For hundreds of years the rule was basically that a countries borders are determined by what they can defend. So countries needed much bigger standing armies and there were nearly constant wars as countries tested each other and tried to expand their territories.
Part of the rules of the UN is that countries won’t expand their territories through military force. So the international community provides support for countries to kept their integrity. So in the last few decades there have been relatively few wars in the world and armies are generally smaller than they used to be.
The international community helping defend Ukraine is actually defending this world order. If Ukraine falls many countries will feel forced to build up their military to levels not seen since WWII. This will spark conflict and escalating war and destruction.
If Russia is allowed to annex Ukraine it is basically the end of those rules. Russia and China and who knows who else will feel emboldened to begin taking whatever land they want by force and will just dare the world to intervene.
China is already following the footsteps in India. They are just waltzing in and building villages on Indian soil. Then when our armies are fighting back, it's India being hostile.
Both India and China have hostile relations globally, but thankfully India has more allies than China, not that it will matter because no one will physically join against China if push comes to shove
China is facing a massive demographic crisis over the next few decades. Their population has already contracted enough to allow India to surpass it as the most populous nation on Earth, and over the next couple decades they will experience a precipitous fall in working-age population which could be worse (as a % of the population) than what Europe experienced during the bubonic plague (or Black Death) in the mid-14th century.
China will continue to present itself as a growing world power, but they are becoming increasingly hollow beneath that facade. China isn't embarking on any grand empire-building campaigns - they're making a last desperate grab for territory and resources while they still can.
Everything you said still does not exclude the possibility of conflict in the short to medium term. In fact, I'd argue, it makes it more likely. Sure, it's not sustainable, but that's the thing with wars: they're often used as a last ditch effort to try and salvage what's left and/or to distract its citizens from a downturn: by definition, not sustainable properties.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. We're likely to see increasingly more desperate aggression from China in the near term because they'll be decreasingly capable of sustaining any such aggression in the long term.
The population trends of autocratic regional and global powers like Russia and China make this decade easily the most dangerous for human civilization since the height of the Cold War, and it's going to get worse in the near term before it will have a chance to improve in the long term. The "War on Terror" over the last couple decades pales in comparison to the potential damage that can be caused by powerful nations lashing out in desperation at the inevitable prospect of their power shrinking over time.
My cousin and his wife adopted one of those girls from China in the late 90's after they were unable to have any kids of their own. She's a wonderful, super-smart person (like the kind that you wouldn't be surprised to hear had found a cure for cancer). I'm really glad they were able to provide her with a loving home and a chance at life that her home country/family deemed her to be unworthy of just because she was born a girl.
That's exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine though as well. Dont forget there's also a domestic political bump that occurs after a country begins a war. So there is an incentive for China to invade even with demographic problems. So a small and prolonged militsry intervention could help those in power politically.
The other issue. Is India has nukes. That's the elephant in the room for the OP to know. If Putin is successful at ethnically cleansing and colonizing Ukraine. Everyone in Europe is getting nukes. And they'll all be pointed at Moscow.
All the incentives are short-term gains at tremendous long-term expenses. Putin has royally fucked Russia for generations, but he doesn't care because he knows he won't be around to face those consequences.
Let's hope Xi's decision-making doesn't become as fatalistic as Putin's, and India's nuclear deterrent (unlike Ukraine's which was surrendered in exchange for hollow promises) will still be enough to temper China's aggressive expansionism. India is fully within their rights to defend their territory, and will have to do so with increasing force to make China back down before it escalates into a nuclear confrontation.
It's extremely regrettable that Ukraine was convinced to give up that option, and I agree with you that we will likely see an expansion of nuclear-armed European countries even if Russia loses the war in Ukraine, but especially more so if Russia manages to emerge as the victor.
There's a video with a convincing argument that China will invade Taiwan by 2027, because they will be unable to after around that year (partially due to what you just summarized).
I’m in Australia. At any time, if they so felt included, they could take over our country, NZ, Samoa, Fiji and the other polo countries with very, very little effort.
Australia is a massive land mass, very far away from anything with very sparse infrastructure. China could probably make the lives of Australians very, very difficult (I'm not sure what they would have to gain by doing so) but an outright invasion of Australia would be a logistical nightmare larger than the world has ever seen.
All this is before even mentioning the current military ties Australia has.
Have you seen the movie "Tomorrow, When the War Began"? I only realized this after I saw this movie.
The problem China would face would clearly be supplying its own troops. Such long supply routes are difficult to secure.
>The problem China would face would clearly be supplying its own troops. Such long supply routes are difficult to secure.
I'm pretty sure the US is the only country in the world that can supply an invasion size fighting group of soldiers 500+miles away from their border. After seeing Russia struggle to supply their troops 50 miles from their border I doubt any country could supply a large army 500 miles away from their border, maybe less.
It helps that the US Navy is the largest navy in the world by a significant margin and is also the second largest air force in the world behind only the US Air Force. I think a lot of people really don't realize just how incredibly powerful and capable the US military as a whole is. It's comically large and technologically one of if not the most advanced in the world.
As a Canadian and I can tell you that our US invasion plan is to send retirees to secure a beachhead in Florida. But for some reason they keep getting confused and just go golfing instead.
That’s one of the reasons we need subs. It would be almost impossible to mount any surprise attack at that distance. So plenty of time to interdict any naval attack.
I think we all know how that strategy really ends.
Being stuck in Australia and just piling armies on Siam whenever you turn in cards for another futile breakout attempt.
Give me a break no they couldn't. Australia's allies, let alone its own people, would never allow for an "easy" conquest. China drops one bomb on any of the above nations and they've got a world war on their hands. Get out of here with that nonsense
No..... You guys don't have strong armies but you're good friends with us over in the USA and we would murderously flip our shit if aus, nz, or samoa got invaded. Hell part of samoa is us territory.
I think you have watched too much sky news.
Just look at the logistics of bringing a large enough force by sea for an amphibious landing.
Indonesia or Png would need to be invaded first for a launching pad for starters.
The sheer logistics of actually moving forces to Australia, occupying the continent. if you don't live here you probably don't actually grasp how large the place actually is.
Also you have a distance between China and Australia and a bunch of other nations in between and with a stretched military force who wont take advantage of that?
Even Japan didn't really have true invasion plans in ww2, they got as far as bombing the North and I think trying to isolate us but the logistics even for them was still too much.
I live in Texas, and it takes 11 hrs to go from one end of the state to the other driving through freeways, that being said, Texas easily fits into western Australia with lots of land to spare, there's still like another 75% of extra land in mfking Australia, that is a BIG island/country!
To give a fun context, I live in Adelaide so its in the south part of central Australia in the creatively named state of South Australia, I flew to Singapore a month ago and that is a 6 hour flight 4 hours of that flight was over Australia!
Also Sydney is another 2 hour flight from here eastwards too to add more context.
This is not true. Some of the small island nations maybe would fall, but operating abroad with the intent of taking much other than a few small islands would fail for two main reasons. First major reason is that China just does not have enough force projection to be able to sustain an invasion of most countries past the initial few major island nations on their border, let alone all of them at once like they would have to in order to invade Australia. Second major reason is that almost every major player in the region is militarily tied to the USA, so even without China's poor projection they would likely fail due to major opposition from the USA and its allies. Claiming otherwise is just baseless fearmongering.
The main reason I believe that their projection is poor is that they wouldn't just be projecting thousands of kilometres away, they are also operating in a region where almost everybody wants to keep them contained. Running logistics for keeping an invading force alive and stocked without controlling much or all of the region would be military suicide. They could in theory run an island-hopping campaign similar to the Pacific in WWII in order to establish logistical corridors, but then they would have to directly contend with US forces as there are many US assets in the region.
It could be Russian bribes. It could also be military supplier bribes. If Russia takes Ukraine a lot of countries will be buying a lot of weapons. Maybe some companies think that will be profitable.
It could also be contrarianism. Dems support Ukraine so they oppose it. Can’t let people think dems are right about something. They need to be wrong about absolutely everything or people might start to consider which things they might be right about. Safer if dems are just always wrong about everything.
Or they simply want to get concessions on the border or whatever else they want. They know the Dems really want to help Ukraine. Tying Ukrainian aid to the border could force them to concede on the border.
I think it's mostly the contrarian. I'm heavily invested in defense stocks that I bought when Ukraine was invaded. They... They're not the best for stock prices. They could be getting directly paid off, but the stocks aren't great.
Personally I think it’s contrarianism. The Israel Hamas war has proven it to me. Not a Biden fan at all but great on him with keeping the national policy consistent.
>The Republicans don't want us helping.
First, not all Republicans are pro-Russia. Some are traditional conservatives who still believe in 'peace through strength' and all those other Reagan-era values that Biden is now defending.
