Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Yes this was already mentioned up thread. The person posting ignored questions about why the need to post things from people that seem like shills for Russia (and one who does not make their connections clear, but instead seems to try to put an air of impartiality).
Russia/Ukraine conflict
Yep I saw your earlier post - kind of hard to ignore my own reaction, lol. I tend to give people some benefit of the doubt, so my post was really intended to directly “call” his basis for posting. I may have missed it (I re-read your post) but while you questioned Scott Ritter’s bonifides, you didn’t ask the poster why he was posting it. I won’t waste more time on the topic.

This thread is not only helping provide info about what is going on in Ukraine, but also is causing me to re-think how I understand things, how I judge and evaluate what and why people and nations do what they do. @heltok ’s post about how Russians have different words for truth and lies is still processing in my head. Much like what those of us in the USA have lived through with information and disinformation, what is true and what is “fake news,” I am adjusting my own filters to consider the impacts of information being presented, then the bonifides of the poster and their motivations, to decide how to take it. This is a long way of saying I am likely going to end up being quicker to judge people and quicker to block their info if I judge them as having nefarious motivations.

I will add one more point and end with a question: I supported Twitter’s decision to block people from posting when those posts were shown to foment dangerous actions. So, I was a little non-plussed when I saw Elon’s twitter poll asking people if they thought twitter should support “free speech.” Where is the line between free speech and incitement? Obviously this has implications towards the subject of this thread but goes much much broader.
 
We do talk a lot of *sugar* about winning the war, when in fact something like 15-20x more Soviets died fighting the Nazis.

Not to start another irrelevant and boring tangent in this thread.........
“No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.
—- General George Patton
——- kbm3
 
Threats of sanctions might deter possible aggression in some circumstances but not when the opponent is determined to seize what they want by force. Sanctions are the punishments/consequences for what the opponent's aggression. It's unlikely to deter because it can't be known in advance how much unity there will be on applying really strong ones. Especially those that will cause pain to the countries applying them.

While it was reasonable for Biden administration to threaten sanctions I doubt they thought just the threat would prevent the invasion.
They said up front that even strong and unified sanctions would take time to slowly tighten the noose and become a greater and greater factor pushing Putin to reverse course and find a way out.

I'll add that even if sanctions cannot stop an invasion, they can be that much more reason to modify the invasion plans. Making the invasion unpopular at home, more expensive or more difficult cannot be a bad thing.

And prompting the EU to get off Russian fossil fuels and accelerate clean energy production locally is a great thing, albeit round-a-bout
 
“No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.
—- General George Patton
——- kbm3
This is my favorite line in that speech:
"I don't want any messages saying 'I'm holding my position.' We're not holding a goddamned thing. We're advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding anything except the enemy's balls."
 
Yep I saw your earlier post - kind of hard to ignore my own reaction, lol. I tend to give people some benefit of the doubt, so my post was really intended to directly “call” his basis for posting. I may have missed it (I re-read your post) but while you questioned Scott Ritter’s bonifides, you didn’t ask the poster why he was posting it. I won’t waste more time on the topic.

This thread is not only helping provide info about what is going on in Ukraine, but also is causing me to re-think how I understand things, how I judge and evaluate what and why people and nations do what they do. @heltok ’s post about how Russians have different words for truth and lies is still processing in my head. Much like what those of us in the USA have lived through with information and disinformation, what is true and what is “fake news,” I am adjusting my own filters to consider the impacts of information being presented, then the bonifides of the poster and their motivations, to decide how to take it. This is a long way of saying I am likely going to end up being quicker to judge people and quicker to block their info if I judge them as having nefarious motivations.

I will add one more point and end with a question: I supported Twitter’s decision to block people from posting when those posts were shown to foment dangerous actions. So, I was a little non-plussed when I saw Elon’s twitter poll asking people if they thought twitter should support “free speech.” Where is the line between free speech and incitement? Obviously this has implications towards the subject of this thread but goes much much broader.

That post from @heltok was interesting. What words are differentiated in a language tells you what concepts they consider important to distinguish. Another thing posted here a week or so back talked about the roots of Russian culture and it dovetailed with the podcast I posted a few weeks ago about the history of Ukraine.

