EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 820
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States554 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2824 Posts
On May 29 2025 01:43 Yurie wrote: You assume nations would post a total blockade of all trades, breaking treaties that forbid that. EU and US did not do that for Russian invasion of Ukraine. Why do you think US would do that for Taiwan? EU is highly unlikely to do it. 1) If China gets in a war with the US they might be able to take them locally around Taiwan but as previously said in the thread the US navy alone can blockade China causing almost unthinkable damage. At that point it's war and no one is going to question the blockade. 2) If China attacks Taiwan it's uncertain they can actually take the island. Either you do it swiftly or you probably don't do it at all. China can blockade Taiwan but it's highly likely US ships will just run the blockade and if China sinks them that means war. Back to point 1. 3) If China ramps up it's harassment of Taiwan without declaring war the US will still continue to provision them. Of course, if China has enough force to roll Taiwan in a couple of weeks it's highly unlikely the US would go to war over them. Any military aid would not get there in time and why go to war with another nuclear superpower if they already accomplished all their goals. But if China has enough to just steamroll the entire island (or suddenly has a blue water navy that can challenge that of the US) it's highly likely Taiwan reconsider their entire policy towards China. Incidentally, if Russia could have taken Ukraine in 3 weeks the rest of the world would almost certainly have accepted it. Invading other countries is however quite difficult, and Taiwan is probably much, much harder than a flat country with a poor economy and with an immense land border towards you. | ||
|
ETisME
12740 Posts
What do you mean no? you think there's a security guarantee between US and Taiwan? "Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, successive US presidents have provided Taiwan with military equipment, but there is no legal requirement for the US to come to the island's defence." | ||
KwarK
United States44123 Posts
On May 30 2025 10:45 ETisME wrote: What do you mean no? you think there's a security guarantee between US and Taiwan? "Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, successive US presidents have provided Taiwan with military equipment, but there is no legal requirement for the US to come to the island's defence." I mean no. No means no. | ||
|
ETisME
12740 Posts
On May 30 2025 05:24 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: 1) If China gets in a war with the US they might be able to take them locally around Taiwan but as previously said in the thread the US navy alone can blockade China causing almost unthinkable damage. At that point it's war and no one is going to question the blockade. 2) If China attacks Taiwan it's uncertain they can actually take the island. Either you do it swiftly or you probably don't do it at all. China can blockade Taiwan but it's highly likely US ships will just run the blockade and if China sinks them that means war. Back to point 1. 3) If China ramps up it's harassment of Taiwan without declaring war the US will still continue to provision them. Of course, if China has enough force to roll Taiwan in a couple of weeks it's highly unlikely the US would go to war over them. Any military aid would not get there in time and why go to war with another nuclear superpower if they already accomplished all their goals. But if China has enough to just steamroll the entire island (or suddenly has a blue water navy that can challenge that of the US) it's highly likely Taiwan reconsider their entire policy towards China. Incidentally, if Russia could have taken Ukraine in 3 weeks the rest of the world would almost certainly have accepted it. Invading other countries is however quite difficult, and Taiwan is probably much, much harder than a flat country with a poor economy and with an immense land border towards you. The US blockage against China would hurt every nation, almost unthinkable they would go that far without it going into WW3 right away. Not to mention all the political pressure, when people can't buy from taobao/temu or their BYD, and rant about it on tiktok, globally. let's not forget your average europeans are still celebrating Tesla losing sales as a good thing, when chinese EVs from BYD and Xiaomi etc are capturing the lost market. | ||
|
ETisME
12740 Posts
OK | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2824 Posts
On May 30 2025 11:19 ETisME wrote: The US blockage against China would hurt every nation, almost unthinkable they would go that far without it going into WW3 right away. Not to mention all the political pressure, when people can't buy from taobao/temu or their BYD, and rant about it on tiktok, globally. let's not forget your average europeans are still celebrating Tesla losing sales as a good thing, when chinese EVs from BYD and Xiaomi etc are capturing the lost market. By definition it would be WW3 if they went too war. But it would be Chinas choice at that point. Either accept that the US ships in arms or start sinking US ships. If China declares war on USA (and it's technically not a NATO issue but it's unlikely the alliance just let's it slide) I don't think Temu closing will be peoples main worry. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44123 Posts