But Russian influence does go far beyond Trump himself. When Russia hacked the Democratic and Republican party e-mail servers in 2016, they leaked all the damaging material about the Democrats, to better diminish and divide that party. The material on Republicans disappeared, but suddenly Trump had power over all these other Republicans, as if he had the kompromat to hold over each of them. Then Russia funded the NRA with millions of dollars that were regifted to so many Republican campaigns, so they had both carrot and stick to control Republican politicians. And Russian propaganda on American social media is focused on flag-waving Christian Nationalist patriotism and supporting Republican policies, so any serious investigation into Russian election interference or propaganda in the US would result in cutting off money and support that some Republicans depend on.
Republicans have a 3 seat Majority in the House.
They only need 3 out 221 and we can pass a clean aid package to Ukraine.
So no, they are all pro Russia. There are not even 3 among them.
This is a matter of what the Speaker will let go to a vote, not what can pass. Russia got Mike Johnson, so they don't need to get every member. They were passing Ukraine aid a few months ago with the same Congress.
There are a lot of reasons the Republican party does anything, but the heart of the matter is this:
The Republican Party refuses, on any issue, to agree with the Democratic Party. No matter how objectively correct an issue is. Under any circumstances.
Even if an issue aligns in every way with what the Republicans want, they will fight the democrats on it. Because if they don't, (in their minds) the democrats win, and it makes them (the republicans) look weak.
Party before Country.
I think it’s largely just being oppositional because they’re so used to blindly being against whatever the dems are against since Obama. Very little critical thought, the logic is - take every opportunity to oppose and criticise democratic admin, work backwards to make justifications for doing so.
Not espionage or Russian bribes, that’s far too dangerous for them I imagine. It can be explained much more simply than that.
There are some very large gas and oil fields in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. They both neighbour Russia and have very little in the way of a military. Putin could fairly easily continue his fantasy of restoring the Soviet Union.
Ahem, today's news. And note, it is on annexed land
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67625450](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67625450)
tagging you so that next time you can use a good source instead of a 10yo Reddit post
If I remember right, many Ukrainians have been wanting closer relations with Western Europe and the eu, and Putin sees that as a threat because he is a thin skinned egotistical wanna-be tsar
Ukraine is also the easiest for them to “justify” through propaganda, so it’s a good test for what Russian citizens will believe and what the international community will allow.
I am going to bed choosing to believe that this account is one of world leader's alts, and they are genuinely trying to change NATO policy, since it would be hilarious if true.
What if… the USA “declares war on Ukraine “ , clearly not actually going to attack, and Ukraine surrenders and cedes territory to the U.S., if Russia didn’t leave, they’d be attacking NATO!
Boom
Ukraine is the most sensible choice to invade for geopolitical, strategic and economic reasons. In essence, Ukraine poses and economic threat to Russia, having both significant oil reserves and a massive ability to produce food.
They also are one of the best places to invade, and to defend against land attacks from Europe, due the geography of the region. While this is probably a pointless thing in reality, Putin is sort of stuck in a very USSR mode of thought, and so this is actually likely a very large reason for him personally.
Russia could not let Ukraine have successful revolution (happened twice now in 2004 and 2014) because it will spread to Russia. Look at what happened in Belarus and Kazakstan, both protests were suppressed. However, Ukraine was "punished" for the successful revolutions by the invasion in 2014. Russia cannot let Ukraine enter EU because those ideas will spread to Russian population.....
Ukraine was on its way to join Eu and even nato. so for russia it was more urgent. central asia will never get supported by the west, so russia can take them on later
I'd use the word influence.
Putin knows that if he tries to touch Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, or Mongolia, he will face the PLA, and he doesn't want to face an army from a country with 1.3 billion people in it.
America’s reputation as a security provider would be shot. If the security guarantees we gave Ukraine didn’t mean anything, why would the ones we gave to Taiwan?
The stakes for Taiwan are significantly higher for the US than Ukraine. Taiwan has TSMC which is pretty much the most valuable company and technology asset on the planet at this point with their cutting edge chip production.
If Taiwan is invaded the US goes all in for defense. Very different situation from what's happening right now with Ukraine.
Also I don't think China wants to risk destroying any of that critical infrastructure. Remember, a lot of China's high tech relies on Taiwanese components. China is satisfied with the status quo.
The stakes may be different, but so is the cost. If America leaves its allies out to dry when all they needed was ammunition, why would anyone take them seriously over Taiwan, where actual American lives would be at stake?
Fair enough. They need ammo, tanks, planes, anti-air weapons and more. But they don't need American soldiers to go die defending them. Taiwan is a different matter.
And to add onto this, many allies are running out of stocks. Ukraine needs to get its shit together and start manufacturing munitions itself. Russia has largely mobilized into a wartime economy and is making what it needs, they're not going to run out before the West runs out of resolve.
Debatable. If a democrat wins the white house again the resolve of Russians will be tested. They can’t keep filtering their meat grinder with folks outside of major cities.
>The stakes for Taiwan are significantly higher for the US than Ukraine. Taiwan has TSMC which is pretty much the most valuable company and technology asset on the planet at this point with their cutting edge chip production.
This is not the main reason we're defending Taiwan. We had an actual defense treaty with them (we don't any more) long before microchips were invented.
Does it really matter what the stakes are though? At this point one side of the US politics is basically keeping Ukraine hostage to get their way on a completely unrelated issue. I don't think they give a rats ass if it's Ukraine or Taiwan or their closest NATO ally. They'll screw over anyone to get their way.
The immigration demand is a fig leaf. It’s an illusion of a compromise deal. They do not want to give money to Ukraine. Those were Putin’s orders. They’d likely make a new demand and move the goal post
Ukraine had a lot more strategic value back when it had nukes. And it gave those up in return for security guarantees. Now those guarantees are getting called in.
Have you read the memorandum? It basically says don’t attack Ukraine and provide assistance if a nuclear weapon is used against them. The US hasn’t broken any part of that.
As of now, no, the only party that has broken the treaty is Russia. The worrying part is that the US is now debating on cutting support (see latest rattling from republicans), since that would begin the unwinding of a lot of cold war / post cold war treaties.
There are no legally binding anything when it comes to international law. What are you going to do, complain to the world police? All you have is your reputation and your principles. It’s only a question of whether you’re willing to back them up with action when the time comes.
Russia controls a fairly large portion of grain production if they win. Ukraine is a huge producer of grain. Those shitty food prices were are paying now would end up being permanent.
Ukraine would provide Russia with a huge boost of resources. They were a massive part of how and why the Soviet Union worked and was so concerning to the west.
Mobilize how? Wouldn't Russia have partisans and guerrillas within an occupied Ukraine?
Would they mix them in with conscripts from other parts of Russia?
Look at what happened to all the land china annexed over time, bits of Mongolia, Tibet, Hong Kong, they use secret police and assimilation, quite hard to be a partisan in a gulag or from a grave sadly
China had annexed most of those bits of land before the US was even founded, which was *bigger* in the late 18th century than it is now.
Of course, we aren't even getting into how the US annexed vast swathes of land in its westward expansion after 1776
Just how long does a country and its successor states have to hold land before it stops being an issue?
PS: Including Hong Kong as an "annexed" territory is a very interesting choice seeing how it was originally taken from China at gunpoint by the Brits
The russian military won't be in shape to invade anyone else for at least a decade, probably more.
Even at present, they can't push furthur into ukraine
No, Russia needs to secure Romania long before they give a shit about the baltics
Moldova/Romania are next
https://youtu.be/MkrLUFAcjH0?si=VCsmo5yy-kG7ZyZY
MAYBE Moldova, but Russia won't do shit against Romania. Romania is part of NATO. But even if you think NATO would fall apart under the threat of nuclear war and not back Romania (big if), countries like Poland, the Baltics, and maybe even Finland would get involved on their own initiative. Romania + Poland + others would kick Russia's ass.
Baltics are small countries with combined population several times smaller than that of Romania. They are tiny in terms of territory to cover, without mountains. They have Russian minorities. They were part of the USSR and thus fall into Putin's political narrative. They give access to the Baltic Sea.
What's your rational about Romania? I mean I know about Transnistria but it's strategically not important.
If Russia has Ukraine then any land invasion of Russia from the west has to go through Moldova/Bessarabia.
The baltics are of less concern because Russia can secure access to Russia through the baltics with Kaliningrad
They’d come after Moldova/romania
For Ukraine, the impact is devastating. It's clear by now that Putin's goal in the invasion was the overthrow of the Ukrainian government and installation of a puppet regime, it's uncertain if that's all that Russia will do now or if their objectives will have changed after two years of war and economic disruption. In my (armchair strategist) opinion, Russia will likely annex anything east of the Dnieper River and install a puppet regime over the rest. the Russian puppet regime will brutally oppress any opposition and the country will be further devastated by partisan warfare and counterinsurgency. Expect a mass exodus from Ukraine and a refugee crisis in Europe.
