Posts by wiredtiger8

swiftjackal11 said:It feels like Russia is stuck in the past. It’s like they think they’re the only ones with nuclear weapons, ignoring how much more advanced everyone else's tech has become lately.

Spot on.
Russian nukes could miss their target by twenty or fifty feet, while American tech hits a dime from miles away. 🤦

Nicole James said:Through military force?
What do people think the Russians will do in response? Resort to using nuclear weapons against an opponent capable of hitting back with equal force and ensuring total mutual destruction?

So, according to your logic, Putin’s big plan is to just play nice and say, "Sure thing, guys, help yourselves to all of Siberia and every last drop of our oil and gas." Right?

James Phillips92 said:Even in Ukraine, they didn't get to hold a referendum in Crimea—Russia just went ahead and did it themselves.

Look, if the Ukrainians actually had the muscle to stop that referendum—or the military takeover of Crimea itself—they would have done it. Period.

But they didn't have that option. Simple as that.

So I’m asking all you armchair strategists obsessing over "what if" scenarios: how exactly do you think China is going to militarily crush the Russian Federation just so they can pull off some kind of referendum? It's not happening.

boldotter2 said:But why would they disappear?

I mean, Japan and Germany didn't just vanish. Neither did Iraq or Libya.

But Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs? They're definitely going down. Just like the Nazis, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Muammar Gaddafi...

Every single one of them suffered a military defeat.

So I'm asking you again—how exactly are we supposed to militarily defeat the Russians and force a surrender without making the whole thing a total bloodbath?

boldotter2 said:But honestly... when this whole Vladimir Putin thing finally wraps up, that Russian oil is either going to end up in American hands or Chinese hands. That's just how it goes.

And if history tells us anything, I guess it'll be American.

Great explanation there, except you still haven't cleared up how we actually get there... you know, like, where exactly along this "pathway" the Russian Federation just magically vanishes without everything blowing up in our faces...

... honestly, your logic reminds me of that old scene with bat Stojković and his legendary take on that joke from the '82 movie *Let's Go Further*...

... basically, there was this plane carrying an Englishman, a Bulgarian, a Frenchman, and some guy named Pero... he can't quite remember the specifics, but long story short, Pero ends up being the smartest one in the bunch and outsmarts everyone. Ha! Hah!
Link:

Melissa Rivera5 said:It's pretty much like what happened when Russia took over Crimea. There are already huge groups of people living along the borders and scattered around, so even the Russians don't really know how many Chinese citizens are actually inside Russia. So, you're basically saying they'd just hold those "legitimate" referendums—kind of like the ones in Crimea—where they set up these "people's republics" that then somehow justify joining up with China.

As for the regular military stuff... man, the invasion of Ukraine has absolutely wrecked their resources. It's gotten so bad they're out here making up tall tales about drugged-up Supersoldiers from Ukraine (I guess someone probably watched Supersoldier starring Jean-Claude Van Damme or something). But China? They have over a billion people. For them, sending a conventional force all the way to the Ural mountains wouldn't even be a struggle. And honestly, casualties are relative; losing 30k soldiers means next to nothing to them compared to the size of their actual invasion force.

Sure, Russia could always pull the nuclear option, but would you really do that just to grab more territory for China? Especially using those "legitimate" referendums as an excuse?

????
Am I speaking Turkish here?
We are talking about the actual use of Russian nuclear weapons during a Chinese military invasion of Russia and an attempt to seize Siberia—not some hypothetical debate about the maps of the "Great" China that include Siberia...

So, what, you just dreamt up this whole idea of holding a referendum in Siberia to hand it over to China? That's just the simple fix, right?

Go ahead, let them try. I'm sure the Russians will just say, "Sure, sounds good... everything is perfectly legal."

There is absolutely nothing coherent to read here.

If you guys are trolling, I gotta hand it to you—you're pretty damn good at it.

dustyfalcon122 said:My main takeaway is that China is still holding its own against the Americans in the Pacific.
Actually, they're at a point where generals have openly admitted they aren't even sure if they could stop an invasion of Taiwan.

Your initial take is way off base—they aren't even remotely matching up against the Americans in the Pacific.

And all that talk from the generals? Please, that's just standard intelligence warfare... I mean, the Americans said Kyiv would fall in 48 hours, and the Russians actually bought into that nonsense...

The Chinese are actually a bit smarter than that—they know exactly what kind of nightmare is waiting for them if they try anything with Taiwan...

