Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Torie]

The odds of Russia attacking a NATO country and Ukraine joining NATO while Russia is attacking it, are both asymptotically close to zero.

Atlas has developed posing absurd hypotheticals, and then posters dissing each other over often the equally absurd iterations,  into one of its most popular forms of performance art.

[Lord Halifax]

Russia has too many nuclear warheads for NATO to try to attack it in a non-Eurocentric way.

Are you trying to be funny? if so, you've failed. Eurocentric referred to the idea that a war in Europe is a World War, at most a war between NATO and Russia would be a Eurasian war and NATO forcing Russia out of Ukraine and destroying its capacity to attack Ukraine from the neighboring regions of Russia and Belarus is unlikely to involve combat east of the Urals so even that is a stretch.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A war between NATO and Russia would definitionally be a world war, yes. The more important point is that it would probably not be a nuclear war, because neither side would have an interest in using nukes. Even if the US sent boots on the ground to Ukraine tomorrow, that wouldn't give Putin any reason to use nukes that he doesn't already have, and the fact that he hasn't chosen to use them in a year of war is evidence enough that he's not going to, posturing aside. And of course, the same is all the more true for Biden. The reality is that nuclear-armed powers are perfectly capable and willing to fight each other conventionally, as indeed they have plenty of times since 1945. While the risk of a nuclear escalation is real and should always keep us up at night, it should be treated as a remote possibility.

[2952-0-0]

You repeat the same esoteric. To use the word shock in this context is ridiculous. The collapse of the USSR was a consequence of the fact that for decades the spring of nationalism of the Soviet peoples was held back, especially nationalism was overripe among Russians and Ukrainians. Now both the Chinese state and the Russian state are nationalist, they are in complete harmony with the nationalism of their main ethnic groups, and a tiny number of real liberals are excluded by all means from influencing politics. Absolutely nothing threatens either Vinnie's regime or Piglet's regime. This field has been cleared.

Yes, it was ultimately nationalism that destroyed the Soviet Union. But, that was made possible because the Party's rank and file no longer felt that listening to the Kremlin served their interests. They then found another potential source of power in the form of local nationalism. Nationalism was the symptom, not the cause, of the Soviet Union's collapse.

As for China, Xi Jinping himself has repeatedly warned that the Party could very quickly fall apart due to a lack of internal cohesion. His speech about his theory on why the Soviet Union feel apart, which I previously mentioned, says it all:

https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2013/01/leaked-speech-shows-xi-jinpings-opposition-to-reform/

The most striking part of Xi Jinping’s “new southern tour speech” is his revisiting the topic of the Soviet Union’s collapse. He said, “Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse? An important reason was that their ideals and beliefs had been shaken. In the end, ‘the ruler’s flag over the city tower’ changed overnight. It’s a profound lesson for us! To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the Party’s organizations on all levels.”

“Why must we stand firm on the Party’s leadership over the military?” Xi continued, “because that’s the lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union where the military was depoliticized, separated from the Party and nationalized, the party was disarmed. A few people tried to save the Soviet Union; they seized Gorbachev, but within days it was turned around again, because they didn’t have the instruments to exert power. Yeltsin gave a speech standing on a tank, but the military made no response, keeping so-called ‘neutrality.’ Finally, Gorbachev announced the disbandment of the Soviet Communist Party in a blithe statement. A big Party was gone just like that. Proportionally, the Soviet Communist Party had more members than we do, but nobody was man enough to stand up and resist.”

Here's a more recent take, that more explicitly makes my comparison:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/China-up-close/Xi-s-Gorbachev-obsession-put-China-on-a-Soviet-path

As for how the CCP could fall apart, it won't be the exact same way as the Soviet Union, where local Party use nationalism to dismantle the Party's structures. Deng Xiaoping had hoped to create a tacit agreement where market reformists and statists would take turns leading the Party every ten years. Before his death, he even declared that Hu Jintao (the one who was led away at the last Party Congress) would serve as General Secretary between 2002-2012, and that the Party would be able to select Hu's successor in a structured process.

But, by the late 2000s, ideological factions were increasingly openly sniping at each other, and that could very well have led to a split in the Party. It was in this context that Winnie came in, promising to recreate the Party's cohesion, and hence his speech on his theory on why the Soviet Union fell apart.

That also explains why the CCP chose to crack down in Hong Kong: internal documents revealed that they were aware of the Baltic republics, which, despite being the wealthiest and westernized parts of the USSR, were also the most resentful of Moscow and the first domino to fall. Hence, they viewed Hong Kong as a threat to the CCP's rule over all of China, and therefore a crackdown was the most logical option.