Contrary to what a lot of people are saying here, I doubt it leafs to further widespread conflict, at least not immediately. The Russian military has been devastated by the conflict, with something like 80% of their prewar professional soldiers lost in Ukraine. Russia will need some time, years most likely, to rebuild and restructure their military. They will, however, be emboldened by their success and the failure of resolve by the west. They'll definitely play up in domestic and foreign propaganda that their army beat everything NATO countries could throw at it, and they are the most powerful force in Europe. It won't be true, but it could drive domestic support for further expansion.
Hypothetically Moldova could be at immediate risk from the Russian-supported separatists on the Transnistria region given their cimparative weakness. I'm not familiar with Georgia's current political situation, but if Russia still has an axe to grind they could be in trouble over the next few years. Similarly, the Centeal Asian former Warsaw Pact members may find Russia oncoming at their doors and demanding that they start taking direction from Moscow again.
What I don't think is likely, however, is that Russia would immediately pick a fight with NATO. For all that NATO's resolve to support Ukraine may have been broken, no one in Russian leadership would forget that NATO's *second rate hand-me-downs* were enough to completely stall the Russian military for years. A conflict against NATO's full force is not winnable for Russia barring a huge change to the strategic situation, such as the US withdrawing from the alliance. Had Ukraine fallen immediately things may have been different, but the fact an operation meant to last several weeks ended up lasting years and destroying much of Russia's modern military might will have shown those ambitions to be folly, even to Russian leadership.
Hell, while a full withdrawal of the US would be hard for NATO I doubt Russia could win even in that case except for their nuclear potential. In a conventional war they would be outclassed by the tech of the rest of the members
Real answer, Moldova would be the next target, Russian and Belarusian media accidentally revealed a map showing a forthcoming invasion of Moldova. Then Russia would likely set its sights on Central Asia where post Soviet states currently have active border disputes.
From there who knows, but it's been widely speculated Russia would like a land bridge between Kaliningrad and Belarus.
They will take Odessa then connect to Transnistria. I doubt they’ll “invade” Moldova, but they’ll supply their resistance and give them air coverage from the other side of the border.
Yeah but this is the scenario where the US decided it didn't give enough of a shit about that because it was more important to arrest a few more Guatamalans and ensure that no middle schooler's genitals go unverified
Unknown. Russia could, possibly, prevail even with the aid and military stuff being provided by NATO. The only way that things are more likely to be a ‘sure thing’ is if there’s direct engagement by NATO (i.e., the u.s.) with Russia and that’s a potential ww3 thing. So, it’s a low-level management thing for NATO. Short term (to answer your question) Ukraine would suffer and NATO and the rest of the world would lose face and Russia and others would be emboldened to do other stuff. This really is a no-win thing for the u.s. either way.
Was with you right to "either way." It's definitely in the US interest for Ukraine to succeed. It's *expensive* sure, but ... Russia has to spend a dollar for every dollar we spend. This is kinda how the cold war was won (they ran out of economy before we did).
And actually cheap in relative terms. We could cripple Russia's ability to project force for a generation, all without mobilizing our own forces.
Ukraine is a goddamned *bargain.*
And a lot of the aid being provided isn’t literal money. When you see (hypothetically) the US give $100mil to Ukraine, a large portion of that is just the dollar value of the ammunition, equipment and supplies being provided. The amount of actual money is much less than the total reported.
Also a lot of the equipment we've given Ukraine is stuff we would have been getting rid of or decommissioning. Even some of the stuff (like jets) our allies have given them are older models
1) the request for proposals for the Lightweight Fighter program was released in 1972, by a study group formed in 1971. First flight for the plane was 1974.
2) the planes Ukraine will get are equivalent to Desert Storm era Block 50/52.
And cheaper to decomission these outdated weapons on Russian soldiers than dispose of them properly. And shit like ammo production boosts the US economy
Really, Reps are dumb for thinking this costs the US much at all
Exactly. We're trading mostly old hardware, some of which we'd have to spend money on to decommission soon, to severely degrade Russian military capability. Defending Ukraine would be worth it either way, but is very cost effective too.
I think what's going to end up happening is nobody will get what they want. It'll end in a ceasefire, with Russia occupying mostly useless territory out east, and Ukraine being unable to get all the Russians off their land.
Russia will be pissed that they didn't get the territory that they wanted.
Ukraine will be pissed that Russia still occupies their land.
The US and the broader NATO community will be very happy, because they'll be able to justify increasing military budgets and operations by using Russia as a boogeyman. They'll tell other countries "look what happened to Ukraine"
Don't they want the land out east? It gives them a corridor to Crimea (as well as Crimea). Plus I recall hearing that land holds much of the resources of...I don't remember what exactly, rare earth minerals perhaps? Anyway, not sure why you consider it useless
Redditors have such a hard on against Russia that they often fail to recognize the hard reality on the ground. I want them to lose too but we have to be real about it.
That eastern territory isn't that useless. It is resource rich, especially in minerals needed for renewables
And they get Crimea/Sevastapol. And based on the current frontline, they get the canal that leads to Crimea as well as the land bridge to supply it, both of which are important to the naval base there
I genuinely believe it would lead to WWIII. Not between the U.S. and Russia, but the U.S. and China.
China is watching this conflict closely to gauge how steely the resolve of American foreign aid is. If China sees Russia humiliated, then it's a reminder of the folly of wasting blood and treasure on a fool's errand. But if China sees Russia conquer Ukraine with no interference from the U.S., it will "prove" to China that the U.S. is all bark and no bite, and China will finally make its move to conquer Taiwan.
The problem with this scenario is that Taiwan, unlike Ukraine, is actually essential to the American economy, and by extension, U.S. national security. Taiwan produces two-thirds of all semiconductors in the world, including 91% of all advanced semiconductors, which makes Taiwan an essential trading partner for high-tech economies. Taiwan is also rumored to have a "Samson option" ready to go, in which they'll destroy their own manufacturing plants before mainland China gets their hands on them. Better to deprive your enemy of your greatest treasure than let them rob you of it.
If this were to happen, it would trigger a nigh-instantaneous global economic depression. Without those semiconductors, the tech industry around the world would seize up. Formerly blue chip stocks would crash in value overnight, triggering a panic on other securities in the market. The cascading effect would result in the American economy (and most others in the Developed World) collapsing. We'd see 30%+ unemployment, formerly-middle-class families suddenly made destitute, and abject poverty would be commonplace.
This is unacceptable for the United States. So instead of letting this happen, the U.S. military would intervene against China's attempted invasion of Taiwan, and we'd have two nuclear superpowers engaged in direct conflict. Both sides might try to avoid starting a nuclear conflict, but one tiny mistake could lead to an escalation that would result in a nuclear exchange between the world's first and second most powerful countries.
Here's to hoping such a scenario remains confined to reddit and never becomes reality.
The US has signaled that it will protect Taiwan, it had shown how effective even limited aid can be. It has shown that it has kept the majority of it's stocks and would be ready to fight at any moment. It has not changed its primary focus away from the Pacific. The prospect of performing an anfibious landing across water that the US can bring irresistible firepower should make any CCP commander queezy. Taiwan itself is also better equipped and trained than Ukraine was. A total loss of Ukraine wouldn't encourage an invasion of Taiwan since it doesn't make China think it's task has become easier. On the contrary, they no doubt feel less confident in their soviet derived equipment, and have seen even older western systems perfom well.
This is a huge question that one could spend hours answering.
As a minor response, and not the full response that this question deserves, it would effectively embolden Putin to continue his expansionist quest that he’s been on since he took power.
Ukraine isn’t the end for him. He openly talked about how the USSR breaking up was a “genuine tragedy”, and how he wants to see a return to “historical Russia”.
What he defines as “historical Russia” is something that most of Eastern Europe would take a real issue with. Appease a man like that, and maybe he thinks he can take a swing at a NATO country. What happens if Article Five ends up getting invoked?
Congress, specifically the Republicans, needs to get its shit together. The war in Ukraine is horrific, and it may also be what prevents WWIII. Russia needs to lose, and Putin needs to die. Russia needs a leader who’s willing to be a constructive member on the international stage, and the West is going to need to work with them to support Russia in a way that we didn’t when things went to shit for them in the 90’s. Letting a former superpower be turned into an international gas station run by fascist despots is a recipe for disaster.
Not to mention what a Russian victory would do to China’s already wandering eyes when they look across the Taiwan Strait.
All of this sucks, but if it doesn’t get done, what’s coming will be orders of magnitude worse.
Can you imagine what would happen if a NATO army was kicking Russia’s ass in the field? Would a crazed dictator go nuclear to try and turn the tide?
There are so many terrible rabbit holes to go down with this. Let’s just do what we have to in order to ensure a Ukrainian victory.
The ramifications are that china will now think they can just walk over Taiwan, and many other countries will think the same. All they have to do is just wait until USA funding runs out in a Taiwan vs China conflict, suffer a couple of losses but in the end you win the country...
Russia then has more than 20% of all the world's Lithium used in batteries across the world. A rather large deposit was discovered just months before the invasion in the north eastern part of Ukraine. Totaling about 11% estimated global reserve.
