‘We Cannot Win’ Says Top Russian Commander
‘We Cannot Win’ Says Top Russian Commander
The leader of the Russian battalion defeated at liberated Urozhaine calls for “freezing the front” after his unreinforced troops were devastated in a rout.
The Russian commander of the “Vostok” Battalion fighting in southern Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukraine will not be defeated and suggested that Russia freeze the war along current frontlines.
Alexander Khodakovsky made the candid concession yesterday on his Telegram channel after Russian forces, including his own troops, were devastatingly defeated by Ukrainian marines earlier this week at Urozhaine in the Zaporizhzhia-Donetsk regional border area.
“Can we bring down Ukraine militarily? Now and in the near future, no,” Khodakovsky, a former official of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, said yesterday.
“When I talk to myself about our destiny in this war, I mean that we will not crawl forward, like the [Ukrainians], turning everything into [destroyed] Bakhmuts in our path. And, I do not foresee the easy occupation of cities,” he said.
You're viewing a single thread.
It is a proxy war against America. You don't win those. You just set yourself up a good position and dig in. America gets bored and leaves and then you can pick over what is left of what was destroyed. So you don't win, you just wait for America to forfeit.
It's not just the US though. The European powers are far more firmly committed. It's not at all clear that the rest of NATO will simply walk away if/when the US does. Especially the former Soviet nations; this is not a fucking game to them. The loss of US support would be huge, but I don't see a universe in which the Europeans just roll over for Putin once the US loses interest.
The European powers are far more firmly committed.
So firmly committed that america had to blow up one of germany's pipelines? Are you having a fucking laugh?
Everyone I speak to, you know, normal people, thinks this is a fucking stupid distraction from domestic politics and the consistently declining standard of living we are seeing. America has ended european prosperity with this shit and it won't recover for 50 years. You think people here haven't noticed that?
America has ended european prosperity
USA invaded Ukraine? That's news to me
The US assisted in the 2014 fascist coup that led to the fascist transitionary government, the deployment of all the fascist militias to attacking the donbas, and the 8 year long civil war that led to Russia eventually invading.
Your mindset on this shit is that it began in 2022 which is false, the US has been stoking it since 8 years earlier. If you want we could go even further back though, Operation Aerodynamic was the US operation to fund, arm and support fascists in Ukraine in order to destabilise the soviet union. Absolutely none of this would be happening today without the US' historic support of fascists.
the US has been stoking it since 8 years earlier
way more than that
america knew what they were doing in late 2000s when they started the ukraine into nato bullshit; a lot of important people, including some ghouls, said russia would see it as an existential threat. i mean, fuck, angela merkel was saying that back then
That's the same Angela Merkel that admitted the Minsk agreements weren't done in good faith, rather, they were just done to create time to build the Ukranian military.
From a far enough perspective this conflict goes back to like Napoleon. When was the first time a European power decided that they could definitely take control of Russia before winter?
Napoleon at first wanted to divide Europe with Russia, he did also think attacking it is bad idea. Several diplomatic fuckups and certain serial traitor* activity later it came to blows.
*Talleyrand. Biographers place quite a big role in sabotaging France and Russia agreement on him. It seems correct looking as how the European politics 200 years later are still largely based on the ones he took very active part in establishing. Also his life was wild, he served all French governments from Louis XVI to Charles X and betrayed every single one of them except Jacobins who didn't trusted him and kicked him out of France.
Good to know. Thank you for the information.
Your mindset on this shit is that it began in 2022 which is false,
No, that is a complete strawman of your own fabrication.
So USA took Crimea not Russia because their puppet president was overthrown in 2014?
Crimean independence goes as far back as the 1991 Soviet collapse. Acting like it is only a 2014 thing is also nonsense.
On Jan. 20, 1991, voters were asked whether they wanted the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. 94.3 percent or 1,343,825 of the 1,441,019 voters who cast ballots voted yes. (81.5% turnout)
In 1994 voters were asked whether they were in favour of greater autonomy within Ukraine, whether residents should have dual Russian and Ukrainian citizenship, and whether presidential decrees should have the status of laws. All three proposals were approved. The worst of them being 77% saying Yes.
In 2014 they conducted a referendum asked voters whether they wanted to rejoin Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine. It had 89% voter turnout and 97% said yes.
