China vs Taiwan and other potential invasions/conflicts of concern (previously included Russia & Ukraine)

[brad465]

This issue has been flaring up all over the place, not just in the news thanks to recent attempts at diplomacy and/or threats, but also on this forum, particular about how our heavy covid focus is taking our eye off the ball with what these hostile powers might be up to. As a result I think it might be worth having in a separate thread.

With regards to Russia vs Ukraine, I think much of what's going on is Russia trying to look big on the international stage because things at home are not good, both with covid and general poverty. Russia also are trying to stop Ukraine from joining Nato because they'll find it almost impossible to invade if they do, and Putin has shown an imperialist mindset; he annexed Crimea and Belarus is more or less a puppet state right now.

In the case of China and Taiwan, we know why that's a long running issue, and President Xi is believed to want to cement taking back Taiwan in his legacy. However he will want to avoid doing so by force if possible, as that doesn't look so good at home, so recently has resorted to tactics like trying to force countries to back down on viewing Taiwan as an independent state. China is also struggling domestically: a prominent property giant in Evergrande is on the brink of collapse, in what some are calling "China's Lehman brothers moment", and an ageing population is impacting their rapid growth capability, so once more threats about Taiwan can act as a good distraction.

Russia and China are not formal allies, but there is a belief they would set about their invasions at once in order to stretch the west and have "safety in numbers" behind them. If history was to repeat itself I wonder if this would happen in spring next year, not long after the Beijing Winter Olympics, given Russia annexed Crimea not long after the Winter Olympic Games in 2014.

The other potential conflict is Iran vs Israel and other allies, which could make the Arab Spring and resultant civil wars look like child's play.

What I think Europe and much of the West needs to try and do is cut economic ties as much as possible: normal sanctions are not enough, we need to stop depending so much on Russian gas and importing all our cheap tat from China; these are feeding their military capabilities. The new German coalition seems to be prepared to take a harder stance than Merkel, who more or less cosied up to Russia, so maybe some progress will be made there.

 

[squizzler]

Who does Mr Putin think he's kidding? An attempt to invade Ukraine would be to invite a turkey-shoot of his country's armed forces at the hands of NATO. As for rumour he would try to cut off Europe's gas, well he can ask Saddam Hussain as to how well threat cut off the energy went (and yes, I am one of those who reckon that war was entirely about securing access to oil).

As for the other one, as you say China has mounting problems that could drive it to try something unfortunate. With regard to your timing, I think they will all be too busy recovering from Omicron after the winter olympics to try invading at that time, but once again, they would be entering into a quagmire, and can kiss goodbye to their export economy.

 

[Meerkat]

An attempt to invade Ukraine would be to invite a turkey-shoot of his country's armed forces at the hands of NATO

NATO wouldn't go anywhere near. Didnt when Russia took Crimea and invaded the Donbass last time, and they wont next time either.
And I think you might want to check the Russian's capabilities before suggesting it would be a turkey shoot - Even the yanks would think twice, and the rest of NATO are pretty helpless without the US bringing all their toys

As for rumour he would try to cut off Europe's gas, well he can ask Saddam Hussain as to how well threat cut off the energy went

Saddam could make the oil price go up a bit, Putin could make a lot of Europeans die of cold.

and can kiss goodbye to their export economy.

Maybe, but its a bit like that saying about if you owe the bank 100,000 its your problem, if you owe the bank £100,000,000 its their problem.
Blocking off the supply of chips and other stuff from China would cause huge issues for the rest of the world's industry.

 

[yorksrob]

The only way to deal with this unpleasant situation for the West is a gradual wind-down of our dependence on these countries. In terms of Russia, that means continuing decarbonisation of non-Russian Europe.

In China, that means diversifying supply chains and ensuring that manufacturing of components can take place elsewhere.

For too long, global free market ideology has been allowed to trump Western security, and that needs to be ended.

America will have to lead the way, as it always has.

 

[Meerkat]

The only way to deal with this unpleasant situation for the West is a gradual wind-down of our dependence on these countries. In terms of Russia, that means continuing decarbonisation of non-Russian Europe.

In China, that means diversifying supply chains and ensuring that manufacturing of components can take place elsewhere.

For too long, global free market ideology has been allowed to trump Western security, and that needs to be ended.

America will have to lead the way, as it always has.

Trump started doing that.......
I think its Germany that need to lead the way - they are the chief appeaser of both Russia and China.