On May 31 2025 01:32 Mohdoo wrote: I don't understand Putin's persistent focus on NATO. With the new European security guarantees and whatnot, I feel like NATO expansion isn't necessary to shit on Putin's imperialism. Ukraine partnering with Europe in some concrete way will eliminate future threats by Russia in the same way NATO participation would. Will it though? NATO has worked because, until recently, the US has willingly led MAD efforts. When the USSR said "wanna go to war over this?" the US has always said "well we didn't build the biggest military the world has ever seen for peace, let's fucking gooooo". The Russian empire under its various names has always been forced to be a rational actor because the US has been playing its part. But there isn't even the fiction of US led MAD anymore. The US opens any diplomatic talks with "we're not willing to risk any kind of confrontation over this so let us know if you're serious because if you're serious we absolutely will back down". Who is going to take their place in the "let's fucking goooo" role? Europe would absolutely win vs Russia, but they'd have to work up to it, they'd have to mobilize, they'd have to accept a million casualties, and they're just not ready. It'd be 1939 all over again where even though Britain was willing to go to war it wasn't ready to go to war and so the threat of war wasn't judged as credible by Germany. That puts you in a situation where a confrontation is much more likely. If Europe is committed but Russia doesn't think they're committed then we get miscalculations. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11900 Posts
On May 31 2025 01:32 Mohdoo wrote: I don't understand Putin's persistent focus on NATO. With the new European security guarantees and whatnot, I feel like NATO expansion isn't necessary to shit on Putin's imperialism. Ukraine partnering with Europe in some concrete way will eliminate future threats by Russia in the same way NATO participation would. Fascists need threatening external enemies. They are also not very smart (the grunts at least). Putin has spent a lot of time making NATO that scary external enemy. He is not going to confuse his people by complicating that situation. If an EU thing happens, just claim that that is basically NATO anyways. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44123 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8263 Posts
On May 31 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote: There are unconfirmed reports that Zaur Gurtsiev, an Air Force commander whose unit destroyed the civilian shelters of Mariupol including the infamous theatre filled with children, died after his Grindr hookup exploded. Couldn't have happened to a nicer man. However will I sleep at night? | ||
|
0x64
Finland4620 Posts
On May 31 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote: There are unconfirmed reports that Zaur Gurtsiev, an Air Force commander whose unit destroyed the civilian shelters of Mariupol including the infamous theatre filled with children, died after his Grindr hookup exploded. Sounds like he was asking for a blow job | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2824 Posts
Turns out they have some cards after all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44123 Posts
- JD Vance https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1929132899787293096 | ||
|
KwarK
United States44123 Posts
| ||
|
0x64
Finland4620 Posts
On June 01 2025 23:54 KwarK wrote: Also I can't imagine the absolute shitstorm going on inside every other air force in the world as they try to assess whether they're vulnerable to this exact kind of attack (they are) and how they'd mitigate it (likely very difficult). Even keeping every single airframe inside a hardened bunker is likely not sufficient when they could just leave a dormant autonomous drone nearby and wait for a landing. Have it wake up when it hears the sound of a jet landing and have it fly towards the loud noise. Warfare is getting extremely spicy. Are you refering to a specific recent event or drone warfare in general? I do feel like drone war is scarier than any nuke, give it a 100 years... | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7179 Posts
On June 02 2025 00:11 0x64 wrote: Are you refering to a specific recent event or drone warfare in general? I do feel like drone war is scarier than any nuke, give it a 100 years... https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cgrg7kelk45t Beautiful news. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44123 Posts
My mental image of the Ukrainian special ops planning room continuously makes me smile. “We need to move a shitload of drones deep into Russia, any ideas?” “Would a shipping container hold enough drones?” “Guess so, we could conceal them within a container until they’re activated, but how will we get them to the target area?” “FedEx?” “Shit that might just work” Funny shit that British intelligence tried on a whim throughout WW2 spawned a million movie, books, tv shows etc. including the entire Bond franchise. For the next hundred or so years writers are just going to take actual events that happened in this war, tone them down a bit to make them more believable for the audience, and cash the checks. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8263 Posts
On June 01 2025 23:54 KwarK wrote: Also I can't imagine the absolute shitstorm going on inside every other air force in the world as they try to assess whether they're vulnerable to this exact kind of attack (they are) and how they'd mitigate it (likely very difficult). Even keeping every single airframe inside a hardened bunker is likely not sufficient when they could just leave a dormant autonomous drone nearby and wait for a landing. Have it wake up when it hears the sound of a jet landing and have it fly towards the loud noise. Warfare is getting extremely spicy. The way to stop attacks like this haven't really changed all that much (in principle) in the last century; it's an inside attack that needs to be stopped through intelligence. The method largely doesn't matter, because what you allowed the enemy to do is plan and operate freely within your country. It's no different than operation Mardonius in ww2, just different paths to success. Alongside Israel's pager bombs, today's attack is going to go down as one of the most successfull sabotages/inside attacks in modern history (and one of the biggest failures, if you look at it from Russian side). If what Zelenskyy said about one of their planning offices being wall to wall with FSB is true, and still no one took notice, then this truly is a ridiculous display of embarrassment. | ||
| ||