If liberals care so much about democracy, and what people actually want, liberals should also care about the fact it is clearly something Crimeans wanted. The "taking of Crimea" was a referendum vote, and very little else. The way liberals always talk of it as an invasion is incorrect, in particular because Russia already ran the port, and already ran the military checkpoints into and out of the region. They were already there.
No it was... you know... the thing
Ah, the completely made up thing. Yes, that makes perfect sense in your imaginary world.
People like Merkel didn't exactly think about long-term prosperity, given their climate policies. Energy shocks would've been, I assume, much stronger if they only started to happen in the 30s. The economic consequences (energy inflation, supply chain crisis) were not considered, although people have warned. Some acted (I think fennoscandic countries implemented effective heating regimes in the early 10s already for example), but many didn't learn from the 1970s energy shock caused by energy dependency on incompatible political systems and Russia's disorganisation of representation in the 2000s. Sanctions/disentanglement would've been necessary in the 2000s when Russia became centered around Putin.
SOL is high enough to defend against fascism. Don't fall for the propaganda of imperialists.
This war is so bad already, but it could be much worse (even with MAD).
This is nonsense from an american perpsective.
The reality here is that america is not a friend of europe. Those european leaders were pursuing what was best for europe, and america saw that as moving away from it.
Thus america set out to destabilise europe with exactly the same mindset it used in the middle east, and it has succeeded. As a result of blowing up pipelines and starting wars it has forced europe into vassalisation by way of creating energy dependence on it instead of itself or anyone else.
You act like what's best for america is best for europeans because you think everyone in the world is your vassal to be directed. You need to piss off and focus on yourselves and stop intefering with everyone else in the world. Everywhere the US pokes its nose into ends up worse off than it did before.
They've completely fucked us over. And if you speak to anyone on the street here, taxi drivers, etc, you'd hear the same thing over and over again, Americans aren't viewed as our friends anymore, they did this shit to us and a lot of people know it.
I don't know why people keep thinking America is anything other than a paritcularly traitorous viper after the way we've treated literally every ally ever for centuries. Like at some point someone must have noticed a pattern.
Imperialist guilt is not going to solve the anti-imperialist struggles.
At this point it's like the fable of frog and scorpion (frogs should know that scorpion can remain submerged up to 48 hours).
Open circulatory system gang stay wining.
People like Merkel didn't exactly think about long-term prosperity, given their climate policies.
I think that's mostly ideological. War is something that exists within the Liberal world view, but obstacles to unlimited growth of profits don't. They can reckon with geopolitical conflicts but global warming does the same thing to them that trying to unlock your dad's memories does if you're a bene gesserit.
Climate change isn't mitigated just by disorienting from economic growth since status quo is so bad already. Growth politics are insufficient - not building another refinery isn't enough to combat the fossil north. Many economies, including Germany's vehicle industry, need to be completely restructured and there it is just remotely interesting for climate change mitigation whether there's differential (non-fossil) growth.
I have to imagine direct intervention would've happened already if it was going to. Why let the Ukrainians get shoved into a meat grinder first? If you're America: it's good business and sells more guns. If you're actually reliant on the buffer zone then it's really not a game, as you say.
if all the US / EU weapon stockpiles get wiped out then the US makes a mint resupplying everyone for the next war, which will be with China using Taiwan as the proxy
I have to imagine direct intervention would’ve happened already if it was going to.
Apparently you are completely unaware of the existence of nuclear weapons.
The US being unreliable is what will cause a full on EU army. Putin is on the EU's doorstep and former Soviet are in the EU. The EU can't ignore Putin's aggression.
I wish them all the best. Watching Europe absolutely eat shit and collapse trying to fight would be hilarious.
Notably - America will 100% hang them out to dry rather than committing significant forces.
Also, you know, the really painfully obvious thing - The only people who want Russia to attack Europe are the Baltics and some of the more unhinged right wing factions in Poland.
The EU basically have to do it if the US is going off into isolationism. Russia is a far away problem to the US, but not the EU.
If the first iteration of an EU army wasn't great, in anything serious, the UK's army would join forces with it.
Russia has shown itself willing to invade, but also not a fearsome force. So if it tries another former Soviet block country, it will be made to fail. With or without the US.
