Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

wiredtiger8 said: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...

They'll just roll up one morning with some buses, hold a quick referendum, and call it a day. Since the population density out there is so low, getting a majority would be a breeze.

I don't know, I feel like I've heard that exact same theory somewhere before... somewhere...

wiredtiger8 said: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...

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.

Why on earth would China attack Russia? They’d be throwing away the only real ally they have left. Besides, those massive oil and gas reserves aren't even sitting right on the border with China; they're tucked way up north.

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.

gentleviper62 said:Why on earth would China attack Russia? They’d be throwing away the only real ally they have left. Besides, those massive oil and gas reserves aren't even sitting right on the border with China; they're tucked way up north.

Russia is supposed to be China's partner, yet they turn around and sell missiles to India, who might just use them against China!

Geopolitics is such a strange, tangled web, isn't it? 😁

wiredtiger8 said: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.

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.☕

silentnomad7 said:Russia is supposed to be China's partner, yet they turn around and sell missiles to India, who might just use them against China!

Geopolitics is such a strange, tangled web, isn't it? 😁

It's all just business.

wiredtiger8 said: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.

Man, I think you seriously slept through the last decade.

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.

The reality is that China is facing massive internal crises. To start with, they have enough vacant housing in these so-called "ghost cities" to accommodate over 60 million people—places where absolutely nobody actually wants to live. On the flip side, their major metropolitan areas are dealing with a real estate bubble that makes the 2008 American subprime crisis look like a soap bubble. While you might need about 13 average annual salaries to afford a median home in New York, in places like Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen, you’re looking at upwards of 40 years' worth of income. Two-thirds of the major real estate giants have already crossed at least one of the Communist Party's three red lines; Evergrande, sitting on a mountain of debt exceeding $300 billion, has failed all three and is effectively incapable of taking on more debt or even finishing the projects they currently have underway. We've seen over 1.5 million Americans—well, Chinese citizens—stop paying mortgages on unfinished developments where construction has simply ground to a halt, which, when combined with the debts of these property behemoths, puts the entire banking system at risk. Four banks in Henan province have already collapsed, and we've seen tanks deployed to deal with the resulting protests. Furthermore, provincial and municipal budgets are incredibly dependent—in some cases, over 80%—on revenue from selling land to developers, yet the number of new projects is cratering along with apartment sales.

Construction accounts for over 30% of China's GDP. When the Spanish real estate bubble burst about 14 years ago, that sector accounted for 24%, and they still haven't fully recovered. Add to that the fact that the zero-COVID policy is wreaking havoc on their industrial sector, yet Xi continues to double down on it. Supply chain disruptions and general instability are driving away foreign investment, leading many Western corporations to plan a "near-shoring" exodus to bring production closer to home.

Ultimately, I suspect China will mostly play dead during this conflict. They'll snatch up any business opportunities that arise from their relationship with Russia, but they'll be careful not to jeopardize their ties with the West. That said, we shouldn't rule out a domestic Lehman Brothers-style meltdown occurring within China.

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...

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.

wiredtiger8 said: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.

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.

wiredtiger8 said: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.

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.☕

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

👍

boldbison40 said:The reality is that China is facing massive internal crises. To start with, they have enough vacant housing in these so-called "ghost cities" to accommodate over 60 million people—places where absolutely nobody actually wants to live. On the flip side, their major metropolitan areas are dealing with a real estate bubble that makes the 2008 American subprime crisis look like a soap bubble. While you might need about 13 average annual salaries to afford a median home in New York, in places like Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen, you’re looking at upwards of 40 years' worth of income. Two-thirds of the major real estate giants have already crossed at least one of the Communist Party's three red lines; Evergrande, sitting on a mountain of debt exceeding $300 billion, has failed all three and is effectively incapable of taking on more debt or even finishing the projects they currently have underway. We've seen over 1.5 million Americans—well, Chinese citizens—stop paying mortgages on unfinished developments where construction has simply ground to a halt, which, when combined with the debts of these property behemoths, puts the entire banking system at risk. Four banks in Henan province have already collapsed, and we've seen tanks deployed to deal with the resulting protests. Furthermore, provincial and municipal budgets are incredibly dependent—in some cases, over 80%—on revenue from selling land to developers, yet the number of new projects is cratering along with apartment sales.

Construction accounts for over 30% of China's GDP. When the Spanish real estate bubble burst about 14 years ago, that sector accounted for 24%, and they still haven't fully recovered. Add to that the fact that the zero-COVID policy is wreaking havoc on their industrial sector, yet Xi continues to double down on it. Supply chain disruptions and general instability are driving away foreign investment, leading many Western corporations to plan a "near-shoring" exodus to bring production closer to home.

Ultimately, I suspect China will mostly play dead during this conflict. They'll snatch up any business opportunities that arise from their relationship with Russia, but they'll be careful not to jeopardize their ties with the West. That said, we shouldn't rule out a domestic Lehman Brothers-style meltdown occurring within China.

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

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).

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.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Americans? No?

Looking at it from an internal perspective—to us, this whole situation feels perfectly standard. No one views themselves as being overly complex. But when viewed from the outside, the picture often looks quite different...

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...

gentleviper62 said:Why on earth would China attack Russia? They’d be throwing away the only real ally they have left. Besides, those massive oil and gas reserves aren't even sitting right on the border with China; they're tucked way up north.

That’s a fair question. Conflict is almost always about seizing territory. The Chinese are hungry for land just as much as the Russians are—much of China is ruggedly mountainous or consists of vast deserts. And what did the Russians gain from this invasion of Ukraine? They’ve essentially bogged themselves down for nothing, and they will likely emerge from this far weaker than when they started. But that’s a conversation for another time. The Chinese will undoubtedly attempt to exploit this situation to their advantage, one way or another. Much like the Russians, the Chinese don't actually have true allies; they only have vassals.

wiredtiger8 said: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...

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.

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.

The Chinese Navy is likely about ten times weaker than the American one.
There is probably some truth to that comparison with the British Navy, too.

Of course, that assumes you are looking at the quality, scale, and tech on those ships, rather than just counting hulls.
Are two corvettes really equal to two ships? Are two aircraft carriers equal to two ships? Technically, yes... but if I were heading into a fight, I’d much prefer having two carriers.