The Ukrainian War V: Tanks For The Memories

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

There is no "throne" in China. You wouldn't describe the position of "president" as a throne but over-exaggeration is fun.
China's economy and political standing in the world is doing fine. Companies still suck up to China. Countries still suck up to China. China has an entire bloc of nations aligned to it. It is way less diplomatically isolated than you think it is.

Xi Jinping clearly holds the Mandate of Heaven.

The Weigai Emperor (personal name Xi Jinping) is the Emperor of All China, ruling since 2012...

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Xi Jinping clearly holds the Mandate of Heaven.

The Weigai Emperor (personal name Xi Jinping) is the Emperor of All China, ruling since 2012...

Known for his famous catchphrase “Wazzup Beijing”

[The Lone Alliance]

I don't remember any such thing a year ago. But in December people were noticing that Russia was running short of missiles, and starting to use inappropriate missiles like anti-ship or air-to-air, and this year we have seen the missile barrages happening more and more rarely. The destruction of the cruise missile shipment in Dzhankoi will limit the effectiveness of the next round.

Orostan's schtick is to make things up and then try to use said falsehoods as a "gotcha"

There were people and media sources pointing out that Russia was using up munitions and missles at a rate where Russia could not replenish fast enough and that eventually Russia would run out.

What Orostan's gotcha fails is Russia has decreased it's rate of shelling and missile spaming.

If Russia has no supply issues like he claims why are they unable to keep up the constant barrages anymore?

Russia supporters continue to act like "Russia is only using 10% of it's power and any day the gloves will come off and then everyone will understand!!"

But it seems like the only thing Russia has under it's gloves is more gloves.

Meanwhile the US debates over giving Ukraine more leftovers over our mostly untouched stockpiles.

What does NATO even need to defend against at this point?

It's not like Russia is going to be able to launch an invasion of Europe without getting wiped out either through American airpower or Atomic extermination.

And contrary to their belief NATO has little interest in rushing Moscow, so really 'depleating NATO' means nothing, because they are simply letting NATO weaponry do what it was designed to do, slaughter Russians.

[El Lazaro]

Orostan's schtick is to make things up and then try to use said falsehoods as a "gotcha"

There were people and media sources pointing out that Russia was using up munitions and missles at a rate where Russia could not replenish fast enough and that eventually Russia would run out.

What Orostan's gotcha fails is Russia has decreased it's rate of shelling and missile spaming.

If Russia has no supply issues like he claims why are they unable to keep up the constant barrages anymore?

Russia supporters continue to act like "Russia is only using 10% of it's power and any day the gloves will come off and then everyone will understand!!"

But it seems like the only thing Russia has under it's gloves is more gloves.

Meanwhile the US debates over giving Ukraine more leftovers over our mostly untouched stockpiles.

What does NATO even need to defend against at this point?

It's not like Russia is going to be able to launch an invasion of Europe without getting wiped out either through American airpower or Atomic extermination.

And contrary to their belief NATO has little interest in rushing Moscow, so really 'depleating NATO' means nothing, because they are simply letting NATO weaponry do what it was designed to do, slaughter Russians.

Pfffft, by this logic, France lost the Battle of Agincourt even though the English were the ones who fired most of the arrows. Tens of thousands of arrows were absorbed by the French forces every minute; they quite clearly won the day.

[Tarsonis]

Orostan's schtick is to make things up and then try to use said falsehoods as a "gotcha"

There were people and media sources pointing out that Russia was using up munitions and missles at a rate where Russia could not replenish fast enough and that eventually Russia would run out.

What Orostan's gotcha fails is Russia has decreased it's rate of shelling and missile spaming.

If Russia has no supply issues like he claims why are they unable to keep up the constant barrages anymore?

Russia supporters continue to act like "Russia is only using 10% of it's power and any day the gloves will come off and then everyone will understand!!"

But it seems like the only thing Russia has under it's gloves is more gloves.

Meanwhile the US debates over giving Ukraine more leftovers over our mostly untouched stockpiles.

What does NATO even need to defend against at this point?

It's not like Russia is going to be able to launch an invasion of Europe without getting wiped out either through American airpower or Atomic extermination.

And contrary to their belief NATO has little interest in rushing Moscow, so really 'depleating NATO' means nothing, because they are simply letting NATO weaponry do what it was designed to do, slaughter Russians.

None of that is news. We were all aware that Russia would adjust firing rates as they ran through their stockpile and had to rely on manufacturing.

Orostan's claim is still some bullshit he made up, and my point still stands

[Democratic Communist Federation]

If China opted not to elect Xi Jinping to the throne, but instead chose a less confrontational, more moderate candidate that would keep doing things like laughing at the United States' ridiculous Middle Eastern wars or the absurdity of their internal politics while continuing to build up ties of trade and academia with Europe and Southeast Asia - you know, proven strategies that have worked and were working - China would be in a far more advantageous position now with regards their new cold war with the United States than they are in our reality.