They also extensively studied the KMT in Taiwan, and the PRI in Mexico: two other long-time one-party dictatorships that fell apart. In both these cases, they concluded not inaccurately that a lack of cohesion within the ruling party made the party elites question whether they should continue supporting the system.

Hence, they are acutely aware of the risk to regime stability, and it is their #1, #2, and #3 priority. Everything else is subordinate to that, and the impression that the Party's rule is rock-solid forever is the product of their own propaganda. Winnie is secure for now, but I dare say that before you know it, sniping among the Party elites will become more and more difficult to ignore.

Second, I don't see why China might not want to supply the Russian army, because China has been supplying the Russian army for a long time, both itself and through its satellites. The West turns a blind eye to this, because the Western and not only the Western economy is tightly tied to China.

Here's a statistic you may want to consider: about 200 million Chinese jobs are dependent on foreign trade, about 20-25%. This is according to ex-Premier Li Keqiang, who probably did so to rain on Winnie's parade. A China that openly supports the Russian army in vast quantities (more than deniable drones or spare parts) would most certainly invite retaliation from the Western powers.

For starters, I can see the EU, US, Canada, UK, Japan, etc imposing a 10% (or something) tariff on imports from China, which would go towards supporting Ukraine. The Trump Administration's tariffs on Chinese imports did cause some economic costs to the US economy, but the costs to the Chinese economy were greater, and that's why the Biden Administration kept them. Such a Ukraine tariff would cause some cost to the western economies, but it would be a fraction of the cost of just a fraction of the many millions of Chinese jobs that would be lost. If you want to give the CCP any credit, it's that they will do whatever it takes to prevent domestic mass unemployment. Unfortunately for them, their room for error is shrinking: China's export manufacturing sector is ailing even according to its official statistics.

And that's just the direct employment aspect. Until recently, the US has been struggling to convince its allies to go along with its efforts to restrict the flow of advanced technology to China. A major reason for this was that the Europeans had been skeptical about Washington's agenda, and wanted to assert their strategic presence. A China that abandons the pretense of neutrality will make it much easier for Washington to co-ordinate technology sanctions. What happened recently in the semiconductor sector could very easily spread to other sectors. It won't immediately threaten the CCP's regime, but they're very vocal that they view these sanctions as a direct attack on their core interests.

Winnie himself wants to be another Mao, but he lacks the cunning or intelligence of Mao. He obviously has a man crush on bunker grandpa, but he's constrained by the Party structures and China's vast size in his ability to micromanage affairs. He's also constrained by the fact that, while China's economy is vastly wealthier than Russia's, that's because it's far more globalized and more vulnerable to external factors.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

A war between NATO and Russia would definitionally be a world war, yes. The more important point is that it would probably not be a nuclear war, because neither side would have an interest in using nukes. Even if the US sent boots on the ground to Ukraine tomorrow, that wouldn't give Putin any reason to use nukes that he doesn't already have, and the fact that he hasn't chosen to use them in a year of war is evidence enough that he's not going to, posturing aside. And of course, the same is all the more true for Biden. The reality is that nuclear-armed powers are perfectly capable and willing to fight each other conventionally, as indeed they have plenty of times since 1945. While the risk of a nuclear escalation is real and should always keep us up at night, it should be treated as a remote possibility.

It's a good thing Kennedy and Khrushchev didn't have this casual of an attitude towards conflict between nuclear powers or we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Is it just a strange coincidence that there has literally never been a conventional conflict between nuclear powers? India and Pakistan's wars ended, the US and USSR resorted to proxies and even North Korea became untouchable when their nuclear program achieved success.

Even if both sides want to keep it conventional, the problem is that all you need is a single submarine cut off from communications to make a fateful decision and at that point de-escalation becomes impossible. If Washington, New York, Moscow or Paris were to be obliterated is there any question whether the victim would instantly retaliate? In that situation Putin's rationality becomes irrelevant and the Dead Hand activates regardless.

[Damocles]

It's a good thing Kennedy and Khrushchev didn't have this casual of an attitude towards conflict between nuclear powers or we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Is it just a strange coincidence that there has literally never been a conventional conflict between nuclear powers? India and Pakistan's wars ended, the US and USSR resorted to proxies and even North Korea became untouchable when their nuclear program achieved success.

Even if both sides want to keep it conventional, the problem is that all you need is a single submarine cut off from communications to make a fateful decision and at that point de-escalation becomes impossible. If Washington, New York, Moscow or Paris were to be obliterated is there any question whether the victim would instantly retaliate? In that situation Putin's rationality becomes irrelevant and the Dead Hand activates regardless.