...especially since Taiwan itself has a pretty beefy air force packed with American jets (mostly F-16s) and solid anti-air defenses.

boldotter2 said:Well, so they don't fall into American hands!
China is actually pretty short on natural resources, and let's face it, American dominance is built entirely on controlling those kinds of assets. Russia has plenty to go around.

I guess you don't need to be a math genius to figure out that equation.

Alright, so why don't you explain it to us like we're little kids in elementary school? Just keep it super simple for us—how exactly would China invade and conquer Siberia without the Russians pulling the nuclear trigger if things start going south for them?

Sandra Harris2 said:And why would that stop them from investing in Russia, if there's actual interest in their sphere of influence there?

I brought up Putin in the same context because some of the posts here make it seem like he doesn't even need the money.

Alright, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.

Sure, the Chinese can invest in Russia if they really want to. But—and this is the big "but"—they'll be playing by Russia's rules, or more specifically, Putin's rules.

That means those terms aren't going to be anything close to predatory toward the Russians—especially when we're talking about their bread and butter, like oil and gas. They aren't about to hand over their natural resources on a silver platter.

The near future will show us pretty quickly who actually called it.

dustyfalcon122 said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=716f59ac611d

I mean, if you don't count the entire US Pacific Fleet in the equation, then that gap with the Chinese forces just looks way bigger.

I mean, I assume you actually read the headline in that link—it’s in English, so translating it shouldn't be an issue... but fine, since you're struggling, here's the gist:

Yeah, sure, the Chinese navy has more hulls out there than the US Navy. But that's only because their ships are tiny.

As for the actual tech or how advanced their weaponry is? Honestly, let's not even go there for now.

Sandra Harris2 said:Maybe I should have emphasized the long-term aspect more.

Putin invests in Africa, Putin invests in the Middle East, Putin invests in Mars... and somehow the war in Ukraine isn't costing him anything? Other flashpoints that interest him cost zero points, or zero rubles.

I'm not sure how much power Putin actually has to reject Chinese capital, or any investment capital at all, especially when it comes to infrastructure meant to boost exports.

And BTW, China has been systematically "colonizing" Siberia for a long time now.☕

👍

I think you're right.
They have enough problems at home; I doubt they want to stick their necks out too far.

Look, maybe I should've spelled it out, but I just assumed you had a clue what was going on since we're actually having a debate here.

China is investing in Africa, China is moving into the Middle East...

dustyfalcon122 said:Lol, honestly? Even right now, the US isn't even certain they could pull off a win against China in the Pacific.
When you look at the numbers, China already has a larger total navy and a larger air force than the Americans. Sure, sure, the US has better tech—no argument there—but when you're dealing with ten times the manpower, ten times the industrial capacity, and starting the fight from a massive equipment deficit? That’s a real problem.
The only reason they maintain any kind of dominance in that region at all is because of their rock-solid allies.

Oh, really?
Give me the raw numbers on those fleets and planes then (let's not even get into quality or tech this time).

Henry Sullivan4 said:They probably won't go that route, but I am certain they will come up with some sort of biological eye-related trick, like some kind of Pandin goddess invention.☕

Man, you aren't wrong there.

Honestly? I think if the US went all-in on a full-scale conventional conflict, we could strip both Chinese and Russian military resources down to about 10% of what they have right now... and that's assuming we're fighting both of them at the exact same time.

Arthur Miller7 said:Man, I think you seriously slept through the last decade.

Look, I'm still half-hungover and barely awake—which is probably why I'm even bothering to engage with these "arguments" in the first place...

Sandra Harris2 said:The Chinese don't actually need to launch a military invasion.
China plays the long game.
They can simply encourage people to settle in specific regions. They can pour investment into those areas, especially when you consider the need to beef up gas export infrastructure.
Using economics and demographics as a weapon.

And then, following the Russian playbook used in Donbas, they could stir up separatists or organize a referendum like they did in Crimea.

Look, China can move people around within their own borders all they want. Doing that in Russia? That's a whole different ballgame.

Sure, they could invest, provided Putin and his crew actually let them. But don't kid yourself—that kind of money isn't a guarantee that they'll be able to "pull the strings" on the Russians later on using their own playbook.

Besides, comparing economic investment in some underdeveloped, struggling nations in Africa to potential investments in Siberia is just apples and oranges. The Russians have plenty of resources as it is; they aren't exactly begging for this kind of partnership.

And let's not forget, Russia is still a nuclear power—they won't hesitate to use those toys if they feel their territory is being threatened. Especially Siberia. I honestly don't get why anyone would doubt that.