 

[yorksrob]

Trump started doing that.......
I think its Germany that need to lead the way - they are the chief appeaser of both Russia and China.

Well, Germany is more dependant on Russian gas (although it is progressing with the decarbonisation), but the West needs the power of the USA to back things up.

President Trump started moving against Chinese expansionism (albeit not always articulated in a helpful way). He was also less consistent against Russia, but you need consistent determination across Presidencies.

President Biden appears to be continuing to take a firm line against Russia and China, which is encouraging.

 

[Meerkat]

Well, Germany is more dependant on Russian gas (although it is progressing with the decarbonisation), but the West needs the power of the USA to back things up.

President Trump started moving against Chinese expansionism (albeit not always articulated in a helpful way). He was also less consistent against Russia, but you need consistent determination across Presidencies.

President Biden appears to be continuing to take a firm line against Russia and China, which is encouraging.

Germany was also a blocker on sanctions against Russia (as they export so much there as well as use their gas), against arming Ukraine, and pushed for the trade treaty with China.

 

[yorksrob]

Germany was also a blocker on sanctions against Russia (as they export so much there as well as use their gas), against arming Ukraine, and pushed for the trade treaty with China.

Well, In guess it depends on how Western, versus Central European they choose to be. It shouldn't stop the rest of us outside the common market diversifying our supply chains.

It should be a longer term project to bring in alternatives and develop other partners.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think its Germany that need to lead the way - they are the chief appeaser of both Russia and China.

Well there's a new Government in Germany now. We can but hope that they won't be quite so quick to kowtow. Especially in regards to Russian gas. Perhaps they should look to turn on some of those nuclear power plants again...

Who does Mr Putin think he's kidding? An attempt to invade Ukraine would be to invite a turkey-shoot of his country's armed forces at the hands of NATO.

What? Ukraine isn't a NATO member and I'd be staggered if anyone on the NATO side was willing to trade London for Kiev, New York for Odessa or Paris for Lviv. I think there's a serious question mark as to how committed NATO is really to the Baltics but they do at least have the actual protection of Article 5. Ukraine, meanwhile, does not. NATO would not intervene with direct militarily action on Ukraine's behalf. I'm quite certain NATO countries would supply significant amounts of arms to Ukraine's armed forces (over and above what we already do) but that would be it. The direct Western response would be entirely economic and diplomatic. Hopefully it would cut off Russia from as much as the outside world as possible in economic terms and to make things even harder for the Putin's oligarch mates to make their money and enjoy their ill-gotten gains.

As for it being a turkey shoot, even if some bizarre circumstance occurs to cause NATO to intervene, the Russian armed forces of 2021 are not the same as those of the 1990s that embarrassed themselves in Chechnya. I have no doubt that NATO would eventually win a conventional war but a turkey shoot it would not be. Plus European NATO in 2021 is not what it was thirty years ago either. The entire Germany army of today is probably not much larger than just one of the three corps that they used to maintain. The British Army is similar (if not in a worse state considering most of our armoured vehicles are increasingly antique). Etc etc. Meanwhile the Russians have 175,000 troops, or about 2.1x the British Army (the whole thing including all the personnel that go nowhere near a battlefield) on Ukraine's border and they could muster up more if they wanted to. We would win, of that I am certain. The US is diminished but still has enough firepower to get the job done and we have the airpower advantage. But let's not kid ourselves that this would be some sort of glorious re-enactment of Desert Storm or the rout in March 2003 but with green camo rather than brown. Plus the Russians have actually partially mobilised and NATO has not and does not appear to be doing so.

 

[yorksrob]

Well there's a new Government in Germany now. We can but hope that they won't be quite so quick to kowtow. Especially in regards to Russian gas. Perhaps they should look to turn on some of those nuclear power plants again...

What? Ukraine isn't a NATO member and I'd be staggered if anyone on the NATO side was willing to trade London for Kiev, New York for Odessa or Paris for Lviv. I think there's a serious question mark as to how committed NATO is really to the Baltics but they do at least have the actual protection of Article 5. Ukraine, meanwhile, does not. NATO would not intervene with direct militarily action on Ukraine's behalf. I'm quite certain NATO countries would supply significant amounts of arms to Ukraine's armed forces (over and above what we already do) but that would be it. The direct Western response would be entirely economic and diplomatic. Hopefully it would cut off Russia from as much as the outside world as possible in economic terms and to make things even harder for the Putin's oligarch mates to make their money and enjoy their ill-gotten gains.