Also, you know, the really painfully obvious thing - The only people who want Russia to attack Europe are the Baltics and some of the more unhinged right wing factions in Poland.
Pretty funny how you completely ignore all of the Russian Putin controlled talking heads who have threatened attacking Europe and the Batlics on a daily basis since Russia invaded Ukraine.
But "painfully obvious things" is definitely something you understand all about, huh?
Imagine liking a queerphobic dictatorship.
Putin can hang from a barbed wire noose and also this is a US proxy war
Wait a minute.. Who invaded Ukraine in 2014, and again in 2021? Who illegally annexed sovereign territory? America is not blameless, but in this war they are just the arms dealer
The USA has been training Ukraine military and irregulars for years. They organized a volunteer force to go fight there. They sent their politicians to support the right-wing coup. What the fuck are you talking about they are just arms dealers? They are providing recon and military intelligence, they are mobilizing their satellites and aerial assets, they are doing political work to get other nations to provide support and they are putting constraints on peace deals. They are not a fucking arms dealer.
Was there a coup immediately after their visit?
if you are right and they are just an arms dealer they are still the bad guys. You understand arm's dealers are bad people right?
No. That's a reductionist take.
"Can we have some weapons to defend ourselves?"
"No! That'd make us evil. You should just die. "
Oh a hexbear. ... You lot only have overly simplistic takes.
Oh a hexbear. ... You lot only have overly simplistic takes.
When we respond to blatant ignorance with carefully chosen wording, backing up our position with citations and links, and calmly explaining the nuance of complex geopolitical realities, we get accused of "always throwing walls of text at people." When we answer that same ignorance with short and pithy responses, we "only have simplistic takes."
There's no winning with you simple-minded dronies, but I guess there never is when one side can just make shit up that fits their vibes-based outlook on the world.
Which part was carefully chosen wording, and where are your citations?
What are you even asking for? What do you want citations on? As I made very clear with quoted text, I was responding to a claim about everyone on the hexbear instance.
Do you want citations and careful wording that hexbear people use citations and careful wording? Or do you want citations and careful wording about something specific having to do with the topic of the OP? In either case, just read the comments from hexbear users all over this thread.
You're claiming that you argue from a valid point of citing your arguments, and presented zero citation. The person the replied to needed no citations for their argument because they presented ideas, not facts. You're raging trying to tell people to cite things but you're sitting in your tower without presenting citations. You're a ragebait clown 🤡
You said:
You’re claiming that you argue from a valid point of citing your arguments, and presented zero citation. The person the replied to needed no citations for their argument because they presented ideas, not facts. You’re raging trying to tell people to cite things but you’re sitting in your tower without presenting citations. You’re a ragebait clown 🤡
It's unclear whether you're deliberately misinterpreting InappropriateEmote or whether you simply don't understand them. Either way, it seems sensible to quote the text that you're replying to:
When we respond to blatant ignorance with carefully chosen wording, backing up our position with citations and links, and calmly explaining the nuance of complex geopolitical realities, we get accused of “always throwing walls of text at people.” When we answer that same ignorance with short and pithy responses, we “only have simplistic takes.”
This means that when Hexbear users present a longer argument with references, they get accused of writing walls of text. In response to this criticism, there is another approach: short and pithy responses.
InappropriateEmote is unambiguously saying that in this example they went with option 2, a short and pithy response. They are not claiming to have provided a longer argument with references.
This was said in response to a quip intended to shut down the discussion rather than deal with a critique:
Oh a hexbear. … You lot only have overly simplistic takes.
The alternative (dealing with the substance of the claim) would have required accepting all the other evidence that the US is both arms dealer and directly involved in running the Ukraine war and directing where it's dealt arms go. Again as with yours, there was an attempt to decontextualize what a Hexbear user said so as to dismiss the overall argument without addressing it's crucial features.
It is entirely unclear what point you're trying to make by distinguishing ideas from facts. Unless it's a weird brag about being grounded in unfounded opinion rather than fact, which, if it is, is not the argument you think it is.