Putin said that the West sending armaments to Ukraine would result in nuclear retaliation.

Putin did not resort to nuclear retaliation.

Putin said that NATO membership for Finland and/or Sweden would result in nuclear retaliation.

Putin did not resort to nuclear retaliation.

Putin said that Ukraine retaking Kherson city would result in nuclear retaliation.

Putin did not resort to nuclear retaliation.

Putin said that international attempts to hold Russian civilian-military leadership to account for war crimes since 2014 would result in nuclear retaliation.

Putin did not resort to nuclear retaliation.

It’s almost as if Putin has a pattern of bluffing about Russian nuclear readiness and repeatedly issues “Chinese final warnings”. He has nothing effective or viable enough to manage escalation between zero and nuclear annihilation, and he knows it. The state of the Russian conventional forces is a shamble of its former self, and he knows it. The western world does not take him seriously as a person or as a president, and he knows it. But he can do absolutely nothing about it.

[Absolution9]

You repeat the same esoteric. To use the word shock in this context is ridiculous. The collapse of the USSR was a consequence of the fact that for decades the spring of nationalism of the Soviet peoples was held back, especially nationalism was overripe among Russians and Ukrainians. Now both the Chinese state and the Russian state are nationalist, they are in complete harmony with the nationalism of their main ethnic groups, and a tiny number of real liberals are excluded by all means from influencing politics. Absolutely nothing threatens either Vinnie's regime or Piglet's regime. This field has been cleared.

Yes, it was ultimately nationalism that destroyed the Soviet Union. But, that was made possible because the Party's rank and file no longer felt that listening to the Kremlin served their interests. They then found another potential source of power in the form of local nationalism. Nationalism was the symptom, not the cause, of the Soviet Union's collapse.

As for China, Xi Jinping himself has repeatedly warned that the Party could very quickly fall apart due to a lack of internal cohesion. His speech about his theory on why the Soviet Union feel apart, which I previously mentioned, says it all:

https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2013/01/leaked-speech-shows-xi-jinpings-opposition-to-reform/

The most striking part of Xi Jinping’s “new southern tour speech” is his revisiting the topic of the Soviet Union’s collapse. He said, “Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse? An important reason was that their ideals and beliefs had been shaken. In the end, ‘the ruler’s flag over the city tower’ changed overnight. It’s a profound lesson for us! To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the Party’s organizations on all levels.”

“Why must we stand firm on the Party’s leadership over the military?” Xi continued, “because that’s the lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union where the military was depoliticized, separated from the Party and nationalized, the party was disarmed. A few people tried to save the Soviet Union; they seized Gorbachev, but within days it was turned around again, because they didn’t have the instruments to exert power. Yeltsin gave a speech standing on a tank, but the military made no response, keeping so-called ‘neutrality.’ Finally, Gorbachev announced the disbandment of the Soviet Communist Party in a blithe statement. A big Party was gone just like that. Proportionally, the Soviet Communist Party had more members than we do, but nobody was man enough to stand up and resist.”

Here's a more recent take, that more explicitly makes my comparison:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/China-up-close/Xi-s-Gorbachev-obsession-put-China-on-a-Soviet-path

As for how the CCP could fall apart, it won't be the exact same way as the Soviet Union, where local Party use nationalism to dismantle the Party's structures. Deng Xiaoping had hoped to create a tacit agreement where market reformists and statists would take turns leading the Party every ten years. Before his death, he even declared that Hu Jintao (the one who was led away at the last Party Congress) would serve as General Secretary between 2002-2012, and that the Party would be able to select Hu's successor in a structured process.

But, by the late 2000s, ideological factions were increasingly openly sniping at each other, and that could very well have led to a split in the Party. It was in this context that Winnie came in, promising to recreate the Party's cohesion, and hence his speech on his theory on why the Soviet Union fell apart.

That also explains why the CCP chose to crack down in Hong Kong: internal documents revealed that they were aware of the Baltic republics, which, despite being the wealthiest and westernized parts of the USSR, were also the most resentful of Moscow and the first domino to fall. Hence, they viewed Hong Kong as a threat to the CCP's rule over all of China, and therefore a crackdown was the most logical option.

They also extensively studied the KMT in Taiwan, and the PRI in Mexico: two other long-time one-party dictatorships that fell apart. In both these cases, they concluded not inaccurately that a lack of cohesion within the ruling party made the party elites question whether they should continue supporting the system.

Hence, they are acutely aware of the risk to regime stability, and it is their #1, #2, and #3 priority. Everything else is subordinate to that, and the impression that the Party's rule is rock-solid forever is the product of their own propaganda. Winnie is secure for now, but I dare say that before you know it, sniping among the Party elites will become more and more difficult to ignore.