As for it being a turkey shoot, even if some bizarre circumstance occurs to cause NATO to intervene, the Russian armed forces of 2021 are not the same as those of the 1990s that embarrassed themselves in Chechnya. I have no doubt that NATO would eventually win a conventional war but a turkey shoot it would not be. Then again European NATO in 2021 is not what it was thirty years ago either. The entire Germany army of today is probably not much larger than just one of the three corps that they used to maintain. The British Army is similar (if not in a worse state considering most of our armoured vehicles are increasingly antique). Etc etc. Meanwhile the Russians have 175,000 troops, or about 2.1x the British Army (the whole thing including all the personnel that go nowhere near a battlefield) on Ukraine's border and they could muster up more if they wanted to. We would win, of that I am certain. The US is diminished but still has enough firepower to get the job done and we have the airpower advantage. But let's not kid ourselves that this would be some sort of glorious re-enactment of Desert Storm or the rout in March 2003 but with green camo rather than brown. Plus the Russians have actually partially mobilised and NATO has not and does not appear to be doing so.

A very sobering post.

We Western (oriented) Europeans need to get our house in order.

 

[ainsworth74]

A very sobering post.

We Western (oriented) Europeans need to get our house in order.

One of the few things Trump was right about (though, of course, he completely misunderstood the concept*) was that European NATO, with a few exceptions, is absolutely shirking any pretence of meeting their defence commitments. There is a view, and it's hard to refute, that if most of NATO is unwilling to contribute even 2% of GDP towards defence (an agreed upon target within NATO for how much members should spend towards their own defence) then why should the US spend money and, if push came to shove, lives to defend NATO?

*Trump appears to have been under the impression that NATO members paid money to the US for their defence and by not contributing at 2% of GDP were therefore somehow delinquent and owed the US money.

 

[yorksrob]

One of the few things Trump was right about (though, of course, he completely misunderstood the concept*) was that European NATO, with a few exceptions, is absolutely shirking any pretence of meeting their defence commitments. There is a view, and it's hard to refute, that if most of NATO is unwilling to contribute even 2% of GDP towards defence (an agreed upon target within NATO for how much members should spend towards their own defence) then why should the US spend money and, if push came to shove, lives to defend NATO?

*Trump appears to have been under the impression that NATO members paid money to the US for their defence and by not contributing at 2% of GDP were therefore somehow delinquent and owed the US money.

That is true, though American Presidents have been pointing this out since time immemorial (I believe that the UK cut above its weight in this respect for most of NATO's history).

The thing is, all the military stuff is meaningless if you're economically dependant on your enemies. This is what we (the West) need to be concentrating on now.

 

[ainsworth74]

That is true, though American Presidents have been pointing this out since time immemorial (I believe that the UK cut above its weight in this respect for most of NATO's history).

Of course! Though it has gotten considerably worse in recent decades. Though to be fair it has started to get better in recent years though decades of under investment will take years to correct!

The thing is, all the military stuff is meaningless if you're economically dependant on your enemies. This is what we (the West) need to be concentrating on now.

Indeed. I wonder how many components in a Eurofighter Typhoon or a Leopard main battle tank will, at some point in their life cycle, be Chinese origin? I bet it isn't zero...

 

[yorksrob]

Of course! Though it has gotten considerably worse in recent decades. Though to be fair it has started to get better in recent years though decades of under investment will take years to correct!

Indeed. I wonder how many components in a Eurofighter Typhoon or a Leopard main battle tank will, at some point in their life cycle, be Chinese origin? I bet it isn't zero...

Frightening thought indeed.

It's a far cry from the V-force.

 

[brad465]

Unrest in Kazakhstan might have just made Putin's believed ambitions much harder to achieve. He's had to send his own forces in the neighbouring state to help quell unrest, which has exposed his weaknesses and distracted from grandstanding against Ukraine (not to mention the dire consequences of an autocratic regime asking foreign military intervention to help oppress its own citizens). If Kazakhstan have had enough of their regime, then other nearby states, and perhaps even Russia itself, could start seeing similar revolts amongst its citizens against their Governments.

 

[Gostav]

Frightening thought indeed.

It's a far cry from the V-force.

Did you think why those boys were gone? Did you or your children serviced for navy or army?

That is true, though American Presidents have been pointing this out since time immemorial (I believe that the UK cut above its weight in this respect for most of NATO's history).

The thing is, all the military stuff is meaningless if you're economically dependant on your enemies. This is what we (the West) need to be concentrating on now.

