|
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. |
Insufficient evidence from the prosecution is the official reasoning, though the judge apparently also went on to claim something along the lines of generally it can't be sabotage if a ukrainian blows up something russian during wartime. Badly paraphrasing since I only watched it on the news.
The bit about something like this not being sabotage doesn't sound right to me, but legal stuff is sometimes complicated so it might be true. If you come across a more detailed source please share it, I would be happy to read up on it a bit more and from a different perspective.
|
Translated with AI tools but it's more or less true to the source in Polish:
Judge Dariusz Łubowski, in justifying his decision to deny the extradition of Volodymyr Zhuravlov to Germany, emphasized that the act of which he is suspected cannot be regarded as a crime under international law.
“Since 2014, there has been a war — a bloody and genocidal aggression by the Russian Federation against the independent Ukrainian state. From the standpoint of international law, actions undertaken in defense against aggression — including the destruction of the enemy’s infrastructure — constitute an element of the so-called ‘just war.’ Its aim is to stop evil, not to conquer territories or pursue expansion,” Judge Łubowski stated.
He added that, in Ukraine’s case, we are dealing with a classic example of a defensive war, waged “out of love for the homeland” and in defense of the nation against an aggressor.
“By defending itself against the Russian Federation, Ukraine meets all the criteria of a just war. Therefore, individuals acting in the interest of that state cannot be treated as saboteurs or terrorists,” the judge explained.
“If the Nord Stream pipeline is considered part of the strategic infrastructure of the Russian Federation, then its damage — carried out in the course of Ukraine’s defense — cannot be regarded as an unlawful act. It was an action that was justified, rational, and — in the light of the law — just,” Judge Łubowski continued.
On this basis, the court concluded that Volodymyr Zhuravlov is entitled to functional immunity, arising from the fact that his alleged actions may have been directly connected with the performance of duties on behalf of the Ukrainian state.
I'm not sure if there's a written justification yet. Probably not.
Apparently a few days earlier an Italian court also decided against extraditing their Ukrainian suspect to Germany but that decision only sent the case back to another court. Not a surprise but I didn't notice any headlines about Meloni bragging about it.
|
On October 18 2025 03:19 Sent. wrote:Translated with AI tools but it's more or less true to the source in Polish: Show nested quote +Judge Dariusz Łubowski, in justifying his decision to deny the extradition of Volodymyr Zhuravlov to Germany, emphasized that the act of which he is suspected cannot be regarded as a crime under international law.
“Since 2014, there has been a war — a bloody and genocidal aggression by the Russian Federation against the independent Ukrainian state. From the standpoint of international law, actions undertaken in defense against aggression — including the destruction of the enemy’s infrastructure — constitute an element of the so-called ‘just war.’ Its aim is to stop evil, not to conquer territories or pursue expansion,” Judge Łubowski stated.
He added that, in Ukraine’s case, we are dealing with a classic example of a defensive war, waged “out of love for the homeland” and in defense of the nation against an aggressor.
“By defending itself against the Russian Federation, Ukraine meets all the criteria of a just war. Therefore, individuals acting in the interest of that state cannot be treated as saboteurs or terrorists,” the judge explained.
“If the Nord Stream pipeline is considered part of the strategic infrastructure of the Russian Federation, then its damage — carried out in the course of Ukraine’s defense — cannot be regarded as an unlawful act. It was an action that was justified, rational, and — in the light of the law — just,” Judge Łubowski continued.
On this basis, the court concluded that Volodymyr Zhuravlov is entitled to functional immunity, arising from the fact that his alleged actions may have been directly connected with the performance of duties on behalf of the Ukrainian state. I'm not sure if there's a written justification yet. Probably not. Apparently a few days earlier an Italian court also decided against extraditing their Ukrainian suspect to Germany but that decision only sent the case back to another court. Not a surprise but I didn't notice any headlines about Meloni bragging about it.
The italian case has been referred to a higher court based on a similar reasoning, questioning if the EU warrant is based on a valid accusation of sabotage.