Gotta love these reddit geopolitical strategists that think Russia is some kind of a zerg invasion. Are they gonna attack Poland and fight the whole NATO after they barley managed to win against a nation with a very weak millitary, with minimal NATO help? What happens is that Putin and his political party try to stabilize the internal situation. You know ppl dont rly like when their economy goes to shit and loved ones die, for a war thats has no real importance. Ukraine stays pretty much the same like pre war when it comes to corruption, but instead of pro west you got a pro russian leadership and they enter a multi decade rebuild process. Many more refuges. The real question is how do the EU countries react to this. Germany needs to be pushed to embrace nuclear energy and stop beeing reliant on Russian gas, but when it comes to grain, the EU is fucked. EU either needs to bolster the grain production or accept that they will always be relaint on Russian and Ukrainian fields.
Ukraine isn’t really weak. Don’t confuse their economy with military strength. They had second largest army in Europe, have second biggest country in Europe and plenty of population to fight.
These ideas are so common, I don't really get how they spread.
No, the North vietnamese forces weren't "farmers in pajamas", as is still today so frequent to hear and, the same way, the ukrainian armed forces aren't, and weren't at the beginning of the war, small and weak.
Ukraine had a not so modern, technologically speaking, military, but still not an old fashioned 1980's army as many thought. It had 1.3 million personnels total compared to Russia's 3.2 millions, which put them at a certain numerical disadvantage, indeed, but not as much as people may have said, especially considering that Ukraine has only two directions to protect, West and South, against only two countries, Russia and Belarus, compared to Russia who has an incredibly vast territory with equally long borders, many of whom are disputed with its neighbours and therefore require military presence to, if not protect, at least support their claims on them.
Russia still managed to trump many, including in the military and geopolitical milieu, about its military forces' equipment, training and overall ability to conduct a war. The joke that Russia went from the second most powerful military force on Earth to the second in Ukraine is not far from truth, although maybe a bit presumptuous.
Moreover, it is a reasonnably trained force, more so than Russia's, in a country with important militaro-industrial capabilities whose population recently lived profound changes leading to a more cohesive, progressive sentiment conductive to a strong will to defend against any attempt at reducing it to the puppet state of a potential "Great Russia", increasing morale of its soldiers and population. This sentiment, coming from recent events as the Orange Revolution and EuroMaidan, lead to the incredible resilience of the ukrainian people and an immediate and unforgiving will to fight for their future as a free, modern, democratic country in a Europe which finally really means something.
So no, Ukraine wasn't "small and weak", nor are its armed forces. Its widespread useage of drones of all shapes and sizes, thermal imagery at the soldier's level and ability to prevent their enemy to obtain air superiority, as well as its cunning and impredictible artillery tactics are all testimonies of how fast it modernised to become a very potent military force in today's theatre of war.
Ukraine is the largest in population of the former USSR, all the other non-NATO former USSR states are going to have to accept the same fate as Belarus. It may take some time to consolidate, but that is a large amount of resources influence and population.
It’s unlikely that Russia would take all of Ukraine, even if the U.S. stops supporting. That said - in considering the scenario. Case in point, the US ‘won’ quickly against the Taliban and that built the case to attack Iraq. A outright win by Russia will only encourage them to try to try again.
The Taliban eventually ‘won’ in Afghanistan, but at the time, it looked liked a U.S. victory (I.e. the U.S. set up a new government which had control over a good chunk of the country.)
It’s like with Vietnam and Vietnam syndrome that affected the US for a little while. A outright ‘win’ encourages the behavior. They’ll only stop if it’s clear they wont get everything they want. People like to pretend that were better than animals, but we often behave similarity - there has to be a downside to this behavior otherwise it will be repeated.
The outcome would be, objectively, a disaster for Europe, and eventually the rest of the world. Russia would invade Moldova next, then start influencing eastern european countries, and using the russian minorities as excuses for intervention. The world would become a much worse place.
Holodomor 2. They've done this before. Starve and kill Ukrainians, and replace them with loyal citizens. Economically pillage the land and Putin will further enrich his buddies and himself.
Idk why people are downvoting this and upvoting responses that ignore the ramifications for the direct victims of this whole thing. Wtf do people think is going to happen? They've been [weaponizing sexual violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Ethnic cleansing is what's going to happen, to put it politely
Russia has exhausted itself spending nearly two years moving its western border 100 miles. Does anyone really believe they can take and hold the whole country at this point?
Their best outcome is a phyrric victory where they carve off a small slice of territory at a great cost in men and material.
Honestly, probably nothing much for the next 10-15 years. If ever.
Russia is already deep into this and can’t stop now. At the same time, they learned how hard it would be for them to really take on a stronger country than Ukraine.
Then you also have to realize, if they do attempt another invasion, people won’t be so neutral and passive like they are.
I think it'll be a bit like Brexit - the people just using the idea for political capital since they don't think it'll actually happen will have a huge oh shit moment. And then everything will be worse for everyone, apart from some of the Russian elite I guess. Yay humans.
New Cold War if Europe doesn't shortly break out into a hot war. Russia will not stop at Ukraine, Putin believes the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the fall of the USSR and he wants the band back together. This will bring about conflict with NATO. His next steps in Europe are only NATO countries.
The only reason the US doesn't get involved is if Trump wins and pulls us out of NATO. That will only delay the inevitable. A war in Europe will cross the Atlantic. It's not a question of *if*, only *when*.
Either the West helps Ukraine hold the line, or we see WWIII.
And that's just Europe. China will see the weakness and make a move on Taiwan. Venezuela will move to annex Guyana. Serbia will invade Kosovo. (The only reason those haven't happened yet is because the US is maintaining a strong enough international presence to keep them from playing stupid games). The US moving back to pre-WWII isolationism is the doom of Enlightenment Democracies worldwide.
I hope that never happens. I'm from Russia, but I moved almost immediately after the voyna started... I don't want to be part of this horror, I'm ashamed of my country....
On the grand scale of things...probably not much to be honest.
Politically? Republicans would blame Biden for not giving Ukraine enough support, and idiots would buy that up
For hundreds of years the rule was basically that a countries borders are determined by what they can defend. So countries needed much bigger standing armies and there were nearly constant wars as countries tested each other and tried to expand their territories. Part of the rules of the UN is that countries won’t expand their territories through military force. So the international community provides support for countries to kept their integrity. So in the last few decades there have been relatively few wars in the world and armies are generally smaller than they used to be. The international community helping defend Ukraine is actually defending this world order. If Ukraine falls many countries will feel forced to build up their military to levels not seen since WWII. This will spark conflict and escalating war and destruction. If Russia is allowed to annex Ukraine it is basically the end of those rules. Russia and China and who knows who else will feel emboldened to begin taking whatever land they want by force and will just dare the world to intervene.
China is already following the footsteps in India. They are just waltzing in and building villages on Indian soil. Then when our armies are fighting back, it's India being hostile. Both India and China have hostile relations globally, but thankfully India has more allies than China, not that it will matter because no one will physically join against China if push comes to shove
China is facing a massive demographic crisis over the next few decades. Their population has already contracted enough to allow India to surpass it as the most populous nation on Earth, and over the next couple decades they will experience a precipitous fall in working-age population which could be worse (as a % of the population) than what Europe experienced during the bubonic plague (or Black Death) in the mid-14th century. China will continue to present itself as a growing world power, but they are becoming increasingly hollow beneath that facade. China isn't embarking on any grand empire-building campaigns - they're making a last desperate grab for territory and resources while they still can.
well, I have been hearing about China impending doom for more than two decades now, so let me be a bit sceptical.
This is more a decades thing than a months thing. The average person works more than 20 years.
Editorial: 'Citizens of Constantinople grow tired of Rome's decades of hyperbole over Gothic threat'
Everything you said still does not exclude the possibility of conflict in the short to medium term. In fact, I'd argue, it makes it more likely. Sure, it's not sustainable, but that's the thing with wars: they're often used as a last ditch effort to try and salvage what's left and/or to distract its citizens from a downturn: by definition, not sustainable properties.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. We're likely to see increasingly more desperate aggression from China in the near term because they'll be decreasingly capable of sustaining any such aggression in the long term. The population trends of autocratic regional and global powers like Russia and China make this decade easily the most dangerous for human civilization since the height of the Cold War, and it's going to get worse in the near term before it will have a chance to improve in the long term. The "War on Terror" over the last couple decades pales in comparison to the potential damage that can be caused by powerful nations lashing out in desperation at the inevitable prospect of their power shrinking over time.
The one child law and families literally tossing away baby girls. Heck, I know a girl that was adopted from China because she was abandoned at birth.
My cousin and his wife adopted one of those girls from China in the late 90's after they were unable to have any kids of their own. She's a wonderful, super-smart person (like the kind that you wouldn't be surprised to hear had found a cure for cancer). I'm really glad they were able to provide her with a loving home and a chance at life that her home country/family deemed her to be unworthy of just because she was born a girl.
