[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[peterward]

We just heard from a friend in Zaporizhzhia city that the government announced yesterday they expect all men between 25 and 60 to report for mobilisation - this will be put into law within one month.
(I have not yet searched online for an official statement to confirm this)
One might expect certain people/ professions may be excused, but that was the blanket statement.

Our friends' community is terrified...of losing remaining husbands and sons to a war they fear they no longer have a chance of winning .

2 days ago, the draft bill on mobilisation was approved by Rada with something like 400 ammendments, yes age lowered to 25 from 27. It's true

 

[peterward]

 

[The Clamp]

Clamp said "Our boots on the ground. Our pilots in the air. Only this will stop Russia."

I don't agree with that. If Ukraine were to surrender, they're basically signing their own death warrants. If they don't, then Russia have to advance 800 miles, and provide supply lines of 800 miles to support their troops. It's difficult to imagine Russia managing that, and certainly not in a few months.

I see your point. My

Korea, Afghanistan, and Vietnam had the same level of nuclear deterrent as Russia has today?

Vietnam. In 1970’s?

The man is talking nonsense.

The rest is pure conjecture.

 

[Braggfan]

Korea, Afghanistan, and Vietnam had the same level of nuclear deterrent as Russia has today?

Vietnam. In 1970’s?

I think you may have misinterpreted his comments there. I think he was saying that Russia's nuclear threat isn't a guarantee they'll win, and he compared it to the USA. Because the USA fought in Korea, Afghanistan and Vietnam, and had a comparable nuclear threat to Russia, but the USA had to withdraw from those conflicts.

 

[The Clamp]

I think you may have misinterpreted his comments there. I think he was saying that Russia's nuclear threat isn't a guarantee they'll win, and he compared it to the USA. Because the USA fought in Korea, Afghanistan and Vietnam, and had a comparable nuclear threat to Russia, but the USA had to withdraw from those conflicts.

No. I’ve understood. The idea that Vietnam had a “comparable nuclear threat” to modern day Russia remains laughable.

 

[Braggfan]

No. I’ve understood. The idea that Vietnam had a “comparable nuclear threat” to modern day Russia remains laughable.

He doesn't say that

 

[The Clamp]

He doesn't say that

Okay.

 

[Braggfan]

Okay.

In fairness I think the link is badly written, I don't think he conveys his point clearly.

 

[peterward]

I see your point. My


Korea, Afghanistan, and Vietnam had the same level of nuclear deterrent as Russia has today?

Vietnam. In 1970’s?

The man is talking nonsense.

The rest is pure conjecture.

I think you may have misinterpreted his comments there. I think he was saying that Russia's nuclear threat isn't a guarantee they'll win, and he compared it to the USA. Because the USA fought in Korea, Afghanistan and Vietnam, and had a comparable nuclear threat to Russia, but the USA had to withdraw from those conflicts.

It doesn't say that mate it says USA had comparable Nuclear arms threat in 1970s as Russia has today, but that didn't stop them from leaving and losing in varying degrees in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan.

Gerashenko is paraphrasing an article in which the Chinese academic gave his reasons he thought Russia would lose.

Of course all opinion is exactly that, only hindsight will show who was right.

Original article paywalled in economist, here's a link with unpaywalled original.

https://archive.ph/YdCHr

 

[raymondo]

Don't forget the Russian economy, a subject which none of us have really focused on, but which IMO, will probably be what finally pulls the plug on Russia's war. The clock is ticking. Russia's war economy is not sustainable, as they don't receive any income from the one-use products of it - weapons. North Korea and Iran are willing to provide weapons all the while the bills are being paid, but when the money runs out? Some Youtubers (e.g. Joe Blogs) predict it collapsing soon. Others (e.g. Peter Zeihan) predict 5-8 years). The Russian political elite may have their own predictions.

Let's hope it's quicker than Zeihan's prediction (but he's clearly smart)

 

[fly high]

Okay.

I read it the same as Braggfan, even though USA had nuclear weapons they lost against states which didn't. Just because Russia has nuclear weapons doesn't mean they will win.

 

[Braggfan]

It doesn't say that mate it says USA had comparable Nuclear arms threat in 1970s as Russia has today, but that didn't stop them from leaving and losing in varying degrees in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan.

That's what i thought he was saying. Maybe "i" didn't word my reply very well. Apologies if that's the case.

I was just trying to point out he didn't say "Vietnam had a comparable nuclear threat".

 

[peterward]

That's what i thought he was saying. Maybe "i" didn't word my reply very well. Apologies if that's the case.

I was just trying to point out he didn't say "Vietnam had a comparable nuclear threat".

I was replying to Clampy and agreeing with you, in quoting both!

 

[raymondo]

2 days ago, the draft bill on mobilisation was approved by Rada with something like 400 ammendments, yes age lowered to 25 from 27. It's true

Thank you. My emoji was sad , not because I want Ukraine to give up the fight, but because we have a number of relatives and friends that will fall into that age bracket.
Here's hoping that many of these men end up as precision drone operators.

 

[The Clamp]

My mistake. Apologies Braggfan.

 

[Braggfan]

I was replying to Clampy and agreeing with you, in quoting both!

Ha ha oh yes. Sorry about that. There's a lesson for me, don't hastily try to reply to posts while juggling a million things before going to work.

 

[raymondo]

I read it the same as Braggfan, even though USA had nuclear weapons they lost against states which didn't. Just because Russia has nuclear weapons doesn't mean they will win.

It's true...but if both states have nukes...it might be a mess

 

[Eric the meek]

I think this article is very good news.

Not because of the content, which may or may not come true.

But because it has been published.

IMO, publication is likely to have been predicated on the approval of the Chinese Communist Party.

 

[raymondo]

I think this article is very good news.

Not because of the content, which may or may not come true.

But because it has been published.

IMO, publication is likely to have been predicated on the approval of the Chinese Communist Party.

I was thinking the same.
Do you think it may be partly propaganda.... a warning to Russia, maybe a warning that China isn't going to continue to 100% back Russia in this venture?

 

[Eric the meek]

I was thinking the same.
Do you think it may be partly propaganda.... a warning to Russia, maybe a warning that China isn't going to continue to 100% back Russia in this venture?

I don't know. Possibly. I need to think about it more.

As an aside, there's some very interesting observations in that article, and other linked articles and replies. It's a real rabbit hole, which I haven't got the time to explore right now.