I don't know if you are being funny or ? Korea? the chinese invasion of vietnam? Chinese intervention throughout Lao and Myanmar. Chinese troops stationed all over Africa today protecting sites of chinese oil and mining interest. Chinese military advisors were all over the Khemer Rouge. Pol Pot was a chinese proxy, so was/is every north korea.
They are less altruistic maybe but you have to have lived in a cave not to have been impacted.
China hasn't had much military action in the last 40 years. They have been restructuring their military from a primarily infantry force to a combined arms force with a strong air force and navy.
But one weakness China has is there is probably not a single person of any rank left in their military who has actually been to war. There have been a few border skirmishes with India and such, but nobody has actually fought a real war. China's likely opponents in a full scale way have many people with war experience. A lot of countries sent troops to Afghanistan, and the US along with a few other countries went into Iraq. A number of western countries have sent peacekeepers to Africa where they have seen some combat.
An inexperienced army is going to make a lot of simple mistakes initially because they have never done them before. The US made a lot of mistakes early in WW II. The US barely held the line against the Germans at Kesserine Pass and had to press everyone who could hold a rifle into combat. A lot of people who had been exempt from basic training got killed because they didn't know what they were doing.
The first US offensive operation in the Pacific, the invasion of Guadalcanal almost failed because the transport ships were not packed correctly and the wrong kind of supply came ashore first. When the transports had to pull out early, they took some critical supply with them.
China doesn't know what it doesn't know until it actually gets into combat. I think an attempt to take Taiwan by force would be met with disaster because they have no experience with amphibious operations. They have built a navy with capabilities similar to the USN in the ability to conduct an invasion, but they lack the institutional knowledge the US learned the hard way in the 1940s.
The US also hasn't conducted an amphibious operation since 1950, but the institution has done it and constantly works to keep those skills up to date. Because warfare has changed, the US would likely make some mistakes too, but it isn't starting from zero.
Russians can't be everywhere in large numbers along their vast occupied frontlines with their current force strength.
This sounds even more challenging in the remnants of Kherson the Russians hold on the east side of the river. “The Russian grouping in Kherson oblast is likely the most disorganised and undermanned in the entire theatre, highly likely mainly comprised of badly under-strength remnants of mainly mobilised units,” per the thinktank.
Even the remaining Ukranian civilians there are likely majority pro-Ukraine so human trafficking of them away per Russia's usual historic crimes makes strategic sense to them, fearing partisan forces among other things. They are also gambling that Ukraine does not take the risk of a large scale amphibious crossing.
I don't think Ukraine has the lift capacity to pull off a full scale cross river attack. Moving heavy equipment across will be most difficult.
If the Russians end up thinning their forces on the left bank of the Dnipro because of demands in other areas, or they start to pull back because the front is collapsing elsewhere, the Ukrainians do have the ability to get troops across the river, establish a solid beachhead, and build a pontoon bridge to get equipment across. At that point Ukraine could get mobile forces in and speed up the collapse of the Russian forces.
There is a concept in warfare called a force in being. In WW I both sides only had one full engagement at Jutland and otherwise kept their navies' large ships in port or close to port. The fact that either side could sortie out at any time was enough to keep the other side prepared to do the same at any moment. A similar thing happened in WW II when the Royal Navy kept a large force at Scapa Flow to counter any movements by the smaller German Kreigsmarine force that could venture out from their ports at any time. A lot of effort was put into sinking the larger German ships and neutralizing this force. Once the Tirpitz, the biggest battleship was sunk, the RN reduced their force at Scapa Flow.
The Ukrainians on the right bank of the Dnipro are a similar force. The fact that there is a Ukrainian force there that could cross the Dnipro and open a new front if Russia doesn't defend the bank forces Russia to tie down a chunk of troops they need elsewhere to prevent Ukraine from opening that front.
Russia's attempt at an offensive this winter was a stupid move. They squandered the lives of troops they will need when the offensive starts. Their equipment losses were fairly mild compared to other times in the war, but they can't afford to lose any vehicles at this point and the Ukrainians made them pay whenever the vehicles came out. The Russians should have also been stockpiling ammunition, but wasted a lot of ammunition in their offensives.
Ukraine played a modest hand well this winter committing only enough troops to bleed the Russians while keeping their best forces back and training them for the offensive. The Russians lost a lot of troops to Ukraine's C team while the A and B teams trained and prepared. That puts Ukraine in a strong position when the weather finally clears up.
Another article from the Guardian:
Kharkiv on country’s eastern border has long had Russian-speaking majority but things are changing fast
www.theguardian.com
Snippets
... in 2012, only about 10% of those in the south and east spoke Ukrainian as their language of convenience. By summer 2022, that had risen to more than 70%,
... they are using language to resist aggression and the imperialism that they think underlies that.
... “I speak the language of the oppressor,” she said, referring to Russian. “I consider Ukrainian to be my mother tongue – even though I grew up speaking Russian.”
(my)
Conclusion
Either the
recent laws about learning the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian history (and banning Russian place names) are following the will of the people and the parliament that passed those laws or Ukraine has the best bloody war propaganda department on the planet by a country mile.
Protip
Invading a country, slaughtering and torturing its civilians, destroying its civilian infrastructure, kidnapping thousands of its children, committing other war crimes and acts of genocide, and declaring that country a non-entity are not effective methods for winning over the hearts and minds of the people you're trying to conquer and wipe off the face of the Earth.
See:
the North Wind and the Sun
The war is unifying a Ukrainian identity. Russia moved in a lot of ethnic Russians after the Holodomar. Ethnic Russians had moved in before then too.
The Russians were attempting to wipe out Ukrainian identity then like they are trying now. But they are treating the ethnic Russians whose families have only been there a generation or two the same way they are treating ethnic Ukrainians, which is making their plan backfire in a massive way. Those ethnic Russians who were at least leaning pro-Russia before the war are now mostly adamantly anti-Russia.
teslamotorsclub.com