Just imagine if the West really started a quasi-war state (Cold War) with Russia and China, what a huge change in our lives would happen. That is not easy to persuade voters to accept reality that many wild spaces need to be re-developed into high-polluting enterprises, their children must serve in the military, and military bases and naval bases need to be redeveloped. Even can't imagine hundreds screaming environmental organizations.

Just a reminder, now China has the largest navy fleet in the world, although they still lack of basese for global service. There is no doubt that in the future, with the help of the navy, the Chinese will speed up control of various raw material producing areas (Africa, South America) and Westerner's "good days" may not be so easy anymore.

But this would be the result by the voters.

 

[daodao]

The enfeebled West needs to back off and work out a modus vivendi with powerful states like Russia and China, and not meddle in their backyards such as the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Sinkiang or Taiwan. It was foolish to have allowed Eastern European (and in particular Baltic) states to join NATO, particularly as it is now clearly a paper tiger, whose degeneracy was on show to all during the Taliban's rapid liberation of Kabul last August. Whatever one may think about the way he operates, Putin is the greatest European leader of the 21st century so far and poking the Russian bear is most unwise. At some point in the future, the West and Russia may need to co-operate (as in WW2) to deal with the growing power of China.

 

[yorksrob]

Did you think why those boys were gone? Did you or your children serviced for navy or army?

Just imagine if the West really started a quasi-war state (Cold War) with Russia and China, what a huge change in our lives would happen. That is not easy to persuade voters to accept reality that many wild spaces need to be re-developed into high-polluting enterprises, their children must serve in the military, and military bases and naval bases need to be redeveloped. Even can't imagine hundreds screaming environmental organizations.

Just a reminder, now China has the largest navy fleet in the world, although they still lack of basese for global service. There is no doubt that in the future, with the help of the navy, the Chinese will speed up control of various raw material producing areas (Africa, South America) and Westerner's "good days" may not be so easy anymore.

But this would be the result by the voters.

You're undoubtedly right that military hardware isn't the primary way forward currently (although given those countries noted aggression in the field od cyber-warfare, military software ought to play a bigger part in defence).

The key today would be for the West to have less economic dependance on those states. This is where they have the West by the balls.

 

[DarloRich]

He's had to send his own forces in the neighbouring state to help quell unrest

He was "invited" to do so - which makes it all ok!

The enfeebled West needs to back off and work out a modus vivendi with powerful states like Russia and China, and not meddle in their backyards such as the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Sinkiang or Taiwan. It was foolish to have allowed Eastern European (and in particular Baltic) states to join NATO, particularly as it is now clearly a paper tiger, whose degeneracy was on show to all during the Taliban's rapid liberation of Kabul last August. Whatever one may think about the way he operates, Putin is the greatest European leader of the 21st century so far and poking the Russian bear is most unwise. At some point in the future, the West and Russia may need to co-operate (as in WW2) to deal with the growing power of China.

And now we go over to our Russia Today/Pravda correspondent to hear the latest excuses for expansionist behaviour downloaded direct from the Kremlin for regurgitation in the imperialist western world .....................

 

[brad465]

He was "invited" to do so - which makes it all ok!

True, but Putin would certainly have had his own interest to get involved once trouble arose.

 

[squizzler]

With the rise in energy costs, especially natural gas, I suspect that an invasion of Russia to seize their natural resources becomes increasingly likely. I was strongly against the Iraq war, but I am more sanguine about deposing Putin since he does actually have weapons of mass destruction and has used them on British soil. At least if WMD was used as a pretext to the real reason of securing energy reserves, the cover story has some substance this time.

I also suspect the Russians will be much happier to be liberated than the Iraqis, for whatever that's worth.

 

[oldman]

The enfeebled West needs to back off and work out a modus vivendi with powerful states like Russia and China, and not meddle in their backyards such as the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Sinkiang or Taiwan. It was foolish to have allowed Eastern European (and in particular Baltic) states to join NATO, particularly as it is now clearly a paper tiger, whose degeneracy was on show to all during the Taliban's rapid liberation of Kabul last August. Whatever one may think about the way he operates, Putin is the greatest European leader of the 21st century so far and poking the Russian bear is most unwise. At some point in the future, the West and Russia may need to co-operate (as in WW2) to deal with the growing power of China.

I wonder what you would have thought about appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s - at that time Hitler must surely have been 'the greatest European leader' of the 20th century. When I hear the word fascist I reach for my dictionary, but it's hard to see Putin as anything else - authoritarian, nationalist, expansionist, megalomaniac (OK, maybe not genocidal). And China under Xi is much the same.