Russia's culture and mindset was heavily influenced by the Ghengis Khan's Golden Horde and the Muscovite's being a vassal kingdom to the Golden Horde. I was listening to another podcast from the same guys about Ghengis Khan yesterday and there is a lot of Khan's way of conquest in the way Russians do things. Khan's armies would completely destroy a city if they resisted too much.

Being a brutally strong force that violently put down all resistance and heavily punished anyone who did was a hallmark of their empire. Terror was a force multiplier in itself.

The Muscovites ended up conquering the northern half of the Asian continent using the Golden Horde's tactics against the remnants of that empire.

But we are in a different time. Post WW II wars of conquest and taking parts of someone else's countries is considered a no-no in international politics. As bad as the US led invasion of Iraq was, the US never had any intention of making Iraq a part of the US. It wanted to put a puppet in place and get out (which is bad enough, but a different thing from annexing territory).

As for free speech, my partner is an attorney and very much an advocate of free speech, both what is covered by the 1st amendment and what isn't.

As I undersand it, the US 1st amendment only covers speaking out against the government. It does not cover speech in privately controlled forums (all social media platforms, including this one). While is allows someone to say what they like about the government in public and what they think should change, as soon as anybody takes the first step to take some kind of illegal action, they are no longer covered by the 1st amendment.

There is a fair amount of case law specifically defining where the line between protected rights and illegal activity is. The boundary gets complicated when somebody advocates illegal acts while speaking out against the government. Especially if they just imply it rather than clearly advocate for it then it gets very fuzzy whether they crossed the line or not.

Interesting:

This woman is the kind of young Russian who I've been talking about. She's Russian, but she's seen the world and can see the lies from Putin's government. As people like her get older, Putin's grip on Russia slips.
 
I hope this is just saber rattling. I think we are at the point where we cannot back down. Backing down = appeasement. Notwithstanding the history and perspective of Russians and their leadership that I have learned from posts in this thread - or because of it, the fact remains Russia invaded Ukraine. There is no justification for meeting their 4th criterion, “…the fourth case is when an act of aggression is committed against Russia and its allies, which jeopardised the existence of the country itself, even without the use of nuclear weapons, that is, with the use of conventional weapons.”



Russia reasserts right to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/26/russia-reasserts-right-to-use-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine-putin
 
Try to look at where China is headed, and not where it was in the past or where it is currently. Somewhere around 2030, their economy will be the world’s largest, surpassing the U.S. economy. China is currently giving up some social welfare in order to invest abroad & expand their influence. Keep in mind that China’s vision isn’t 2-3 years out, they look decades on out, instead of spending all their money on public welfare, they’ve chosen the path of investing abroad, ie Xi’s Belt and Road Initiatives. The return on investment and foreign influence on Xi’s vision are staggering for this network of rails, roads, shipping,
etc. all leading back to China from across the globe. The interest return on China’s US debt of over $1 trillion is enough to finance any major public welfare programs mentioned above, instead, Xi is focusing on economics abroad in order to build an even stronger China that will yield even greater profits.

Again, the west shouldn’t look down on China’s communist past, and neglect the fact that they’ve arrived, and will eventually surpass us. The attitude here is that capitalism is better just isn’t true anymore (this is old school thinking and a thing of the past when China was practicing primitive forms of communism). Their government is much more efficient than ours today in getting things done, in mobilizing the workforce, in production and manufacturing. And how long did it take for them to get here? 45 years, while the west has practiced capitalism for how long? We use to laugh at Chinese quality, well guess what? Many of their products surpasses the quality of the US today, just look no further than how fast Teslas factory was built? How fast they’re able to ramp… this is why we so happily buy their products. Sure China lags behind in some areas, that is until they either acquire, steal or innovate their own capabilities and then beat us on quality.

Many good manufactures in China are willing to build public housing for their employees and their immediate families to live in and near the factory, keeping their worker’s spirits and happiness high. This trend will continue as more profits from Xi’s Road and Belt initiatives creates more profits. And when they surpass us by a factor of 200-300% you really don’t think China will use some of that profit and put it towards public works, welfare, Medicare, etc? Again, China is just getting started here, try to look further beyond right now and it’s scary how Gigantically BIG this country will be economically. It will be the mother of all Gigastates on steroids.