Second, I don't see why China might not want to supply the Russian army, because China has been supplying the Russian army for a long time, both itself and through its satellites. The West turns a blind eye to this, because the Western and not only the Western economy is tightly tied to China.

Here's a statistic you may want to consider: about 200 million Chinese jobs are dependent on foreign trade, about 20-25%. This is according to ex-Premier Li Keqiang, who probably did so to rain on Winnie's parade. A China that openly supports the Russian army in vast quantities (more than deniable drones or spare parts) would most certainly invite retaliation from the Western powers.

For starters, I can see the EU, US, Canada, UK, Japan, etc imposing a 10% (or something) tariff on imports from China, which would go towards supporting Ukraine. The Trump Administration's tariffs on Chinese imports did cause some economic costs to the US economy, but the costs to the Chinese economy were greater, and that's why the Biden Administration kept them. Such a Ukraine tariff would cause some cost to the western economies, but it would be a fraction of the cost of just a fraction of the many millions of Chinese jobs that would be lost. If you want to give the CCP any credit, it's that they will do whatever it takes to prevent domestic mass unemployment. Unfortunately for them, their room for error is shrinking: China's export manufacturing sector is ailing even according to its official statistics.

And that's just the direct employment aspect. Until recently, the US has been struggling to convince its allies to go along with its efforts to restrict the flow of advanced technology to China. A major reason for this was that the Europeans had been skeptical about Washington's agenda, and wanted to assert their strategic presence. A China that abandons the pretense of neutrality will make it much easier for Washington to co-ordinate technology sanctions. What happened recently in the semiconductor sector could very easily spread to other sectors. It won't immediately threaten the CCP's regime, but they're very vocal that they view these sanctions as a direct attack on their core interests.

Winnie himself wants to be another Mao, but he lacks the cunning or intelligence of Mao. He obviously has a man crush on bunker grandpa, but he's constrained by the Party structures and China's vast size in his ability to micromanage affairs. He's also constrained by the fact that, while China's economy is vastly wealthier than Russia's, that's because it's far more globalized and more vulnerable to external factors.

China's economy isn't even vastly wealthier than Russia's it just has 9-10x the population.  Its nominal GDP pc is just under 90% of Russia's and its PPP GDP pc is at about 65%.

It hasn't yet even achieved the Soviet Union's peak estimated GDP per capita relative to the US of about 35% in the early 70's.  Still pretty far from that even on a PPP basis.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

A war between NATO and Russia would definitionally be a world war, yes. The more important point is that it would probably not be a nuclear war, because neither side would have an interest in using nukes. Even if the US sent boots on the ground to Ukraine tomorrow, that wouldn't give Putin any reason to use nukes that he doesn't already have, and the fact that he hasn't chosen to use them in a year of war is evidence enough that he's not going to, posturing aside. And of course, the same is all the more true for Biden. The reality is that nuclear-armed powers are perfectly capable and willing to fight each other conventionally, as indeed they have plenty of times since 1945. While the risk of a nuclear escalation is real and should always keep us up at night, it should be treated as a remote possibility.

It's a good thing Kennedy and Khrushchev didn't have this casual of an attitude towards conflict between nuclear powers or we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Is it just a strange coincidence that there has literally never been a conventional conflict between nuclear powers? India and Pakistan's wars ended, the US and USSR resorted to proxies and even North Korea became untouchable when their nuclear program achieved success.

Even if both sides want to keep it conventional, the problem is that all you need is a single submarine cut off from communications to make a fateful decision and at that point de-escalation becomes impossible. If Washington, New York, Moscow or Paris were to be obliterated is there any question whether the victim would instantly retaliate? In that situation Putin's rationality becomes irrelevant and the Dead Hand activates regardless.

Your post illustrates some real risks, but this is wrong. They both had nuclear weapons by the time of the Kargil War, and there were many skirmishes/lower-level conflicts between the two before and (to a lesser degree) since.

The Soviets also fought directly against US and Israeli forces while embedded as pilots and AA crews in several conflicts, and there were lethal border skirmishes between the USSR/China and (much more recently) China/India.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

It's a good thing Kennedy and Khrushchev didn't have this casual of an attitude towards conflict between nuclear powers or we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Is it just a strange coincidence that there has literally never been a conventional conflict between nuclear powers? India and Pakistan's wars ended, the US and USSR resorted to proxies and even North Korea became untouchable when their nuclear program achieved success.