Military action would be crazy, but economic self-protection and cyber-warfare (aggressive and defensive) are essential.

 

[adrock1976]

Let's not forget that during WW2 that Joseph Stalin was the UK's best buddy, and Stalin did terrible things against his own people too.

Also, Great Britain has done more than its fair share of invading other states and taking them over when building the former Empire, particularly in Africa, North West Asia, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, as is evidenced by the drawing of straight lines on maps of most of those places.

Furthermore, regarding Africa, North West Asia, and both North and South America, France, Spain, and Portugal also had a go at invading and taking over as part of empire building, and Belgium also had a go in central Africa when they invaded and took over the Congo.

Perhaps it is time for the UK to get its own house in order and rather than planning on where to intervene next, maybe it would be better for the UK to make reparations for the days of the former Empire? For example, when the UK invaded and sent convicts to Australia, straight lines were drawn on the map which displaced the indigenous population - the Aborigines - and have never recovered properly since then.

 

[yorksrob]

The UK has done terrible things, but it has also been a stalwart of democracy and freedom, as with WW2.

The best thing it could do for the world now would be to continue to champion freedom and democracy and not fall into the pocket of authoritarian regimes.

 

[Gostav]

The UK has done terrible things, but it has also been a stalwart of democracy and freedom, as with WW2.

The best thing it could do for the world now would be to continue to champion freedom and democracy and not fall into the pocket of authoritarian regimes.

But how? What do you think of the former British colonies in Africa before China intervened, they are lands of freedom and democracy or are worst third world countries?

 

[yorksrob]

But how? What do you think of the former British colonies in Africa before China intervened, they are lands of freedom and democracy or are worst third world countries?

They had as much chance to do what they wanted post independence as many countries, such as those in the Caribbean that have prospered since independence.

Unless you think that Communist Chinese intervention has been some sort of great leap forward for Africa ?

 

[Scotrail314209]

I genuinely don’t think there will be an invasion of Ukraine. It’s scary but I think it’d be unwise to do a full invasion.

I’ve been keeping away from the news because of this as I fear the implications of a possible invasion.

 

[ainsworth74]

I genuinely don’t think there will be an invasion of Ukraine. It’s scary but I think it’d be unwise to do a full invasion.

What's wisdom got to do with it? Plenty of conflicts have been started that were clearly unwise!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Let's not forget that during WW2 that Joseph Stalin was the UK's best buddy, and Stalin did terrible things against his own people too.

Well yes, but there were obvious reasons for that. When you're dealing with the imminent threat to your own existence that Germany represented in WWII, you don't really have the bandwidth to worry about internal politics in other countries that happen to be fighting on the same side as you - especially in the 1940s - a time when ideas about human rights were much less well developed/established than they are today.

Also, Great Britain has done more than its fair share of invading other states and taking them over when building the former Empire, particularly in Africa, North West Asia, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, as is evidenced by the drawing of straight lines on maps of most of those places.

Furthermore, regarding Africa, North West Asia, and both North and South America, France, Spain, and Portugal also had a go at invading and taking over as part of empire building, and Belgium also had a go in central Africa when they invaded and took over the Congo.

What's that got to do with anything in this thread? The empire-building the the UK did was largely in the 19th century - well over 100 years ago (and then maintained largely without further invasions until shortly after WWII). Are you trying to argue that we should just let places like Ukraine and Taiwan suffer potential invasion and brutal dictatorship because it's better for us to feel all guilty about bad stuff that our ancestors did some generations ago rather than try to solve the problems of today?

Perhaps it is time for the UK to get its own house in order

You may have perhaps missed the last 70-ish years of history. If you had been aware of it, you would have observed that the UK has indeed steadily been putting its house in order as far as empires and colonization is concerned.

and rather than planning on where to intervene next

Would you be willing to give that advice to Putin and Xi? It is after all them, not us, who appear to currently be making possible plans to invade other countries.

 

[DarloRich]

there are some "interesting" takes in this thread. Imagine if Pravda had been able to use social media!

Well yes, but there were obvious reasons for that. When you're dealing with the imminent threat to your own existence that Germany represented in WWII, you don't really have the bandwidth to worry about internal politics in other countries that happen to be fighting on the same side as you - especially in the 1940s - a time when ideas about human rights were much less well developed/established than they are today.

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."