Anyone who tried to challenge Xi should take a long vacation with his/her family in advance.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

They are openly backing Russia's attempt to conquer Ukraine. Which I suppose isn't really the same as China doing it directly, but still.

Openly backing? I would call it lip service.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Do you support the international consensus that Taiwan is part of China?

An international consensus could consist of as few as two countries. How many countries do you think form that international consensus? (The answer is "very few.")

[-Astoria-]

Do you support the international consensus that Taiwan is part of China?

An international consensus could consist of as few as two countries. How many countries do you think form that international consensus? (The answer is "very few.")

And ignoring the fact of China's large influence & the "one-China policy," requiring countries to pick a side.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Do you support the international consensus that Taiwan is part of China?

Yes, I think as a matter of territorial integrity and sovereignty. It isn't international aggression for China to attempt to assert its legal sovereignty over Taiwan, recognized even by the Taiwanese government. I think the strength of the response of Western countries, in not only argming Taiwan, but also establishing new military bases, nuclear submarine programs in Australia, politicians and generals laying out timelines for war, etc. is a more interesting sign of aggression. It's very interesting the propaganda offensive in media, political hearings, military reports, arms deals, etc. to manufacture a pretext for a war with China over a separatist government propped up by Western governments as an outpost of military and economic influence in East Asia for seventy years. Everyone wants to say that the Chinese are aggressive and want war, but it's not their media and politicians openly salivating for war.

Taiwan is being given the means to defend itself if war were to break out. Nobody wants war. But if war happens, Taiwan cannot just be unprepared. And having plans for a potential future war is extremely common and happens everywhere. I guarantee you China has a war plan for America and Taiwan too, they just don't tell their people. And even if Taiwan is a western ally and outpost of western influence, the fact is that Taiwan is very free and democratic, and the people there deserve to stay under that system rather than be conquered by an oppressive dictatorship.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Do you support the international consensus that Taiwan is part of China?

An international consensus could consist of as few as two countries. How many countries do you think form that international consensus? (The answer is "very few.")

181 UN member states do not recognize Taiwan as a country, even if many of them have unofficial relations. Pretty international.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

An international consensus could consist of as few as two countries. How many countries do you think form that international consensus? (The answer is "very few.")

181 UN member states do not recognize Taiwan as a country, even if many of them have unofficial relations. Pretty international.

well it's between "hurting the feelings of 1+ billion people" or buy PRC's stuff... guess what everybody that hasn't got America's clout picks.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

181 UN member states do not recognize Taiwan as a country, even if many of them have unofficial relations. Pretty international.

well it's between "hurting the feelings of 1+ billion people" or buy PRC's stuff... guess what everybody that hasn't got America's clout picks.

Guess who America picks. Besides, it's the best of both worlds. You get to still have relations with the ROC while being able to buy from the PRC. But, still, international consensus is most definitely in the favor of the PRC.

[-Astoria-]

well it's between "hurting the feelings of 1+ billion people" or buy PRC's stuff... guess what everybody that hasn't got America's clout picks.

Guess who America picks. Besides, it's the best of both worlds. You get to still have relations with the ROC while being able to buy from the PRC. But, still, international consensus is most definitely in the favor of the PRC.

Again, due to the above reasons: additionally:

An international consensus could consist of as few as two countries. How many countries do you think form that international consensus? (The answer is "very few.")

And ignoring the fact of China's large influence & the "one-China policy," requiring countries to pick a side.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

181 UN member states do not recognize Taiwan as a country, even if many of them have unofficial relations. Pretty international.

Those 181 member states include the one in which I live, the U.S. However, the U.S. would not tolerate China waging war on Taiwan. De facto, Taiwan is treated as independent by most countries even without formal relations.

When Nixon ended relations with Taiwan (with the support of Henry Kissinger), he was engaging in Realpolitik or political realism/pragmatism. The one-China policy implies that Mainland China is the only China (for purposes of engagement). It is not a green light for Mainland China to invade Taiwan.

I despise Nixon for many reasons. However, that is the main one---establishing economic and political considerations as a moral compass.

U.S. (and NATO) support for Ukraine is also, by and large, Realpolitik.

[Delvian States]

181 UN member states do not recognize Taiwan as a country, even if many of them have unofficial relations. Pretty international.

Those 181 member states include the one in which I live, the U.S. However, the U.S. would not tolerate China waging war on Taiwan. De facto, Taiwan is treated as independent by most countries even without formal relations.

When Nixon ended relations with Taiwan (with the support of Henry Kissinger), he was engaging in Realpolitik or political realism/pragmatism. The one-China policy implies that Mainland China is the only China (for purposes of engagement). It is not a green light for Mainland China to invade Taiwan.