Even if both sides want to keep it conventional, the problem is that all you need is a single submarine cut off from communications to make a fateful decision and at that point de-escalation becomes impossible. If Washington, New York, Moscow or Paris were to be obliterated is there any question whether the victim would instantly retaliate? In that situation Putin's rationality becomes irrelevant and the Dead Hand activates regardless.

Putin said that the West sending armaments to Ukraine would result in nuclear retaliation.

Putin did not resort to nuclear retaliation.

Putin said that NATO membership for Finland and/or Sweden would result in nuclear retaliation.

Putin did not resort to nuclear retaliation.

Putin said that Ukraine retaking Kherson city would result in nuclear retaliation.

Putin did not resort to nuclear retaliation.

Putin said that international attempts to hold Russian civilian-military leadership to account for war crimes since 2014 would result in nuclear retaliation.

Putin did not resort to nuclear retaliation.

It’s almost as if Putin has a pattern of bluffing about Russian nuclear readiness and repeatedly issues “Chinese final warnings”. He has nothing effective or viable enough to manage escalation between zero and nuclear annihilation, and he knows it. The state of the Russian conventional forces is a shamble of its former self, and he knows it. The western world does not take him seriously as a person or as a president, and he knows it. But he can do absolutely nothing about it.

Why are you spending so much time talking about Putin's idle threats? Putin could also say the sky is blue. Just because someone is a liar doesn't mean that everything they say is untrue. I'm talking about reality:

No conventional war has ever been raged between nuclear powers, because it's understood that the risk that it would escalate to a nuclear conflict is, in fact, very high.

Putin doesn't need to make the decision, in an actual war the decision would ultimately fall down to the most paranoid nuclear submarine crew that happened to lose contact with command. America hasn't even risked a direct conflict with North Korea, a regime whose conventional forces are infinitely weaker, whose nuclear stockpile is a fraction that of Russia's and whose threats are even more bombastic. Even a rat while strike back if you force it into a corner.

A war between NATO and Russia would definitionally be a world war, yes. The more important point is that it would probably not be a nuclear war, because neither side would have an interest in using nukes. Even if the US sent boots on the ground to Ukraine tomorrow, that wouldn't give Putin any reason to use nukes that he doesn't already have, and the fact that he hasn't chosen to use them in a year of war is evidence enough that he's not going to, posturing aside. And of course, the same is all the more true for Biden. The reality is that nuclear-armed powers are perfectly capable and willing to fight each other conventionally, as indeed they have plenty of times since 1945. While the risk of a nuclear escalation is real and should always keep us up at night, it should be treated as a remote possibility.

It's a good thing Kennedy and Khrushchev didn't have this casual of an attitude towards conflict between nuclear powers or we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Is it just a strange coincidence that there has literally never been a conventional conflict between nuclear powers? India and Pakistan's wars ended, the US and USSR resorted to proxies and even North Korea became untouchable when their nuclear program achieved success.

Even if both sides want to keep it conventional, the problem is that all you need is a single submarine cut off from communications to make a fateful decision and at that point de-escalation becomes impossible. If Washington, New York, Moscow or Paris were to be obliterated is there any question whether the victim would instantly retaliate? In that situation Putin's rationality becomes irrelevant and the Dead Hand activates regardless.

Your post illustrates some real risks, but this is wrong. They both had nuclear weapons by the time of the Kargil War.

The Kargil War was basically unconventional, especially compared with any of the wars prior, and was localized to a single mountain on disputed territory. The Pakistanis were vaguely analogous to the Wagner mercenaries that occasionally get into conflict with the US, but we wouldn't call the Battle of Khasham the "US-Russia War of 2018"

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The Kargil War was basically unconventional, especially compared with any of the wars prior, and was localized to a single mountain on disputed territory. The Pakistanis were vaguely analogous to the Wagner mercenaries that occasionally get into conflict with the US, but we wouldn't call the Battle of Khasham the "US-Russia War of 2018"

The Battle of Khasham was a single, one-sided engagement without any Russian regulars (Wagner claims the Russian air force wanted to get involved but was forbidden, but Wagner claims a lot of things). The Kargil War saw artillery duels and a few thousand deaths over months and India admitted it lost a manned aircraft (independent analysis suggests it lost multiple fighter-bomber jets).

Some of Russia's conventional wars start with the "little green men" analogous to the what the Pakistanis started with in Kargil. That it happened in disputed territory is a feature common to many wars.

I would have called Khasham a war if it had resembled Kargil in these ways.

[Damocles]

Why are you spending so much time talking about Putin's idle threats? Putin could also say the sky is blue. Just because someone is a liar doesn't mean that everything they say is untrue. I'm talking about reality:

No conventional war has ever been raged between nuclear powers, because it's understood that the risk that it would escalate to a nuclear conflict is, in fact, very high.