It's way more likely that China goes after Taiwan and ends up in a head-to-head scrap with the US Pacific Fleet than it is for them to try and grab Siberia... whether we're talking about money or military force.

And let's be real: the Americans probably won't touch nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan.

Oh sure, the Chinese will just march right into Russia and seize Siberia 🤦...and they’ll probably do it with barely breaking a sweat... maybe even squeeze it in right before their afternoon tea break.

I honestly can't wrap my head around how anyone could actually view that scenario as a realistic possibility.

We're talking about massive oil and gas reserves out in Siberia—it's not exactly a walk in the park. Plus, let's be real, Russia's whole playbook for defending territory like that involves nuclear weapons if they're ever actually threatened...

Timothy Williams5 said:Russian soldiers and tank crews are nothing more than uneducated, corrupted souls risking their lives for someone else's luxury goods and trivialities. On the other hand, you have the Russian pilots, who are actually quite sharp. They recruit them during their final years at business school.
It’s all just to ensure they don't accidentally sell off a jet because they lack any concept of its market value.

Right... sure...

...as if it matters, right? It's all just grabbing whatever straws are floating by... one guy's flying a fighter jet while the other is driving a truck... I mean, what does a Russ know? To them, it's all the exact same thing, isn't it?

...or maybe Mike's behind the wheel...

Paul Thomas46 said:By the way, does anyone happen to remember—did Mexico ever actually declare us an enemy nation?

I’m assuming they didn't, since their whole point was that we weren't even a country to begin with... but I figured I'd ask just in case.

Total garbage.

They never even fought a war in America.

No matter who is running things over there, that’s always been their go-to script.

dustyfalcon122 said:Actually, I think it's the exact opposite. The CIA learned their lesson long ago; they aren't going to throw out numbers they can't stand behind just to be reckless. They're aiming for the absolute truth, or at least as close as possible, especially on details that aren't even that critical. They definitely won't be lying at this stage.
That CIA number might actually just be the bare minimum, though I honestly have no idea how they even calculate casualty estimates when the war is mostly driven by artillery. Maybe through spies?

Hmm, putting the CIA and "absolute truth" in the same sentence—especially regarding stuff being fed to the public... yeah, okay. Maybe the number is right, maybe it isn't.
Personally, I find those numbers way more credible than the ones we hear being pumped out by Ukrainians every single day.

Though, I don't really see how the CIA would "risk their heads" over these figures... whether they're being massaged more or less than usual.

EDIT: It makes zero sense to me that the CIA would try to downplay Russian losses. That kind of "marketing" is clearly intended for the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Justin Mendoza16 said:The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense says that by Tuesday, Ukrainian

forces have taken out about 38,550 Russian soldiers (plus triple that in wounded), wrecked 220 combat, assault, and transport planes, 188 assault and transport helicopters, 1,691 tanks, 851 artillery pieces, 3,892 armored vehicles, 248 MLRS, 15 boats, 2,767 fuel and ammo trucks, 113 anti-aircraft batteries, 693 tactical drones, 70 special equipment platforms, four mobile ATACMS launchers, and 167 cruise missiles shot down by Ukrainian air defenses.

So yeah, it's super obvious the Russian army is still taking massive hits in Ukraine. They're running out of people, and if Vladimir Putin doesn't call for a full mobilization, they’re gonna have a brutal summer ahead. Throwing together random volunteer units or relying on mercenaries from private companies might work for a bit, but it's definitely not a long-term fix, according to 19fortyfive.

Another move—which The White House will probably see coming—is ramping up mobilization among ethnic minorities.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) says in their latest report that this could spark major backlash in ethnic enclaves within Russia.

"We've seen troops from Chechnya, South Ossetia, Tuva, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Chuvashia dominating the battlefield already. This suggests Putin isn't willing to go for a general mobilization, mostly because he doesn't want to start drafting too many ethnic Russians," the ISW noted.

And let's be real, the Ukrainians are also exaggerating a bit with these fuzzy numbers.

Look, it's clear the Russians are taking huge losses, but...

William Burns (head of the CIA) said yesterday that the Russians have about 15,000 dead, and that the Ukrainians also have "significant losses" (that's how he put it).
Now, if you apply even a shred of common sense and logic here, I'd say the CIA might be inflating Russian losses just a touch while downplaying Ukrainian ones (which are definitely significant, mind you)...

Personally, I’d love to see some actual data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense regarding their own human losses. I mean, they should have those numbers, right? But they aren't publishing them—they're guarding them like state secrets... all we know is that they are "significant." (allegedly, according to the CIA).