Again you’re stuck on this metric of we’re better than they are. China doesn’t have to take an entire sample size of education statistics from 1.4 billion people, it’s simply too much data to accumulate. The point here is a sample size of cities consisting of 200 million is enough, and no matter how hard we the West push our kids, we’re not getting to 200 million, it’s just not going to happen. Where else can you find that amount of big brains in one country, ready to join the STEM workforce? Here in the US, we have problems finding workers, there’s labor shortages everywhere, and that’s how they’re going to beat us.


Again, don’t look at China’s current 2nd standing, they’re going to beat us. You just have to accept this fact, every economist and their mother has resigned to this fact. There’s no changing it unless Xi decides to pull a Putin and the West sanctions them. If we do that, we might as well take a bullet to the head ourselves because economically speaking, it’ll be painful. But with Xi’s Belt and Road initiative, he’ll have plenty of buyers whereas Russia’s economy $1.4 trillion GDP doesn’t nearly measure to China’s $14 trillion GDP.


The West is very good with innovation, but it won’t matter, if you want to do business in China you have to give up your IP, unless you’re Tesla. This is the problem with capitalism, it has to expand in order to attract more investors. The moment companies stops expanding, investors are gone, eps goes down or stays stagnant. Capitalism will sell its own soul for the sake of expansion. And if you hold the high ground and refuse to enter China, your competitors will, and effectively outgrow you, then they will out spend you on R&D.

Do you see the problem here? They have a monopoly on their people, their people is their product. China got here within less than 50 years since Nixon visited China. What will they do the next 50 years with millions of kids with high IQ studying STEM? They haven’t even scratched the surface of their true potential yet. With huge sums of corporate profits, China will be able to pay/hire everyone, all it takes is one innovative mind out of 1.4 billion.. it’s a game of probability and they have the numbers to do it. They haven’t been able to lemme a leader of STEM as they’ve only been in this game for 50 years since Nixon.

Furthermore, China doesn’t need everyone in its country to be educated, they’ll need the majority to be factory workers, farmers, growers, shippers, etc. because if too many people are equipped with a degree, they’ll end up like the US where manufacturing jobs just gets shipped overseas. This is why the US is struggling, we’re a service economy now. We serve one another to get by, and in order to get by, we borrow, borrow and borrow. Hence the deficit…

Their government is working on a surplus, and can afford failed ventures. We’re working on borrowed money…. It’s easy for the rich to lose money, they can find ways to make it back. But when you’re borrowing because your country is in a deficit, guess what’s going to happen one day? Do you know what’s keeping us afloat? Money printing, bailouts… 2008.. bailout… money printing… Covid, bailout, more money printing….and more deficit. It’s a vicious cycle that hasn’t played itself out yet. I’m not too confident with the US economy the next 2 decade, but it doesn’t mean I’m going invest in China neither. Xi can decide to take profits from any tech company and put it towards public use (or $$$ towards more failed ventures). The difference, China can afford it, over $600 billion a year in surplus or 2 times the amount of Russia’s current entire useable reserves can bailout or finance all kinds of ventures.

You’re missing my point, China needed to adopt communism in order to overthrow the emperor system, they pivoted from that to adopt socialism as well as capitalism, making their country a hybrid. China is no longer fully Communist, they’re working in a hybrid system of all three with a very logical/ambitious leader who has vision and deep pockets. The question here is are you ready to be #2 or are you in the mindset that we still have a chance to be #1 in terms of economics around year 2030?

It will take a major catastrophic idiotic mistake for China not to beat us economically in terms of GDP. As for better healthcare, income per capita, that can come later… as long as they have someone like Xi in power. Where would we be today if Trump was in power? will democracy, capitalism survive him? I think not…. but that’s a different debate that I don’t care to get into.

Yes, we have to acknowledge that the main contest is an economic and technological contest, and China is a strong competitor.

China is going to see a contraction of their population as part of the earlier "one child" policy and an aging of their population.

We can tell in Russia there is a generational split to some extent between old and young, with the older citizens more focused on past glory, military conquest and a WWII centric view of the world,

In China there might be a similar divide, young better educated generations, might just want to get on with life, and might be less inclined to focus on military conquests, past perceived injustices and national pride.