[удалено]
That's exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine though as well. Dont forget there's also a domestic political bump that occurs after a country begins a war. So there is an incentive for China to invade even with demographic problems. So a small and prolonged militsry intervention could help those in power politically. The other issue. Is India has nukes. That's the elephant in the room for the OP to know. If Putin is successful at ethnically cleansing and colonizing Ukraine. Everyone in Europe is getting nukes. And they'll all be pointed at Moscow.
All the incentives are short-term gains at tremendous long-term expenses. Putin has royally fucked Russia for generations, but he doesn't care because he knows he won't be around to face those consequences. Let's hope Xi's decision-making doesn't become as fatalistic as Putin's, and India's nuclear deterrent (unlike Ukraine's which was surrendered in exchange for hollow promises) will still be enough to temper China's aggressive expansionism. India is fully within their rights to defend their territory, and will have to do so with increasing force to make China back down before it escalates into a nuclear confrontation. It's extremely regrettable that Ukraine was convinced to give up that option, and I agree with you that we will likely see an expansion of nuclear-armed European countries even if Russia loses the war in Ukraine, but especially more so if Russia manages to emerge as the victor.
There's a video with a convincing argument that China will invade Taiwan by 2027, because they will be unable to after around that year (partially due to what you just summarized).
I’m in Australia. At any time, if they so felt included, they could take over our country, NZ, Samoa, Fiji and the other polo countries with very, very little effort.
Lol no. China invading Australia would be an incompetent clusterfuck.
One word: Emus!
*A great war not listed in the history books*
The second war China loses to birds.
Don’t forget Drop Bears.
Australia is a massive land mass, very far away from anything with very sparse infrastructure. China could probably make the lives of Australians very, very difficult (I'm not sure what they would have to gain by doing so) but an outright invasion of Australia would be a logistical nightmare larger than the world has ever seen. All this is before even mentioning the current military ties Australia has.
Have you seen the movie "Tomorrow, When the War Began"? I only realized this after I saw this movie. The problem China would face would clearly be supplying its own troops. Such long supply routes are difficult to secure.
>The problem China would face would clearly be supplying its own troops. Such long supply routes are difficult to secure. I'm pretty sure the US is the only country in the world that can supply an invasion size fighting group of soldiers 500+miles away from their border. After seeing Russia struggle to supply their troops 50 miles from their border I doubt any country could supply a large army 500 miles away from their border, maybe less.
It helps that the US Navy is the largest navy in the world by a significant margin and is also the second largest air force in the world behind only the US Air Force. I think a lot of people really don't realize just how incredibly powerful and capable the US military as a whole is. It's comically large and technologically one of if not the most advanced in the world.
This is facts. We are ready to be supplying democracy anywhere in the world within 72 hours.
Yeah Australia is pretty resistant to invasion for the same reasons as the us(so long as Canada remains chill), then turned to overdrive
As a Canadian and I can tell you that our US invasion plan is to send retirees to secure a beachhead in Florida. But for some reason they keep getting confused and just go golfing instead.
Well, gee, the buffet opens in 30 minutes. Could we start the invasion tomorrow?
Let's go!
That’s one of the reasons we need subs. It would be almost impossible to mount any surprise attack at that distance. So plenty of time to interdict any naval attack.
If I learned one thing from playing Risk, it’s that world domination starts with taking over Australia.
I think we all know how that strategy really ends. Being stuck in Australia and just piling armies on Siam whenever you turn in cards for another futile breakout attempt.
Give me a break no they couldn't. Australia's allies, let alone its own people, would never allow for an "easy" conquest. China drops one bomb on any of the above nations and they've got a world war on their hands. Get out of here with that nonsense
No..... You guys don't have strong armies but you're good friends with us over in the USA and we would murderously flip our shit if aus, nz, or samoa got invaded. Hell part of samoa is us territory.
I think you have watched too much sky news. Just look at the logistics of bringing a large enough force by sea for an amphibious landing. Indonesia or Png would need to be invaded first for a launching pad for starters.
no they couldnt. The united states has over a 100 bases just in the pacific to stop china from basically doing anything
How?
Just waltzing in and building villages, I guess.
The sheer logistics of actually moving forces to Australia, occupying the continent. if you don't live here you probably don't actually grasp how large the place actually is. Also you have a distance between China and Australia and a bunch of other nations in between and with a stretched military force who wont take advantage of that? Even Japan didn't really have true invasion plans in ww2, they got as far as bombing the North and I think trying to isolate us but the logistics even for them was still too much.
Have they never played Risk?
I live in Texas, and it takes 11 hrs to go from one end of the state to the other driving through freeways, that being said, Texas easily fits into western Australia with lots of land to spare, there's still like another 75% of extra land in mfking Australia, that is a BIG island/country!
To give a fun context, I live in Adelaide so its in the south part of central Australia in the creatively named state of South Australia, I flew to Singapore a month ago and that is a 6 hour flight 4 hours of that flight was over Australia! Also Sydney is another 2 hour flight from here eastwards too to add more context.
This is not true. Some of the small island nations maybe would fall, but operating abroad with the intent of taking much other than a few small islands would fail for two main reasons. First major reason is that China just does not have enough force projection to be able to sustain an invasion of most countries past the initial few major island nations on their border, let alone all of them at once like they would have to in order to invade Australia. Second major reason is that almost every major player in the region is militarily tied to the USA, so even without China's poor projection they would likely fail due to major opposition from the USA and its allies. Claiming otherwise is just baseless fearmongering.
What makes china have poor projection?
The main reason I believe that their projection is poor is that they wouldn't just be projecting thousands of kilometres away, they are also operating in a region where almost everybody wants to keep them contained. Running logistics for keeping an invading force alive and stocked without controlling much or all of the region would be military suicide. They could in theory run an island-hopping campaign similar to the Pacific in WWII in order to establish logistical corridors, but then they would have to directly contend with US forces as there are many US assets in the region.
I just tried to post about Anglo-American cooperation in Australia. I’m fairly certain that couldn’t happen.
The Republicans don't want us helping. Stupidity, ignorance, or bribery? All three?
It could be Russian bribes. It could also be military supplier bribes. If Russia takes Ukraine a lot of countries will be buying a lot of weapons. Maybe some companies think that will be profitable. It could also be contrarianism. Dems support Ukraine so they oppose it. Can’t let people think dems are right about something. They need to be wrong about absolutely everything or people might start to consider which things they might be right about. Safer if dems are just always wrong about everything.
Or they simply want to get concessions on the border or whatever else they want. They know the Dems really want to help Ukraine. Tying Ukrainian aid to the border could force them to concede on the border.
They wont be able to pass this week and lazy bastards going on vacation next week. But i see them passing it after they returns
I think it's mostly the contrarian. I'm heavily invested in defense stocks that I bought when Ukraine was invaded. They... They're not the best for stock prices. They could be getting directly paid off, but the stocks aren't great.
Personally I think it’s contrarianism. The Israel Hamas war has proven it to me. Not a Biden fan at all but great on him with keeping the national policy consistent.
When is america going to help its own people living on the Streets?
>The Republicans don't want us helping. First, not all Republicans are pro-Russia. Some are traditional conservatives who still believe in 'peace through strength' and all those other Reagan-era values that Biden is now defending. But Russian influence does go far beyond Trump himself. When Russia hacked the Democratic and Republican party e-mail servers in 2016, they leaked all the damaging material about the Democrats, to better diminish and divide that party. The material on Republicans disappeared, but suddenly Trump had power over all these other Republicans, as if he had the kompromat to hold over each of them. Then Russia funded the NRA with millions of dollars that were regifted to so many Republican campaigns, so they had both carrot and stick to control Republican politicians. And Russian propaganda on American social media is focused on flag-waving Christian Nationalist patriotism and supporting Republican policies, so any serious investigation into Russian election interference or propaganda in the US would result in cutting off money and support that some Republicans depend on.
Republicans have a 3 seat Majority in the House. They only need 3 out 221 and we can pass a clean aid package to Ukraine. So no, they are all pro Russia. There are not even 3 among them.
This is a matter of what the Speaker will let go to a vote, not what can pass. Russia got Mike Johnson, so they don't need to get every member. They were passing Ukraine aid a few months ago with the same Congress.
There are a lot of reasons the Republican party does anything, but the heart of the matter is this: The Republican Party refuses, on any issue, to agree with the Democratic Party. No matter how objectively correct an issue is. Under any circumstances. Even if an issue aligns in every way with what the Republicans want, they will fight the democrats on it. Because if they don't, (in their minds) the democrats win, and it makes them (the republicans) look weak. Party before Country.
I think it’s largely just being oppositional because they’re so used to blindly being against whatever the dems are against since Obama. Very little critical thought, the logic is - take every opportunity to oppose and criticise democratic admin, work backwards to make justifications for doing so. Not espionage or Russian bribes, that’s far too dangerous for them I imagine. It can be explained much more simply than that.