Here is a short german article about it: German article about it:https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2025-10/gericht-italien-nord-stream-anschlag
That is how I would have hoped all of this goes down, without any unnecessary attention being drawn to it. Both cases have been in the news, but the italian one was more of a status report in the coverage that I have seen where as the polish one always was a bit more in-depth, framing the decision as basically a defence of the accused.
|
It seems that Putin's demands are unchanged:
He still demands reminder of Donetsk region.
Since Europe failed to offer security guarantees this is a complete non-starter for Kiev.
I guess the war continues in current shape for at least another year.
|
Finland963 Posts
On October 17 2025 18:49 Excludos wrote:Let's take this to the logical conclusion: No one in EU is going to shoot down Putin's plane, ergo, there is no way to stop his plane from flying over EU countries, unless he decides to land somewhere for no reason. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, he can de facto fly wherever he wants. Altough it would be hilarious to shoot down his plane and pretend it magically fell down by itself, like Putin does to his opponents. But no one here has the backbone to do that
Their real challenge will be avoiding Russian AA systems, not EU ones.
But EU has already signalled that the possibility of peace is enough for them to let the plane through. Which brings up the point in the post above, Putin wants Donetsk for peace, and I guess he'll do a pinky promise that he won't attack again.
|
United States43805 Posts
On October 19 2025 15:09 pmp10 wrote:It seems that Putin's demands are unchanged: He still demands reminder of Donetsk region.Since Europe failed to offer security guarantees this is a complete non-starter for Kiev. I guess the war continues in current shape for at least another year.
It's more hopeless than that. A security guarantee by Europe is a non starter for Putin. Any result in which Ukraine isn't dominated by Russia and can exercise an independent foreign policy is a non starter for Putin.
He's not demanding the Donbas, he's demanding it all.
|
On October 20 2025 02:30 hexhaven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2025 18:49 Excludos wrote:On October 17 2025 03:28 Sent. wrote:Trump says he will meet with Putin in Budapest to discuss war in UkraineThis means a plane with Putin on board will need to fly through the airspace of some other EU member before reaching Hungary. I doubt any European government would be happy with agreeing to that. Can't they meet in Turkey instead? It's also a populist run fake democracy and they even have a better weather! Let's take this to the logical conclusion: No one in EU is going to shoot down Putin's plane, ergo, there is no way to stop his plane from flying over EU countries, unless he decides to land somewhere for no reason. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, he can de facto fly wherever he wants. Altough it would be hilarious to shoot down his plane and pretend it magically fell down by itself, like Putin does to his opponents. But no one here has the backbone to do that Their real challenge will be avoiding Russian AA systems, not EU ones. But EU has already signalled that the possibility of peace is enough for them to let the plane through. Which brings up the point in the post above, Putin wants Donetsk for peace, and I guess he'll do a pinky promise that he won't attack again.
I think this is being misreported again. He's most likely talking about renouncing his claim to the unoccupied parts of Kherson and Zaporizhia regions (which he has no chance of taking unless Ukraine totally collapses) in exchange for the parts of Donetsk he's unable to conquer. He's asking for Ukraine's stronghold belt in exchange for empty promises. It's a non-starter for Ukraine. If he were talking about handing back the occupied parts of Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, that would mean no land bridge to Crimea.
|
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia.
|
On October 20 2025 05:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia.
Problem is that a massive missile launch from a nuclear power is assumed to be a nuclear launch, ending up in MAD. So even if you have them you cannot use them.
Though selling them to a non-nuclear power such as Ukraine could work. But if they aren't even willing to sell Tomahawks...
|
On October 20 2025 08:00 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 05:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia. Problem is that a massive missile launch from a nuclear power is assumed to be a nuclear launch, ending up in MAD. So even if you have them you cannot use them. Though selling them to a non-nuclear power such as Ukraine could work. But if they aren't even willing to sell Tomahawks...