So here, I hope the world might simply be able to wait out the current Chinese leadership, in the hope that the next batch might be better,

And I don't think it is the US against China in the economic contest, it is the US, the EU, UK, Japan, South Korea Taiwan, India, Australia and eventually parts of South America and Africa.

Finally the US has Elon Musk, and a strong culture of innovation.

IMO there is nothing wrong with intense economy competition, that drives innovation. Strong diplomatic competition can give a better deal for smaller/weaker states, as world powers lobby for their support,. They key is to stop short of military confrontation.

I will say that the Australian government in particular and the US, to some extent should tone down the rhetoric on China, This message intended for internal political advantage, is damaging for international relations, Keep repeating that China is the enemy, and China will believe it. It is possible to be competitive and friendly.
 
I hope this is just saber rattling. I think we are at the point where we cannot back down. Backing down = appeasement.
IMO the only grey area is if Crimea is considered part of Russia.

Outside of territory which is considered part of Ukraine, Ukraine has no interest in invading Russia.

In spite of reckless talk, Russia knows it would lose any kind of confrontation with NATO, and IMO lose very quickly.

A lot of their army is tied up in Ukraine, it would not take long for NATO to destroy the Russian air-force and air defences,

The threat of nuclear war is enough to keep NATO out of the war, but any use of nuclear weapons might bring NATO into it.

In the meantime the combination of Ukrainian armed forces, weapons supply and sanctions seems to be working,

Negotiation is always an option for the Russians especially if they want a speedy resolution, negotiation is always better than being destroyed.
 
Russia needs to take an off-ramp soon. Going nuclear needs to be shown to be a total decimation route not an off-ramp.
By the time Ukraine gets around to invading Crimea, it will be clear that Ukraine has won the conventional war.

In terms of damage to Russian national pride, disastrous military losses and a severely degraded military, that has already happened,

But it may be apparent to all that Ukraine will win weeks before they actually win. The opportunity for Russia to take an off ramp is when the military outcome is uncertain, or at least not yet formal,

While Russia thinks they can win a conventional war, they are unlikely to use Nuclear Weapons, and may be unlikely to give ground in negotiations.

What Ukraine will accept as a negotiated settlement, is up to Ukraine, While Ukraine is fighting, weapons supply and sanctions need to continue.
Backing down is unlikely to deter Russia from future aggression, and it isn't fair to Ukraine.
 
Advisor to Zelensky:

However, Podolyak expressed scepticism over a claim from the Russian defence ministry on Friday that Moscow’s forces would now focus mainly on the Donbas area in east Ukraine.
“Of course I don’t believe that. They don’t have interests in Donbas. Their main interests are Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and the south – to take Mariupol, and to close the Azov Sea … we see them regrouping and preparing more troops to send in,” he said.

No pollyannish wishful thinking from that guy.


Snippet from the Guardian
 
Unfortunately, this article is what most probably expected. It also notes missile attacks on Lviv, near the Polish border.

Question to the strategists and analysts on the thread, - what do you make of Biden’s off the cuff comment stating Putin needs to go? Impact? Logical next steps on both sides?

Kremlin confusion as Moscow contradicts own generals with claim it still wants to take Kyiv
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/26/kremlin-contradicts-russian-generals-military-movements-ambitions/?utm_content=world+news&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1648328779-2
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
Question to the strategists and analysts on the thread, - what do you make of Biden’s off the cuff comment stating Putin needs to go? Impact? Logical next steps on both sides?
He tends to go off-script. That's why Obama kept him away from cameras for eight years. I don't see any impact aside from Putin using it for propaganda.

Ukranians were rightfully disappointed by the speech, more thundering words backed by no action.
 
I think Joe got caught up in the emotions of seeing the refugees in Poland when he made the comment about Putin needing to go. The White House scrambled to issue a retraction/clarification. A lot of us probably agree, but backing a paranoid Putin into a corner may not be the wisest move at this junction.

From what I've seen a lot of American media is doing pearl clutching about his remark, but outside the US the media attitude is largely that Biden just stated an obvious thing: Putin should not be in charge of anything.