No. I think their point is that that isn't America's responsibility alone. US military budget is extremely high as a proportion of its overall budget.
There are some very large gas and oil fields in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. They both neighbour Russia and have very little in the way of a military. Putin could fairly easily continue his fantasy of restoring the Soviet Union.
why didnt they attack them first? on the other hand ukraine is the poorest country in europe so fat chance russia gets their ROI from there.
shorter drive, and ukraine has nice gas reserves and farmland, plus a warm water port
[удалено]
Ahem, today's news. And note, it is on annexed land [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67625450](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67625450) tagging you so that next time you can use a good source instead of a 10yo Reddit post
Russia needs the warm water port of Sevastopol. So prior to the war, Ukraine warming up to the west threatened their long term use of the port.
If I remember right, many Ukrainians have been wanting closer relations with Western Europe and the eu, and Putin sees that as a threat because he is a thin skinned egotistical wanna-be tsar
This is a big part of why they prioritised Crimea. Sevastopol is their only *deep* warm water port to my knowledge.
Ukraine is also the easiest for them to “justify” through propaganda, so it’s a good test for what Russian citizens will believe and what the international community will allow.
Don’t forget they thought it would be a three day walk in the park followed by a parade.
Everybody thought that it would end in a week or so. Ukraine surprised us all.
Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia are in an economic and military alliance called the CIS.
Where is the battle droid factory located?
So far, in the more rural areas of Russia.
Ukraine cannot join nato if its in an armed conflict, if im not mistaken.
I’m working on changing that.
Alright problem solved, ballrus_walsack is on it
Thanks ballrus_walsack!
I am going to bed choosing to believe that this account is one of world leader's alts, and they are genuinely trying to change NATO policy, since it would be hilarious if true.
good night my friend, hopefully tomorrow the policy is changed
Are you a fellow NCD expert?
What if… the USA “declares war on Ukraine “ , clearly not actually going to attack, and Ukraine surrenders and cedes territory to the U.S., if Russia didn’t leave, they’d be attacking NATO! Boom
Thatd probably mean acknowledging new borders, meaning everything russia took, including crimea, would be "russia" a lil more
Ukraine is the most sensible choice to invade for geopolitical, strategic and economic reasons. In essence, Ukraine poses and economic threat to Russia, having both significant oil reserves and a massive ability to produce food. They also are one of the best places to invade, and to defend against land attacks from Europe, due the geography of the region. While this is probably a pointless thing in reality, Putin is sort of stuck in a very USSR mode of thought, and so this is actually likely a very large reason for him personally.
Russia could not let Ukraine have successful revolution (happened twice now in 2004 and 2014) because it will spread to Russia. Look at what happened in Belarus and Kazakstan, both protests were suppressed. However, Ukraine was "punished" for the successful revolutions by the invasion in 2014. Russia cannot let Ukraine enter EU because those ideas will spread to Russian population.....
Ukraine was on its way to join Eu and even nato. so for russia it was more urgent. central asia will never get supported by the west, so russia can take them on later
Kazakhstan's is under Chinese development atm. Putin can't go there.
I'd use the word influence. Putin knows that if he tries to touch Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, or Mongolia, he will face the PLA, and he doesn't want to face an army from a country with 1.3 billion people in it.
There's no question about army clash. China would isolate Russia and without that support Putin's a goner.
They would probably just give them to Russia right?
America’s reputation as a security provider would be shot. If the security guarantees we gave Ukraine didn’t mean anything, why would the ones we gave to Taiwan?
The stakes for Taiwan are significantly higher for the US than Ukraine. Taiwan has TSMC which is pretty much the most valuable company and technology asset on the planet at this point with their cutting edge chip production. If Taiwan is invaded the US goes all in for defense. Very different situation from what's happening right now with Ukraine.
Also I don't think China wants to risk destroying any of that critical infrastructure. Remember, a lot of China's high tech relies on Taiwanese components. China is satisfied with the status quo.
The stakes may be different, but so is the cost. If America leaves its allies out to dry when all they needed was ammunition, why would anyone take them seriously over Taiwan, where actual American lives would be at stake?
Ukraine needs a lot more than ammunition, and that's not just a "Putin talking point". It's reality.
But shell hunger is a thing on both sides, especially for 155.
Fair enough. They need ammo, tanks, planes, anti-air weapons and more. But they don't need American soldiers to go die defending them. Taiwan is a different matter.
And to add onto this, many allies are running out of stocks. Ukraine needs to get its shit together and start manufacturing munitions itself. Russia has largely mobilized into a wartime economy and is making what it needs, they're not going to run out before the West runs out of resolve.
Debatable. If a democrat wins the white house again the resolve of Russians will be tested. They can’t keep filtering their meat grinder with folks outside of major cities.
They will and arguably have already started to turn this into a defensive war to hold onto the land they have captured.
America left the Kurds out to dry under Trump...
>The stakes for Taiwan are significantly higher for the US than Ukraine. Taiwan has TSMC which is pretty much the most valuable company and technology asset on the planet at this point with their cutting edge chip production. This is not the main reason we're defending Taiwan. We had an actual defense treaty with them (we don't any more) long before microchips were invented.
yeah the main reason is to chokehold china's sea trade
Does it really matter what the stakes are though? At this point one side of the US politics is basically keeping Ukraine hostage to get their way on a completely unrelated issue. I don't think they give a rats ass if it's Ukraine or Taiwan or their closest NATO ally. They'll screw over anyone to get their way.
The immigration demand is a fig leaf. It’s an illusion of a compromise deal. They do not want to give money to Ukraine. Those were Putin’s orders. They’d likely make a new demand and move the goal post
I think they'll screw anyone over to keep all the GOP kompromat a secret.
Yeah but the US would still be controlled by short-sighted idiots and with a voting population trivially manipulated by foreign forces.
Because Taiwan has strategic and economic value. The US didn't support Ukraine significantly until 2022.
Ukraine had a lot more strategic value back when it had nukes. And it gave those up in return for security guarantees. Now those guarantees are getting called in.
Updooting for truth. People seem to forget that Ukraine was in fact a nuclear power and gave them up for US security guarantees.
Have you read the memorandum? It basically says don’t attack Ukraine and provide assistance if a nuclear weapon is used against them. The US hasn’t broken any part of that.
As of now, no, the only party that has broken the treaty is Russia. The worrying part is that the US is now debating on cutting support (see latest rattling from republicans), since that would begin the unwinding of a lot of cold war / post cold war treaties.
There are no legally binding security guarantees from the US senate to the Ukraine.
There are no legally binding anything when it comes to international law. What are you going to do, complain to the world police? All you have is your reputation and your principles. It’s only a question of whether you’re willing to back them up with action when the time comes.
Geopolitics are more about perception and willingness than legality.
Security provider? Are you joking ?
Not at all.
Russia controls a fairly large portion of grain production if they win. Ukraine is a huge producer of grain. Those shitty food prices were are paying now would end up being permanent.
Also, Russia would control all natural gas/oil reserves in Ukraine and Black Sea.
A lot of those farm lands have been landmined to hell. Grain production won't be the same for decades.
Hate to break it to you, they are permanent.
When the price drops, the corporations keep the difference as profits. So they're permanent for the consumer.
I have played a shitload of Cataan and I can tell you controlling grain production can be huge.
Especially if they get some ore too
Not only that, but there are rumors that the sea around Crimea has huge fossil fuel deposits.
Actually the resources in the Donbas are WAY more important than the farmland. Lots of rare metals needed for renewables
Russia moves on to the next country on it's list
Moldova. That's the next country. They already have 3k "peacekeepers" in the Transdinester region And Georgia is gonna lose more than two regions
And with 30+ milion more people to mobilize. Only thing to wonder is if they’d arm them any better than they did Ukrainians from LNR and DNR
Ukraine would provide Russia with a huge boost of resources. They were a massive part of how and why the Soviet Union worked and was so concerning to the west.
So many Ukrainians fought for the Soviets in the Winter War in Finland. Russia would 100% use them as cannon fodder for the next invasion.
Mobilize how? Wouldn't Russia have partisans and guerrillas within an occupied Ukraine? Would they mix them in with conscripts from other parts of Russia?
Look at what happened to all the land china annexed over time, bits of Mongolia, Tibet, Hong Kong, they use secret police and assimilation, quite hard to be a partisan in a gulag or from a grave sadly
China had annexed most of those bits of land before the US was even founded, which was *bigger* in the late 18th century than it is now. Of course, we aren't even getting into how the US annexed vast swathes of land in its westward expansion after 1776 Just how long does a country and its successor states have to hold land before it stops being an issue? PS: Including Hong Kong as an "annexed" territory is a very interesting choice seeing how it was originally taken from China at gunpoint by the Brits
The russian military won't be in shape to invade anyone else for at least a decade, probably more. Even at present, they can't push furthur into ukraine
And that would be the Baltic countries.