If EU uses them we don't have to launch all at once. We can use hundreds every day. Great cover for the air force (which Ukraine doesn't really have).
Either front line AA focus on cruise missiles diluting their focus from planes trying to win frontline air superiority.
Or they put AA further back as well, also diluting their AA (or they need staggering amounts of it).
Or they ignore the cruise missiles and eat massive infrastructure damage.
No risk or MAD, still very useful.
And giving/selling cruise missiles to Ukraine now is an escalation. But after peace, not so much.
|
On October 20 2025 08:00 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 05:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia. Problem is that a massive missile launch from a nuclear power is assumed to be a nuclear launch, ending up in MAD. So even if you have them you cannot use them. Though selling them to a non-nuclear power such as Ukraine could work. But if they aren't even willing to sell Tomahawks...
I don't think cruise missiles can be confused for ballistic missiles.
|
On October 20 2025 15:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 08:00 Yurie wrote:On October 20 2025 05:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia. Problem is that a massive missile launch from a nuclear power is assumed to be a nuclear launch, ending up in MAD. So even if you have them you cannot use them. Though selling them to a non-nuclear power such as Ukraine could work. But if they aren't even willing to sell Tomahawks... I don't think cruise missiles can be confused for ballistic missiles.
But you can put nuclear warheads on cruise missiles, too.
|
On October 20 2025 05:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia.
I just thought of an A320 loaded up with RTX and shrapnel.
|
On October 20 2025 19:07 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 05:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia. I just thought of an A320 loaded up with RTX and shrapnel.
Had a chuckle imagining the last thing you hear being the iconic "WHIIOOOOOOO! WOB WOB WOB WOB WOB!" from the A320 hydraulic system
|
On October 20 2025 19:31 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 19:07 KT_Elwood wrote:On October 20 2025 05:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia. I just thought of an A320 loaded up with RTX and shrapnel. Had a chuckle imagining the last thing you hear being the iconic "WHIIOOOOOOO! WOB WOB WOB WOB WOB!" from the A320 hydraulic system
Drones typically dive in for the final run. I don't think you would hear anything over the oversized stuka sirens that would definitely be included.
A stripped A320 can take 20tons of RDX for a 36 ton TNT equivalent so repairing whatever gets hit would start with filling up the new lake.
|
On October 20 2025 23:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 19:31 Excludos wrote:On October 20 2025 19:07 KT_Elwood wrote:On October 20 2025 05:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One thing Europe should do right now is to get Airbus to buyback every single end of life aircraft engine they can get.
Could even put it in the contract for new plane deliveries that they buyback the engines for like 50k euro when it's time to decommission them.
Because the major price of a long range heavy cruise missile is the engine and Ukraines idea of building a cheap missile is actually brilliant, it's only they can't get enough used engines.
Sure it's easy to shot down but anything that can shot it down likely costs 10x more to build. And it's not like Russia has a great track record in this war.
Could probably build 1000 heavy cruise missiles for 250-500 million a year. It won't matter much for this war but it could be an incredible deterrent in the future (either Russia invests massively in very expensive AA or they stand to lose their oil infrastructure in the first month of a new war).
If we don't want to put boots on the ground in case of peace we could build weapons that would actually deter Russia. I just thought of an A320 loaded up with RTX and shrapnel. Had a chuckle imagining the last thing you hear being the iconic "WHIIOOOOOOO! WOB WOB WOB WOB WOB!" from the A320 hydraulic system Drones typically dive in for the final run. I don't think you would hear anything over the oversized stuka sirens that would definitely be included. A stripped A320 can take 20tons of RDX for a 36 ton TNT equivalent so repairing whatever gets hit would start with filling up the new lake.