Putin doesn't need to make the decision, in an actual war the decision would ultimately fall down to the most paranoid nuclear submarine crew that happened to lose contact with command. America hasn't even risked a direct conflict with North Korea, a regime whose conventional forces are infinitely weaker, whose nuclear stockpile is a fraction that of Russia's and whose threats are even more bombastic. Even a rat while strike back if you force it into a corner.

It isn’t the West backing Russia into a corner. They have done that themselves. This whole siege mentality, this bizarre obsession with an apocalyptic final struggle against “the West”, this revanchist idea of God coming to “save” an “innocent” and “divine” Russia… it’s something they made up, not us. The west are not the aggressors here, and never have been, especially not after 1991.

I’m sure some folks living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia know full well what a “sovereign” Russia means for them. It is a Russia so “sovereign” that it disregards theirs, invades and occupies their homes under false pretenses, and cleaves off their countries’ rightful, internationally recognized territories.

It’s the delusions of grandeur, gross entitlement, and disrespect for other countries’ sovereignty that really lay at the heart of the conflict here. Russia is not a “great power” any more than Britain is, especially not after Putin publicly kowtowed and prostrated himself to Xi Jinping.

[2952-0-0]

China's economy isn't even vastly wealthier than Russia's it just has 9-10x the population.  Its nominal GDP pc is just under 90% of Russia's and its PPP GDP pc is at about 65%.

It hasn't yet even achieved the Soviet Union's peak estimated GDP per capita relative to the US of about 35% in the early 70's.  Still pretty far from that even on a PPP basis.

Yes, true. But, China's economy is far more industrialized, complex, and globalized than Russia's. And that conversely makes it more vulnerable to Western sanctions, because these would immediately cause a mass unemployment crisis, and cripple large parts of its advanced industrial sector which depend on inputs from now-enemy countries. That didn't happen in Russia, because Russia's economy is dominated by state-owned natural resources, and it's easier for the Kremlin to guarantee jobs that provide just enough for sustenance.

[Beet]

China's economy isn't even vastly wealthier than Russia's it just has 9-10x the population.  Its nominal GDP pc is just under 90% of Russia's and its PPP GDP pc is at about 65%.

It hasn't yet even achieved the Soviet Union's peak estimated GDP per capita relative to the US of about 35% in the early 70's.  Still pretty far from that even on a PPP basis.

Yes, true. But, China's economy is far more industrialized, complex, and globalized than Russia's. And that conversely makes it more vulnerable to Western sanctions, because these would immediately cause a mass unemployment crisis, and cripple large parts of its advanced industrial sector which depend on inputs from now-enemy countries. That didn't happen in Russia, because Russia's economy is dominated by state-owned natural resources, and it's easier for the Kremlin to guarantee jobs that provide just enough for sustenance.

Yes, true. But the question is whether Xi even cares about the economy anymore. If he really cared about the economy that much, his behavior would have been very different for the past 5 years, since many of this actions damaged the economy. He can always ramp up Keynesian military spending and conscript the previously unemployed people who worked in the export sector into the army, while suppressing dissent with calls to patriotism and other anti-Western rhetoric. What he cares about is his own place in history and the notion that he is some sort of messiah that is going to bring an end to Western hegemony. In my view, he could be charging headlong into a suicide march taking China with him, and if so the economy won't figure very importantly in all his plans. The common unifying factor of Putin, Biden, Trump, and Xi is that all of them prioritized geopolitical confrontation over economics.

[Virginiá]

Lots of ammunition here

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1643309747595010050

[2952-0-0]

Yes, true. But the question is whether Xi even cares about the economy anymore. If he really cared about the economy that much, his behavior would have been very different for the past 5 years, since many of this actions damaged the economy. He can always ramp up Keynesian military spending and conscript the previously unemployed people who worked in the export sector into the army, while suppressing dissent with calls to patriotism and other anti-Western rhetoric. What he cares about is his own place in history and the notion that he is some sort of messiah that is going to bring an end to Western hegemony. In my view, he could be charging headlong into a suicide march taking China with him, and if so the economy won't figure very importantly in all his plans. The common unifying factor of Putin, Biden, Trump, and Xi is that all of them prioritized geopolitical confrontation over economics.

Winnie has made it clear that he doesn't view the economy (as in, rising living standards) as his priority. But, that doesn't mean that he's eager to turn China into West Korea right now, because even he's aware that's not doable in the short term. His administration still needs to at least pay lip service to welcoming private investment, because China's domestic consumption and export sectors are currently in serious trouble, which has immediate consequences for weiwen ("preserving stability").