I despise Nixon for many reasons. However, that is the main one---establishing economic and political considerations as a moral compass.

U.S. (and NATO) support for Ukraine is also, by and large, Realpolitik.

Sadly, politicians are gonna Realpolitik. That's just how it is. Honestly, in the long run, for human survival, we need a global commonwealth. I think that you would agree with on that, though probably not the form or type of it. Also, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. Too many people would lose their power and privileges if we did that. Also, who would run it....we can't exactly trust Beijing with it, for instance.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Sometimes I wish Poland would get nukes just so that Henry Kissinger would get a severe high blood pressure event.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Sadly, politicians are gonna Realpolitik. That's just how it is. Honestly, in the long run, for human survival, we need a global commonwealth. I think that you would agree with on that, though probably not the form or type of it. Also, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. Too many people would lose their power and privileges if we did that. Also, who would run it....we can't exactly trust Beijing with it, for instance.

Yes. That is the main difference between political scientists and political sociologists. Political scientists generally support Realpolitik. (Kissinger was, unsurprisingly, a political scientist.) Political sociologists, who are frequently Marxists, usually do not.

I find it troubling that many people see politicians, diplomats, etc. who support Ukraine and assume they are doing so for noble intentions. But I admit to being a cynic.

For instance, I would like to see the distribution of support for Ukraine among scholars in those two fields. However, such studies are rarely conducted.

Yes, a global commonwealth would be nice.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Henry Kissinger also unironically thinks that everybody under the boots of a hegemon had fuck all to say about their predicament, their countries and nations only serving as mere poker chips for greater powers so fuck what he thinks.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Henry Kissinger can start Kissin-my-ass

[Fortisbellator]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ai ... 25b6&ei=42
*insert Ride of the Valkyries here*

[Punished UMN]

No one has ever recognized "Taiwan" as an independent country. Not even Taiwan maintains its independence as a sovereign entity over the island of Taiwan, their own constitution, the governments which recognize them, etc. all say that they are under Chinese sovereignty. The "Realpolitik" is continuing to effectively treat the ROC as an independent nation with sovereignty and territorial integrity in spite of every legal and historical fact of the ROC government's existence. It is a government that lost the Chinese civil war, and went into exile on the island of Taiwan where it was protected militarily by the United States while the latter blocked the ability of the government of mainland China to participate in international institutions (while continuing to consider the ROC the sole legitimate government of China). The concerted effort to assert an independent Taiwan in spite of every international consensus on China's territorial integrity, is pushed so hard because Western countries are desperate for a retroactive justification for what is now a separatist movement that they have fostered, armed, trained, and protected. If we are going to hold the territorial integrity of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, etc. over territories they have never exercised sovereignty over then what issue do you have with applying that principle here? Like Russia, Western governments should not get to arbitrarily decide when the territory of another country is independent without going through any legal channels or seeking any international consensus, and then effect that independence through massive arms deals and military maneuvers.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

No one has ever recognized "Taiwan" as an independent country. Not even Taiwan maintains its independence as a sovereign entity over the island of Taiwan, their own constitution, the governments which recognize them, etc. all say that they are under Chinese sovereignty. The "Realpolitik" is continuing to effectively treat the ROC as an independent nation with sovereignty and territorial integrity in spite of every legal and historical fact of the ROC government's existence. It is a government that lost the Chinese civil war, and went into exile on the island of Taiwan where it was protected militarily by the United States while the latter blocked the ability of the government of mainland China to participate in international institutions (while continuing to consider the ROC the sole legitimate government of China). The concerted effort to assert an independent Taiwan in spite of every international consensus on China's territorial integrity, is pushed so hard because Western countries are desperate for a retroactive justification for what is now a separatist movement that they have fostered, armed, trained, and protected. If we are going to hold the territorial integrity of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, etc. over territories they have never exercised sovereignty over then what issue do you have with applying that principle here? Like Russia, Western governments should not get to arbitrarily decide when the territory of another country is independent without going through any legal channels or seeking any international consensus, and then effect that independence through massive arms deals and military maneuvers.

This is a bit of a threadjack. Go make a Taiwan thread.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

No one has ever recognized "Taiwan" as an independent country.

There is a difference between de facto and de jure recognition. De facto, no. De jure, also no. The U.S. recognized Taiwan (then known as the Republic of China) as an independent country until, well, the U.S. didn't. Like NATO supporting Ukraine, these policies are born of Realpolitik.

Governments do not generally base their policies on history. They base their policies on political opportunism.

[Scots-Rhodesia]

apparently Hungary won't detain Putin if he were to visit

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/sta ... 5050396695

but what a surprise it turns out of course Hungary is occupied by Ziorats

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hung ... -jerusalem