Let's not have reality get in the way of my wholly unreasonable imaginations, yeh?
|
On October 14 2025 11:04 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2025 05:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 08 2025 04:48 KwarK wrote:
If Poland could have moved out of Europe it would have. Poland exudes “I have to live with you (Germany) but I don’t have to like you” energy. But what are they going to do, be friends with the Russians instead? I don't really see a big problem with Poland. They are a large, conservative eastern European country. They are now ascending into becoming a regional power and are starting to take their place in Europe. That's going to chafe a bit for both sides.Eventually they are going to have to moderate their general anti-EU stance (or leave). I don't see it happening soon and I don't see the younger generation of Poles wanting to leave EU so the boomers have time do die off It's not even the boomers. It's the fact that sadly our conservative parties are relying on all the Polish martyrdom and highly nationalistic and deeply catholic rhetoric to stay in power. Unfortunately this resonates pretty well with people who are not that well off and with lower education. Might say a typical voter base for conservative parties anywhere in the world. The problem is that they love to rile people up and EU is an easy target (for historical reasons because of Germany and nationalistic reasons because of EU law etc.) but at the same time they will never admit that joining the EU has moved Poland leaps and bounds ahead in terms of development as a country and that we were a very big beneficiary of EU grants (instead they claim stuff done with EU money as their own awesome success while saying that the EU was trying to thwart them). Thankfully our government alone can't do this as they'd have to do a full nation-wide referendum for it (like was the case with joining the EU) and I don't think it would pass. I don't expect Poland leaving the EU anytime soon. And our current government (with the exception of the president) is pro-EU too so no worries there I guess.
Let's not have one of the few EU nations that have been correct on both economic and military policies for past couple of years, fallen to whatever western Europe is.
Sleep walked into trusting russia for energy, china on chips and green tech. Now China can literally freeze up the entire automobile chip sector (and yes, if they can halt rare earth shipment to the US, they can do way worse to the EU)
A strong nationalistic country is the correct politics when your next door neighbor is Russia.
Taiwan made a huge mistake by appealing to Democrats and EU leaders, and relied on soft power rather than stepping up in military strength.
Also just to stay on topic: https://www.politico.eu/article/military-aid-ukraine-kaja-kallas-ukraine-eu-leaders-rounds-artillery/
more aids, more aids, more war and more aids.
|
On October 20 2025 02:30 hexhaven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2025 18:49 Excludos wrote:On October 17 2025 03:28 Sent. wrote:Trump says he will meet with Putin in Budapest to discuss war in UkraineThis means a plane with Putin on board will need to fly through the airspace of some other EU member before reaching Hungary. I doubt any European government would be happy with agreeing to that. Can't they meet in Turkey instead? It's also a populist run fake democracy and they even have a better weather! Let's take this to the logical conclusion: No one in EU is going to shoot down Putin's plane, ergo, there is no way to stop his plane from flying over EU countries, unless he decides to land somewhere for no reason. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, he can de facto fly wherever he wants. Altough it would be hilarious to shoot down his plane and pretend it magically fell down by itself, like Putin does to his opponents. But no one here has the backbone to do that Their real challenge will be avoiding Russian AA systems, not EU ones. But EU has already signalled that the possibility of peace is enough for them to let the plane through. Which brings up the point in the post above, Putin wants Donetsk for peace, and I guess he'll do a pinky promise that he won't attack again.
Putin doesn't have to avoid any AA because most likely he'll just send a double like he did for Alaska meeting.