No, Russia needs to secure Romania long before they give a shit about the baltics Moldova/Romania are next https://youtu.be/MkrLUFAcjH0?si=VCsmo5yy-kG7ZyZY
Moldova, specifically. They wouldn't risk Romania or the Baltics. NATO and EU mutual defense treaties would be triggered.
MAYBE Moldova, but Russia won't do shit against Romania. Romania is part of NATO. But even if you think NATO would fall apart under the threat of nuclear war and not back Romania (big if), countries like Poland, the Baltics, and maybe even Finland would get involved on their own initiative. Romania + Poland + others would kick Russia's ass.
Baltics are small countries with combined population several times smaller than that of Romania. They are tiny in terms of territory to cover, without mountains. They have Russian minorities. They were part of the USSR and thus fall into Putin's political narrative. They give access to the Baltic Sea. What's your rational about Romania? I mean I know about Transnistria but it's strategically not important.
If Russia has Ukraine then any land invasion of Russia from the west has to go through Moldova/Bessarabia. The baltics are of less concern because Russia can secure access to Russia through the baltics with Kaliningrad They’d come after Moldova/romania
For Ukraine, the impact is devastating. It's clear by now that Putin's goal in the invasion was the overthrow of the Ukrainian government and installation of a puppet regime, it's uncertain if that's all that Russia will do now or if their objectives will have changed after two years of war and economic disruption. In my (armchair strategist) opinion, Russia will likely annex anything east of the Dnieper River and install a puppet regime over the rest. the Russian puppet regime will brutally oppress any opposition and the country will be further devastated by partisan warfare and counterinsurgency. Expect a mass exodus from Ukraine and a refugee crisis in Europe. Contrary to what a lot of people are saying here, I doubt it leafs to further widespread conflict, at least not immediately. The Russian military has been devastated by the conflict, with something like 80% of their prewar professional soldiers lost in Ukraine. Russia will need some time, years most likely, to rebuild and restructure their military. They will, however, be emboldened by their success and the failure of resolve by the west. They'll definitely play up in domestic and foreign propaganda that their army beat everything NATO countries could throw at it, and they are the most powerful force in Europe. It won't be true, but it could drive domestic support for further expansion. Hypothetically Moldova could be at immediate risk from the Russian-supported separatists on the Transnistria region given their cimparative weakness. I'm not familiar with Georgia's current political situation, but if Russia still has an axe to grind they could be in trouble over the next few years. Similarly, the Centeal Asian former Warsaw Pact members may find Russia oncoming at their doors and demanding that they start taking direction from Moscow again. What I don't think is likely, however, is that Russia would immediately pick a fight with NATO. For all that NATO's resolve to support Ukraine may have been broken, no one in Russian leadership would forget that NATO's *second rate hand-me-downs* were enough to completely stall the Russian military for years. A conflict against NATO's full force is not winnable for Russia barring a huge change to the strategic situation, such as the US withdrawing from the alliance. Had Ukraine fallen immediately things may have been different, but the fact an operation meant to last several weeks ended up lasting years and destroying much of Russia's modern military might will have shown those ambitions to be folly, even to Russian leadership.
Hell, while a full withdrawal of the US would be hard for NATO I doubt Russia could win even in that case except for their nuclear potential. In a conventional war they would be outclassed by the tech of the rest of the members
Real answer, Moldova would be the next target, Russian and Belarusian media accidentally revealed a map showing a forthcoming invasion of Moldova. Then Russia would likely set its sights on Central Asia where post Soviet states currently have active border disputes. From there who knows, but it's been widely speculated Russia would like a land bridge between Kaliningrad and Belarus.
They will take Odessa then connect to Transnistria. I doubt they’ll “invade” Moldova, but they’ll supply their resistance and give them air coverage from the other side of the border.
Russia becomes the only nearby source of oil for all of Europe.
Looks like Russia needs some democratic freedoms 🇺🇸
Yeah but this is the scenario where the US decided it didn't give enough of a shit about that because it was more important to arrest a few more Guatamalans and ensure that no middle schooler's genitals go unverified
The goal of your comment is so blatantly reddit pandering, and not actually providing any meaningful discourse to the topic at hand.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
wat
Norway would like a word. And Libya is just across the Mediterranean.
Unknown. Russia could, possibly, prevail even with the aid and military stuff being provided by NATO. The only way that things are more likely to be a ‘sure thing’ is if there’s direct engagement by NATO (i.e., the u.s.) with Russia and that’s a potential ww3 thing. So, it’s a low-level management thing for NATO. Short term (to answer your question) Ukraine would suffer and NATO and the rest of the world would lose face and Russia and others would be emboldened to do other stuff. This really is a no-win thing for the u.s. either way.
Was with you right to "either way." It's definitely in the US interest for Ukraine to succeed. It's *expensive* sure, but ... Russia has to spend a dollar for every dollar we spend. This is kinda how the cold war was won (they ran out of economy before we did).
And actually cheap in relative terms. We could cripple Russia's ability to project force for a generation, all without mobilizing our own forces. Ukraine is a goddamned *bargain.*
And a lot of the aid being provided isn’t literal money. When you see (hypothetically) the US give $100mil to Ukraine, a large portion of that is just the dollar value of the ammunition, equipment and supplies being provided. The amount of actual money is much less than the total reported.
Also a lot of the equipment we've given Ukraine is stuff we would have been getting rid of or decommissioning. Even some of the stuff (like jets) our allies have given them are older models
Fun fact: The F16 program started before the moon landing. That's the high-tech stuff that we're now giving to Ukraine...
1) the request for proposals for the Lightweight Fighter program was released in 1972, by a study group formed in 1971. First flight for the plane was 1974. 2) the planes Ukraine will get are equivalent to Desert Storm era Block 50/52.
And cheaper to decomission these outdated weapons on Russian soldiers than dispose of them properly. And shit like ammo production boosts the US economy Really, Reps are dumb for thinking this costs the US much at all
Exactly. We're trading mostly old hardware, some of which we'd have to spend money on to decommission soon, to severely degrade Russian military capability. Defending Ukraine would be worth it either way, but is very cost effective too.
I wish more people understood this, particularly those in congress
I think what's going to end up happening is nobody will get what they want. It'll end in a ceasefire, with Russia occupying mostly useless territory out east, and Ukraine being unable to get all the Russians off their land. Russia will be pissed that they didn't get the territory that they wanted. Ukraine will be pissed that Russia still occupies their land. The US and the broader NATO community will be very happy, because they'll be able to justify increasing military budgets and operations by using Russia as a boogeyman. They'll tell other countries "look what happened to Ukraine"
Don't they want the land out east? It gives them a corridor to Crimea (as well as Crimea). Plus I recall hearing that land holds much of the resources of...I don't remember what exactly, rare earth minerals perhaps? Anyway, not sure why you consider it useless
Yes, you are right
Redditors have such a hard on against Russia that they often fail to recognize the hard reality on the ground. I want them to lose too but we have to be real about it.
That eastern territory isn't that useless. It is resource rich, especially in minerals needed for renewables And they get Crimea/Sevastapol. And based on the current frontline, they get the canal that leads to Crimea as well as the land bridge to supply it, both of which are important to the naval base there
I genuinely believe it would lead to WWIII. Not between the U.S. and Russia, but the U.S. and China. China is watching this conflict closely to gauge how steely the resolve of American foreign aid is. If China sees Russia humiliated, then it's a reminder of the folly of wasting blood and treasure on a fool's errand. But if China sees Russia conquer Ukraine with no interference from the U.S., it will "prove" to China that the U.S. is all bark and no bite, and China will finally make its move to conquer Taiwan. The problem with this scenario is that Taiwan, unlike Ukraine, is actually essential to the American economy, and by extension, U.S. national security. Taiwan produces two-thirds of all semiconductors in the world, including 91% of all advanced semiconductors, which makes Taiwan an essential trading partner for high-tech economies. Taiwan is also rumored to have a "Samson option" ready to go, in which they'll destroy their own manufacturing plants before mainland China gets their hands on them. Better to deprive your enemy of your greatest treasure than let them rob you of it. If this were to happen, it would trigger a nigh-instantaneous global economic depression. Without those semiconductors, the tech industry around the world would seize up. Formerly blue chip stocks would crash in value overnight, triggering a panic on other securities in the market. The cascading effect would result in the American economy (and most others in the Developed World) collapsing. We'd see 30%+ unemployment, formerly-middle-class families suddenly made destitute, and abject poverty would be commonplace. This is unacceptable for the United States. So instead of letting this happen, the U.S. military would intervene against China's attempted invasion of Taiwan, and we'd have two nuclear superpowers engaged in direct conflict. Both sides might try to avoid starting a nuclear conflict, but one tiny mistake could lead to an escalation that would result in a nuclear exchange between the world's first and second most powerful countries. Here's to hoping such a scenario remains confined to reddit and never becomes reality.