The sudden loss of eight digits of export sector jobs would be beyond the ability of even the CCP's mobilization abilities to manage. Conscripting more than a fraction of them into the army would be useless in any hypothetical war against Taiwan, unless the plan is to use their bodies as land fill. Mobilizing them into military industries would immediately put the Western powers on alert.

Then there are the tech sanctions. China's semiconductor sector is already a decade behind global standards, and that's after spending hundreds of billions trying to bridge the gap. Tighter sanctions still will widen that gap further, and sanctions in other advanced technologies would achieve similar results.

Putting these two together, China would be grappling with mass unemployment (though over time, this could still be alleviated by replacing capital with labour) and an increasingly disappointed Party elite, with a numerically massive army that is technologically inferior to its adversaries.

So Winnie is stuck in a quandary where he wants to prioritize his regime's stability over the economy, but the economy is - in the long term - what gives his regime its stability.

And what does all this have to do with Russia? Well, if Putin's regime becomes increasingly dependent on support from Beijing, then a stagnating Chinese economy will find it increasingly difficult to support Putin even when doing so becomes more and more important for its own regime stability. That's exactly what doomed the Soviet Union into stagnation, which paved the way for its collapse.

[pppolitics]

While Finland joins NATO, Ukraine is left waiting:

"Kyiv formally applied for membership in September but the alliance has taken no formal steps in response.

“There’s this application letter on the table and we’re just ignoring it,” said one of the diplomats. “Fine, membership might not be an option right now. But we can take concrete actions short of that or in support of that to show we believe in it long term.”"


https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1643128132273164289?s=20

Well, admitting Ukraine as a member now would automatically mean World War III given the existence of Article V of the NATO treaty. Priority should be placed on getting Sweden in the alliance and continuing to supply Ukraine with arms and ammunition.

It wouldn't be "World War III" unless China is involved, and I doubt that China wants to get involve.

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/TreasChest/status/1643309989128183822
https://twitter.com/GraphicW5/status/1643308557956161568

[Damocles]

Ah yes, that Ukrainian offensive that, according to certain posters in this thread, will certainly be bled white and mown down by Sergeant Bicepsky and Private Conscriptovich dual-wielding PKMs while screaming “Uraaa!” and dropping out the back of an IL-76 onto Hostomel Airport like something out of that Alexander Buinov propaganda VDV video.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ah yes, that Ukrainian offensive that, according to certain posters in this thread, will certainly be bled white and mown down by Sergeant Bicepsky and Private Conscriptovich dual-wielding PKMs while screaming “Uraaa!” and dropping out the back of an IL-76 onto Hostomel Airport like something out of that Alexander Buinov propaganda VDV video.

I love seeing Perun memes in the wild. Well done sir.

[Damocles]

I love seeing Perun memes in the wild. Well done sir.

I love my weekly dose of hour-long Ozzie-accented PowerPoint presentations about defense economics in the context of a conflict taking place halfway around the world. It just… hits different. He is a titanium FF.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I love seeing Perun memes in the wild. Well done sir.

I love my weekly dose of hour-long Ozzie-accented PowerPoint presentations about defense economics in the context of a conflict taking place halfway around the world. It just… hits different. He is a titanium FF.

Yeah, he's great. There really is nothing like his videos in terms of understanding of the issues to talk about, and he's really helped me ground my expectations for how the war is unfolding. And yeah, his dry wit always delivers

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

You repeat the same esoteric. To use the word shock in this context is ridiculous. The collapse of the USSR was a consequence of the fact that for decades the spring of nationalism of the Soviet peoples was held back, especially nationalism was overripe among Russians and Ukrainians. Now both the Chinese state and the Russian state are nationalist, they are in complete harmony with the nationalism of their main ethnic groups, and a tiny number of real liberals are excluded by all means from influencing politics. Absolutely nothing threatens either Vinnie's regime or Piglet's regime. This field has been cleared.

Yes, it was ultimately nationalism that destroyed the Soviet Union. But, that was made possible because the Party's rank and file no longer felt that listening to the Kremlin served their interests. They then found another potential source of power in the form of local nationalism. Nationalism was the symptom, not the cause, of the Soviet Union's collapse.