Also, this really cracked me up if it's real:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eLu9jQO.jpeg)
|
On October 21 2025 15:49 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2025 11:04 Manit0u wrote:On October 08 2025 05:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 08 2025 04:48 KwarK wrote:
If Poland could have moved out of Europe it would have. Poland exudes “I have to live with you (Germany) but I don’t have to like you” energy. But what are they going to do, be friends with the Russians instead? I don't really see a big problem with Poland. They are a large, conservative eastern European country. They are now ascending into becoming a regional power and are starting to take their place in Europe. That's going to chafe a bit for both sides.Eventually they are going to have to moderate their general anti-EU stance (or leave). I don't see it happening soon and I don't see the younger generation of Poles wanting to leave EU so the boomers have time do die off It's not even the boomers. It's the fact that sadly our conservative parties are relying on all the Polish martyrdom and highly nationalistic and deeply catholic rhetoric to stay in power. Unfortunately this resonates pretty well with people who are not that well off and with lower education. Might say a typical voter base for conservative parties anywhere in the world. The problem is that they love to rile people up and EU is an easy target (for historical reasons because of Germany and nationalistic reasons because of EU law etc.) but at the same time they will never admit that joining the EU has moved Poland leaps and bounds ahead in terms of development as a country and that we were a very big beneficiary of EU grants (instead they claim stuff done with EU money as their own awesome success while saying that the EU was trying to thwart them). Thankfully our government alone can't do this as they'd have to do a full nation-wide referendum for it (like was the case with joining the EU) and I don't think it would pass. I don't expect Poland leaving the EU anytime soon. And our current government (with the exception of the president) is pro-EU too so no worries there I guess. Let's not have one of the few EU nations that have been correct on both economic and military policies for past couple of years, fallen to whatever western Europe is. Sleep walked into trusting russia for energy, china on chips and green tech. Now China can literally freeze up the entire automobile chip sector (and yes, if they can halt rare earth shipment to the US, they can do way worse to the EU) A strong nationalistic country is the correct politics when your next door neighbor is Russia. Taiwan made a huge mistake by appealing to Democrats and EU leaders, and relied on soft power rather than stepping up in military strength. Also just to stay on topic: https://www.politico.eu/article/military-aid-ukraine-kaja-kallas-ukraine-eu-leaders-rounds-artillery/more aids, more aids, more war and more aids.
There is absolutely zero amount of military muster Taiwan could do to stand up against China on their own. They have a population of 23.6 million vs China's 1.4 billion. They live on a small island the size of Belgium. There is simply no amount of investment, technology, tactics, strategy or otherwise that could possibly let them David that Goliath. Not even if the Chinese military showed themselves to be as incompetent as Russia, which all indications shows they aren't.
Democracy and alliances is literally the only option for Taiwan. And as long as they continue to single-handedly control the world's top microchip production, they are sitting on the biggest trump card that genuinely assures economic destruction for the west if we let it get taken or destroyed. Supporting Taiwan is a no-brainer, but you can't easily plan around certain people being genuinely brain dead
|
On October 21 2025 19:38 Excludos wrote:
There is absolutely zero amount of military muster Taiwan could do to stand up against China on their own. They have a population of 23.6 million vs China's 1.4 billion. They live on a small island the size of Belgium. There is simply no amount of investment, technology, tactics, strategy or otherwise that could possibly let them David that Goliath. Not even if the Chinese military showed themselves to be as incompetent as Russia, which all indications shows they aren't.
Democracy and alliances is literally the only option for Taiwan. And as long as they continue to single-handedly control the world's top microchip production, they are sitting on the biggest trump card that genuinely assures economic destruction for the west if we let it get taken or destroyed. Supporting Taiwan is a no-brainer, but you can't easily plan around certain people being genuinely brain dead
While I agree that there's no chance for Taiwan to overpower China I disagree that China's military is any better than Russia's. They're corrupt as hell (reports of rockets being filled with sand or water etc.) and their military is mostly just for show to run the parades and boast strength. The only reports of their performance in actual combat are quite dismal. The last victory they can claim was in 1962 when they had a border dispute with India (they lost to India 5 years later).
Right now Chinese military is a big unknown since they haven't really been tested in combat so their capabilities are mostly just speculation. You have a lot of corruption there and lack of experience so their gigantic war machine might stumble when push comes to shove.
What's saving Taiwan right now is that China has enmeshed with the world economically to the point where it can't really afford sanctions since they're not self-sustainable. Russia was major food and fuel exporter before the war and look at them now. Meanwhile China relies heavily on food and fuel imports (they import like 40% of their coal requirements to run their power plants and factories). They also have a problem in that they're bordering India with which they don't have the best relations and India has more population than China now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
