Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

It's a grim thought experiment but I'd bet on authoritarian China to be able to move quicker to fill any gaps. They could repurpose factories at a whim.

Also they could absorb any fatalities in the transition.

You forget one major detail: several Chinese families have only one child or two at the most as by-products of that old birth control law. If fatalities hit them, we talk about families being wiped out in the sense that no one would be left to take over the elderly generation(s) within the family.

edit: I forgot to add that, despite recent law changes for births, Chinese adults of child-bearing age are mostly giving the middle finger to the idea of having more children. And even for those willing to have more children, it will take at least 3 decades to counter the increased ageing of the population.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I agree, I think the quality of their products and innovation will suffer greatly without western support. For example they produce diesel engines by the million but nobody wants to put a Chinese diesel injector in them, they use Bosch, Cummins etc. The really technical products are something that the majority of their population are not set up to think laterally enough to design, build and maintain. At least in my experience. It's a weakness of a repressive education system and society in my view.

There has always been that thinking in terms of excellence and it is definitely a point that can't be dismissed but I think it's more applicable to do with innovation. I think where excellence is required it can be achieved but I'm happy to leave it there and not derail the thread too much.
 
You forget one major detail: several Chinese families have only one child or two at the most as by-products of that old birth control law. If fatalities hit them, we talk about families being wiped out in the sense that no one would be left to take over the elderly generation(s) within the family.


Like I say, a grim thought experiment, and sections of society can be deemed irrelevant and disposable in defence of the state. I'm not advocating China in any way and they have shown that they are not averse to sacrificing citizens.
 
Last edited:
Despite the small victories Ukraine are having, foot soldiers mean nothing when fighting missiles, the question is, how many do Russia have and when do they run out...

Missiles can't take and occupy cities - or any other territory for that matter. If you want to do that you need boots on the ground - and Russia doesn't have enough of these.
 
China has everyone by the balls economically
I don’t think that’s true at all, there’s a difference between China being an economic power (obviously true) and China being economically independent. The very fact their economy is export dependent is a big clue.
 
The BBC reports:

"Ukraine's economy is set to contract by 10% this year as a result of Russia's invasion, but the outlook could worsen sharply if the conflict continues, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says in a newly-released staff report.

The report, prepared ahead of the IMF's approval of $1.4bn (£1.1bn) in emergency financing for Ukraine, warns the country's economic output could shrink by 25% to 35%, based on GDP data from Iraq, Lebanon and other countries at war."
 
If Russia has lost 10% of its initial force that was amassed at the border, that’s over 20,000 dead or injured.

Yep, and in another month that figure may well hit at least 70,000. The Russian invasion is simply unsustainable.
 
Yep, and in another month that figure may well hit at least 70,000. The Russian invasion is simply unsustainable.
Additionally you have to consider that a lot of those losses happened to elite troops. Russia has a huuuge amount of soldiers still available, but a lot of them are only useful as cannon fodder as they lack skills and equipment for difficult operations.

Luckily at least some of these guys still seem to have some human decency as seen in the clip of the old couple sending looting Russians away, and them obeying without getting violent.

10% losses is a lot, but if you consider this it could easily be 20-30% of the motivated ones. And that's massive.
 
2 days? What were they smoking in the Kremlin?


That's what misinformation does to you. If you really don't have to take on resisting forces, an invasion of Kiyv from Belarus could follow this timeline:
- have a nice breakfast
- get into your tank, drive for a few hours
- stop for a little lunch picnic just outside the city
- drive into the city, arrest the Nazi president, let yourself be celebrated and given flowers by the people
- celebrate, get drunk and sleep
- on the next morning make sure you installed a nice new president and not for example put a horse into office
- drive back. Will take the whole day instead of a half as you are still drunk after your celebrations.
 
2 days? What were they smoking in the Kremlin?



Seems a bit of a ridiculous statement given the forces that went in during the first two days. There's no way they'd have expected to progress that distance and take Kyiv.

Obviously a case of talking up their failures.
 
Seems a bit of a ridiculous statement given the forces that went in during the first two days. There's no way they'd have expected to progress that distance and take Kyiv.

Obviously a case of talking up their failures.

The fact that they threw airborne troops at the Gostomel airport near Kyiv on day 2 tells otherwise. They ended up being obliterated because their convoy stalled and never backed them up.
 
Seems a bit of a ridiculous statement given the forces that went in during the first two days. There's no way they'd have expected to progress that distance and take Kyiv.

Obviously a case of talking up their failures.
Lone gendarmerie units from the Rosgvardiya literally drove from Belarus to the near centre of Kyiv on the day of invasion. It was an absolute shit show, very terrifying with the shock and awe tactics in the first few hours, but quickly very baffling.
 
I don't believe for a second that the Russian casualty numbers are even half as high as claimed.

The U.S. military estimated that between 5,000 and 6,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That was 3 days ago. European intelligence estimates give higher figures.

Even if we assume only 5,000 dead now (3 days after the above estimate), that likely means around 3 times that number wounded, captured, surrendered or deserted. That's 20,000 out of action one way or another.

In another month ... you do the maths.
 
Could somebody who speaks Russian confirm that this translation is correct?

It appears to be a Russian politician suggesting that Russia launches a nuclear strike in the Nevada desert to send a warning to the USA, but I'm not sure if the wording of the caption is accurate. Thanks in advance

@MoskvaRed @harms

 
Could somebody who speaks Russian confirm that this translation is correct?

It appears to be a Russian politician suggesting that Russia launches a nuclear strike in the Nevada desert to send a warning to the USA, but I'm not sure if the wording of the caption is accurate. Thanks in advance

@MoskvaRed @harms


We've seen many dumb ideas coming from Russia but this takes the cake mushroom.
 
Could somebody who speaks Russian confirm that this translation is correct?

It appears to be a Russian politician suggesting that Russia launches a nuclear strike in the Nevada desert to send a warning to the USA, but I'm not sure if the wording of the caption is accurate. Thanks in advance

@MoskvaRed @harms


The translation is accurate enough but from what I gathered, he's actually saying it doesn't need to be a nuclear warhead and he's basically saying we'll scare the Americans because the risk of 10k casualties will seem like 10m to the US population. I personally don't follow the logic, it feels like something like logic the Japanese devised for Pearl Harbour.

The guy is obviously off his rocker since he doesn't even talk about Russia but about the USSR. Small dick mentality and all that.

EDIT: I guess he does say it might be nuclear because he says that's where Americans test nuclear weapons, so there's an implication.
 
The translation is accurate enough but from what I gathered, he's actually saying it doesn't need to be a nuclear warhead and he's basically saying we'll scare the Americans because the risk of 10k casualties will seem like 10m to the US population. I personally don't follow the logic, it feels like something like logic the Japanese devised for Pearl Harbour.

The guy is obviously off his rocker since he doesn't even talk about Russia but about the USSR. Small dick mentality and all that.

EDIT: I guess he does say it might be nuclear because he says that's where Americans test nuclear weapons, so there's an implication.

Yeah, according to the translation, first he says a nuclear strike, then he says we don't even need to use a nuclear warhead on the rocket, then he says, maybe just a little nuclear strike on the Nevada test range.

I'm sure America won't mind at all.
 
Yeah, according to the translation, first he says a nuclear strike, then he says we don't even need to use a nuclear warhead on the rocket, then he says, maybe just a little nuclear strike on the Nevada test range.

I'm sure America won't mind at all.
Maybe they should call up India, they seem to have developed expertise in these types of strikes.