As for China, Xi Jinping himself has repeatedly warned that the Party could very quickly fall apart due to a lack of internal cohesion. His speech about his theory on why the Soviet Union feel apart, which I previously mentioned, says it all:

https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2013/01/leaked-speech-shows-xi-jinpings-opposition-to-reform/

The most striking part of Xi Jinping’s “new southern tour speech” is his revisiting the topic of the Soviet Union’s collapse. He said, “Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse? An important reason was that their ideals and beliefs had been shaken. In the end, ‘the ruler’s flag over the city tower’ changed overnight. It’s a profound lesson for us! To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the Party’s organizations on all levels.”

“Why must we stand firm on the Party’s leadership over the military?” Xi continued, “because that’s the lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union where the military was depoliticized, separated from the Party and nationalized, the party was disarmed. A few people tried to save the Soviet Union; they seized Gorbachev, but within days it was turned around again, because they didn’t have the instruments to exert power. Yeltsin gave a speech standing on a tank, but the military made no response, keeping so-called ‘neutrality.’ Finally, Gorbachev announced the disbandment of the Soviet Communist Party in a blithe statement. A big Party was gone just like that. Proportionally, the Soviet Communist Party had more members than we do, but nobody was man enough to stand up and resist.”

Here's a more recent take, that more explicitly makes my comparison:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/China-up-close/Xi-s-Gorbachev-obsession-put-China-on-a-Soviet-path

As for how the CCP could fall apart, it won't be the exact same way as the Soviet Union, where local Party use nationalism to dismantle the Party's structures. Deng Xiaoping had hoped to create a tacit agreement where market reformists and statists would take turns leading the Party every ten years. Before his death, he even declared that Hu Jintao (the one who was led away at the last Party Congress) would serve as General Secretary between 2002-2012, and that the Party would be able to select Hu's successor in a structured process.

But, by the late 2000s, ideological factions were increasingly openly sniping at each other, and that could very well have led to a split in the Party. It was in this context that Winnie came in, promising to recreate the Party's cohesion, and hence his speech on his theory on why the Soviet Union fell apart.

That also explains why the CCP chose to crack down in Hong Kong: internal documents revealed that they were aware of the Baltic republics, which, despite being the wealthiest and westernized parts of the USSR, were also the most resentful of Moscow and the first domino to fall. Hence, they viewed Hong Kong as a threat to the CCP's rule over all of China, and therefore a crackdown was the most logical option.

They also extensively studied the KMT in Taiwan, and the PRI in Mexico: two other long-time one-party dictatorships that fell apart. In both these cases, they concluded not inaccurately that a lack of cohesion within the ruling party made the party elites question whether they should continue supporting the system.

Hence, they are acutely aware of the risk to regime stability, and it is their #1, #2, and #3 priority. Everything else is subordinate to that, and the impression that the Party's rule is rock-solid forever is the product of their own propaganda. Winnie is secure for now, but I dare say that before you know it, sniping among the Party elites will become more and more difficult to ignore.

I'm sure you are right. I can only judge about Russia and my native Kazakhstan, I have never been interested in China. I will only note that every empire that collapsed from the 18th century to the 20th, whether as a result of the American Revolution or the Xinhai Revolution, collapsed because of the nationalist thought immanent in this historical era. After two successful Russian revolutions, the cunning Lenin took power from under the noses of the Black Hundreds by declaring this usurpation, which was not at all a revolution, the only true Revolution, in the spirit of Hegelian doublethink. The Bolsheviks suppressed nationalism with varying success until nationalism sprouted naturally within the CPSU, KGB and GRU, mainly through the unofficial Russian Party and the Dnepropetrovsk clan. Real communist internationalists like Gorbachev were left without support, Yeltsin and Kravchuk took all power from Gorbachev without the slightest resistance.

If I understand you correctly, the CCP is clearing out the models of moderate Chinese nationalism in order to leave only its model of ultra-nationalism. This is very disturbing, because I could only bet on alternative nationalism, speaking of the collapse of the PRC.

[Storr]

On the lighter side of things:

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1640395972529340425?s=20

It happened again:

https://twitter.com/GloOouD/status/1641075766921142275?s=20

https://twitter.com/GloOouD/status/1641323247454023682?s=20

https://twitter.com/saintjavelin/status/1642924058575613954?s=20

[Woody]

Center of Bakhmut has collapsed to Wagner, Ukrainians were pushed a kilometer away from the river. AFU is retreating to the western part. New front line will probably be the railway. Wagner controls all of the industrial part of the city now (AZOM).

https://twitter.com/KobaMetalfan/status/1643452759734362112

[Lord Halifax]

A war between NATO and Russia would definitionally be a world war, yes.

What would make a war with no participants in South America, Africa and the parts of Asia where more than half the world's population live a World War?? It would involve countries with less than 20% of the world's population and all located on the northern third of the globe (apart from Hawaii and a few tiny overseas territories).