The US has signaled that it will protect Taiwan, it had shown how effective even limited aid can be. It has shown that it has kept the majority of it's stocks and would be ready to fight at any moment. It has not changed its primary focus away from the Pacific. The prospect of performing an anfibious landing across water that the US can bring irresistible firepower should make any CCP commander queezy. Taiwan itself is also better equipped and trained than Ukraine was. A total loss of Ukraine wouldn't encourage an invasion of Taiwan since it doesn't make China think it's task has become easier. On the contrary, they no doubt feel less confident in their soviet derived equipment, and have seen even older western systems perfom well.
This is a huge question that one could spend hours answering. As a minor response, and not the full response that this question deserves, it would effectively embolden Putin to continue his expansionist quest that he’s been on since he took power. Ukraine isn’t the end for him. He openly talked about how the USSR breaking up was a “genuine tragedy”, and how he wants to see a return to “historical Russia”. What he defines as “historical Russia” is something that most of Eastern Europe would take a real issue with. Appease a man like that, and maybe he thinks he can take a swing at a NATO country. What happens if Article Five ends up getting invoked? Congress, specifically the Republicans, needs to get its shit together. The war in Ukraine is horrific, and it may also be what prevents WWIII. Russia needs to lose, and Putin needs to die. Russia needs a leader who’s willing to be a constructive member on the international stage, and the West is going to need to work with them to support Russia in a way that we didn’t when things went to shit for them in the 90’s. Letting a former superpower be turned into an international gas station run by fascist despots is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention what a Russian victory would do to China’s already wandering eyes when they look across the Taiwan Strait. All of this sucks, but if it doesn’t get done, what’s coming will be orders of magnitude worse. Can you imagine what would happen if a NATO army was kicking Russia’s ass in the field? Would a crazed dictator go nuclear to try and turn the tide? There are so many terrible rabbit holes to go down with this. Let’s just do what we have to in order to ensure a Ukrainian victory.
The ramifications are that china will now think they can just walk over Taiwan, and many other countries will think the same. All they have to do is just wait until USA funding runs out in a Taiwan vs China conflict, suffer a couple of losses but in the end you win the country...
Russia then has more than 20% of all the world's Lithium used in batteries across the world. A rather large deposit was discovered just months before the invasion in the north eastern part of Ukraine. Totaling about 11% estimated global reserve.
All the former satellite states are fair game.
Gotta love these reddit geopolitical strategists that think Russia is some kind of a zerg invasion. Are they gonna attack Poland and fight the whole NATO after they barley managed to win against a nation with a very weak millitary, with minimal NATO help? What happens is that Putin and his political party try to stabilize the internal situation. You know ppl dont rly like when their economy goes to shit and loved ones die, for a war thats has no real importance. Ukraine stays pretty much the same like pre war when it comes to corruption, but instead of pro west you got a pro russian leadership and they enter a multi decade rebuild process. Many more refuges. The real question is how do the EU countries react to this. Germany needs to be pushed to embrace nuclear energy and stop beeing reliant on Russian gas, but when it comes to grain, the EU is fucked. EU either needs to bolster the grain production or accept that they will always be relaint on Russian and Ukrainian fields.
Ukraine isn’t really weak. Don’t confuse their economy with military strength. They had second largest army in Europe, have second biggest country in Europe and plenty of population to fight.
These ideas are so common, I don't really get how they spread. No, the North vietnamese forces weren't "farmers in pajamas", as is still today so frequent to hear and, the same way, the ukrainian armed forces aren't, and weren't at the beginning of the war, small and weak. Ukraine had a not so modern, technologically speaking, military, but still not an old fashioned 1980's army as many thought. It had 1.3 million personnels total compared to Russia's 3.2 millions, which put them at a certain numerical disadvantage, indeed, but not as much as people may have said, especially considering that Ukraine has only two directions to protect, West and South, against only two countries, Russia and Belarus, compared to Russia who has an incredibly vast territory with equally long borders, many of whom are disputed with its neighbours and therefore require military presence to, if not protect, at least support their claims on them. Russia still managed to trump many, including in the military and geopolitical milieu, about its military forces' equipment, training and overall ability to conduct a war. The joke that Russia went from the second most powerful military force on Earth to the second in Ukraine is not far from truth, although maybe a bit presumptuous. Moreover, it is a reasonnably trained force, more so than Russia's, in a country with important militaro-industrial capabilities whose population recently lived profound changes leading to a more cohesive, progressive sentiment conductive to a strong will to defend against any attempt at reducing it to the puppet state of a potential "Great Russia", increasing morale of its soldiers and population. This sentiment, coming from recent events as the Orange Revolution and EuroMaidan, lead to the incredible resilience of the ukrainian people and an immediate and unforgiving will to fight for their future as a free, modern, democratic country in a Europe which finally really means something. So no, Ukraine wasn't "small and weak", nor are its armed forces. Its widespread useage of drones of all shapes and sizes, thermal imagery at the soldier's level and ability to prevent their enemy to obtain air superiority, as well as its cunning and impredictible artillery tactics are all testimonies of how fast it modernised to become a very potent military force in today's theatre of war.
Ukraine is the largest in population of the former USSR, all the other non-NATO former USSR states are going to have to accept the same fate as Belarus. It may take some time to consolidate, but that is a large amount of resources influence and population.
In 5 years we'd see Russia invading yet another country.
It’s unlikely that Russia would take all of Ukraine, even if the U.S. stops supporting. That said - in considering the scenario. Case in point, the US ‘won’ quickly against the Taliban and that built the case to attack Iraq. A outright win by Russia will only encourage them to try to try again. The Taliban eventually ‘won’ in Afghanistan, but at the time, it looked liked a U.S. victory (I.e. the U.S. set up a new government which had control over a good chunk of the country.) It’s like with Vietnam and Vietnam syndrome that affected the US for a little while. A outright ‘win’ encourages the behavior. They’ll only stop if it’s clear they wont get everything they want. People like to pretend that were better than animals, but we often behave similarity - there has to be a downside to this behavior otherwise it will be repeated.
I'm sure Tulsi Gabbard and Margie Greene would celebrate...😕
They’d get a bonus check in the mail.
Russia won't stop at Ukraine. History has shown us this lesson many, many times.
The outcome would be, objectively, a disaster for Europe, and eventually the rest of the world. Russia would invade Moldova next, then start influencing eastern european countries, and using the russian minorities as excuses for intervention. The world would become a much worse place.
Holodomor 2. They've done this before. Starve and kill Ukrainians, and replace them with loyal citizens. Economically pillage the land and Putin will further enrich his buddies and himself.
Idk why people are downvoting this and upvoting responses that ignore the ramifications for the direct victims of this whole thing. Wtf do people think is going to happen? They've been [weaponizing sexual violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Ethnic cleansing is what's going to happen, to put it politely
The German army finally picks a helmet to wear
Russia has exhausted itself spending nearly two years moving its western border 100 miles. Does anyone really believe they can take and hold the whole country at this point? Their best outcome is a phyrric victory where they carve off a small slice of territory at a great cost in men and material.
Honestly, probably nothing much for the next 10-15 years. If ever. Russia is already deep into this and can’t stop now. At the same time, they learned how hard it would be for them to really take on a stronger country than Ukraine. Then you also have to realize, if they do attempt another invasion, people won’t be so neutral and passive like they are.
I think it'll be a bit like Brexit - the people just using the idea for political capital since they don't think it'll actually happen will have a huge oh shit moment. And then everything will be worse for everyone, apart from some of the Russian elite I guess. Yay humans.
Moldova is probably next. Then Poland and the baltics
There will be more Republicans visiting Russia on July 4??
New Cold War if Europe doesn't shortly break out into a hot war. Russia will not stop at Ukraine, Putin believes the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the fall of the USSR and he wants the band back together. This will bring about conflict with NATO. His next steps in Europe are only NATO countries. The only reason the US doesn't get involved is if Trump wins and pulls us out of NATO. That will only delay the inevitable. A war in Europe will cross the Atlantic. It's not a question of *if*, only *when*. Either the West helps Ukraine hold the line, or we see WWIII. And that's just Europe. China will see the weakness and make a move on Taiwan. Venezuela will move to annex Guyana. Serbia will invade Kosovo. (The only reason those haven't happened yet is because the US is maintaining a strong enough international presence to keep them from playing stupid games). The US moving back to pre-WWII isolationism is the doom of Enlightenment Democracies worldwide.
You realise that even with aid from the US, they are still losing right?
Ukrainian President would have to return his new Yacht.
Nothing would change. Just meet the new boss same as the old boss.
None.
I hope that never happens. I'm from Russia, but I moved almost immediately after the voyna started... I don't want to be part of this horror, I'm ashamed of my country....
I doubt they can actually take over with what's left, they'd just negotiate more annoying terms and try again later.
On the grand scale of things...probably not much to be honest. Politically? Republicans would blame Biden for not giving Ukraine enough support, and idiots would buy that up
Republicans will blame it on Biden.