their benefit. If things go nuclear we're all berkeleyed. Even if they don't, everyone in the region will worry that they will be next. Taiwan would be just the first chip to fall. No, China's not run by idiots. They want a dependent Russia, not a fighting Russia.  

I must be reading different information than you.   Most of China's wealth is tied up in realestate.   Highly inflated ( ghost cities) real estate  that are mortgaged longer than  than the lease.  Private citizens don't actually own property, the building is leased for 70 years. 
     China's national debt is massively bigger than the US's. But because of how it's dealt with it's not public knowledge.( one of the advantages of  no free speech) 

   So China  will do as most of the rest of the world is doing, inflating their money.   That will put pressure on those countries already in debt to China.  

In reply to frenchyd :

What is China's desired end-state here? They have no reason to want to overthrow Putin, and they have no reason to want to start an unnecessary war at a time when the CCP is facing increasing domestic pressures due to demographics and a slowing economy. Are you suggesting that China is somehow going to engineering a replacement for Putin who is a Chinese puppet? Other than that highly unlikely scenario, I cannot envision an outcome that is beneficial to China's leadership.

I'm not going to speculate on health rumors that have no objective evidentiary basis. The intel community may know something, but they aren't saying, and there's nothing remotely concrete in the open source press.

In reply to stroker :

I don't think it's a major objective in the sense of recreating a single sovereign state. Remember, the USSR's borders were largely inherited from the Russian Empire (subject to Brest-Litovsk treaty modifications). Far more efficient to maintain a client relationship, which is not terribly difficult to maintain with isolated Central Asian states. Ukraine's proximity to the West and blue water port access made it an exception, and a dangerous one at that.

In reply to 02Pilot :

You are absolutely correct there is no need for China to attack Russia with military. China just needs the U.S. playbook, take over businesses that control resources and control the assets. With China it is far simpler as government and industry are one in the same. With the U.S. industry while generally following foreign policy, however U.S. industry may divert when convenient.

In reply to frenchyd :

Their wealth may be tied up in bubble real estate, but you could make the point that their sources of foreign revenue are all the more important given that. In addition to their prodigious economic interaction with first world countries, they do a lot under the radar in terms of things like loaning developing countries a bunch of money, then bringing in their own contractors who get paid with that same money to build infrastructure. Now if you were the ruler of East Nowheresville, who are you going to want to do business with? A Western country with a recent history of benevolence, or a China that's just invaded Russia in the biggest land grab since  North America got "settled"? 

02Pilot said:

In reply to frenchyd :

What is China's desired end-state here? They have no reason to want to overthrow Putin, and they have no reason to want to start an unnecessary war at a time when the CCP is facing increasing domestic pressures due to demographics and a slowing economy. Are you suggesting that China is somehow going to engineering a replacement for Putin who is a Chinese puppet? Other than that highly unlikely scenario, I cannot envision an outcome that is beneficial to China's leadership.

I'm not going to speculate on health rumors that have no objective evidentiary basis. The intel community may know something, but they aren't saying, and there's nothing remotely concrete in the open source press.

The same as Hitler during WW2. Land grab.  While China is roughly the same size as the US, they have almost no natural resources to capitalize on. 
     One way to control a population is to be in a war.   Loyalty  to your country overlooks a lot of flaws. With China's control of the media they can spin any story they want.  
    Normally I would be repulsed by such talk.   I'm suggesting that China become nothing more than a thief.  
However it would be a thief that benefits China, and the rest of the world by putting an end to Russia's  invasion of the Ukraine.

      Eliminating a potential global starvation issue, and maybe even discourages other potentially militant nations from following Russia's lead. 
  The worst outcome would be for Russia to succeed even to a modest degree. 
 Then we would be right back to what WW2 was really all about. •••• You have something I want so my military will take it from you. 

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

You make a clear and valid argument not to do it.  
     However unless something along these lines is done, how will you stop Russia or any country from keeping on doing it?  
     Didn't we learn anything  from WW2?   Peace in our time? Neville Chamberlain.    
  Frankly people like Putin have to be stopped like a rabid dog.  You can't make peace with him anymore than you could with Hitler.  
As far as future business prospects with China go, their wild growth is over until they figure out a taxation system.  Underperforming foreign investments are not the solution.  
Look at the numbers of bad loans America has written off in the developing world.  

I think that most of the civilized world has figured out that military-backed expansionism is a blind alley. When was the last time that an aggressor was the clear winner in a major international conflict? It darn near never happens, and when it does, it's generally at great cost in people and capital. The reason that Russia is invading Ukraine now is the combination of a mentally suspect leader with too much power and lousy Intel  coupled with the fact that his nations prospects are dimming. 

Edit: The only way that Russia stands a chance of winning this thing is by attrition. Unlike the past, they can't just throw a zillion people in there like army ants. The attrition here would have to be in the form of an international recession and the powers of the west deciding that it's better to let Russia have a chunk of Ukraine  than have the conflict drag the entire world down with it. My gut tells me that the West will outlast Russia, but my mind tells me not to underestimate the ability of craven politicians to make bad decisions.

frenchyd said:

 

I must be reading different information than you.   Most of China's wealth is tied up in real estate....

China has a made a huge push with it's Belt and Road initiative and doing development in countries around the world.  It's one of it's primary initiatives. They pour huge amounts of money into countries, but it's not free... those countries are now indebted to China, and eventually, they will call in those markers and those countries will be obliged to lean to China.   It's a long term play, but they kind of specialize in that.