But they're from hexbear, that means they're always right duh
/s
No one ever said we are always right, and we can't be, because our internal struggle sessions are well know. We weren't even able to federate for 3 years due to incompatible code, and in that time, disagreed (to put it lightly) on things all the time in ways where both sides can't be right. I realize it can be convenient for you to talk about people you're trying to disparage as a monolith, but I assure you, no hexbear thinks hexbears are always right.
But when it comes to actually knowing shit about geopolitics, and understanding realities beyond the narrative that has been crafted to justify the ruling class' dominance and hegemony, it's hard to get it wrong when you're talking to propagandized liberals who eat up that narrative like good little unquestioning beneficiaries of empire. That much is true.
You should just die
Yes, rip bozos
My eternal grief for the hundreds of thousands of innocent Ukrainians pressed into the meatgrinder by their Nazi overlords, eternal death to the genocidal Kiev regime and their campaign of extermination against their own country's citizens of Russian descent for eight years
CW: literally, unfathomably vile
The Ukrainian fascist soldiers are offering you cans of 'Separatist Baby Meat'!
You realize the people in those photos are Russian citizens and connected to Wagner PMC, right? Identify each of them for us and prove you know what the hell you're posting. Anyone can post a picture of a Nazi flag and say "See? SEE!??"
Yeah, those damn Ruskies sure love carrying around banner portraits of Stepan Bandera and flying blue and yellow flags next to their swastikas and black suns and wolfsangels.
All of these are Russian's too, right? Especially the ones that say Azov Battalion? https://leftypol.org/edu/src/1662026001627.webm
The people flying the Ukrainian flag are actually Russian?
I'm sure no Russian would ever got a Ukrainian flash for propaganda. /s
Ukraine good, Russia bad. It follows that these Ukrainians doing bad stuff are in fact Russians.
It's a non-falsifiable orthodoxy that turns evidence on its head until it fits the pre-conceived narrative.
Do you enjoy carrying water for literal fascists?
Reposting the same link as in my other comment, just because it so perfectly demonstrates how stupid and/or disingenuous it is to think that the near infinite written and photographic examples of Ukraine's love of nazi iconography is actually a Russian false flag attempt:
Yes. They are Wagner
Prove it.
You realize the people in those photos are Russian citizens and connected to Wagner PMC, right?
Uh yea gonna need you to identify these Russian citizens in those pro bandera, ukraine flag waving marches here.
Uh yeah gonna need the person claiming the photos are legit to post some proof. Burden of proof is on the presenter. That was my comment that you replied to. Since you can't, we can assume you are arguing in bad faith and have nothing to contribute
Bruv Idk what to tell you ukraine has a known problem with its far right elements, and here are pictures presented of exactly that.
Uh yeah gonna need the person claiming the photos are legit to post some proof
YOU claimed these pictures were Wagner pmcs dressing up and holding fake far right marches with Ukrainian iconography. YOU back that claim up.
Needs more jpeg
If I were to understand history based entirely on two or three headlines in The Atlantic
Who invaded Ukraine in 2014
After whose coup d'etat?
Ahhh let's talk about those! The one in Russia last month was pretty cool. Sending Wagner to Belarus to mess with Poland, only for Poland to send 10,000 troops and see Wagner get shipped out of Belarus was pretty funny. Russia keeps trying the same playbook, and now it's being met with equal force, so they're pissed. Same reason the EU border states just expelled thousands of Russian citizens.
They keep trying to stage coups using Russian citizens. The coup in Ukraine in 2014 was preceded by a border buildup of "special operation forces." It also noteworthy how Russia has changed the lingo and now calls it "War in Ukraine."
Is it fun living in this fantasy world?
Mate, ease up on the drugs. The real world is still going to be waiting for you when you come down.
What are you talking about? I said I don't like America. How did you get it backwards?
America is a plutocracy which accepts queerness in its federal law. Your gotcha went too broad.
which accepts queerness in its federal law.
Bwahahaha
Oh wait you're serious
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Mate. Respect for Marriage Act 2022 is a federal law protecting same sex marriages. It's there. It's fact. Bwaha etc.
Someone else is going to have to explain the ignorance present in this statement for I do not have the time or energy, could one of our cishet hexbears be a good ally?
You are incapable. That is because the comment is factually correct. US Federal law has protections for queerness. The cited law proves it. What point are you trying to make exactly?
The long and short of it is that legalizing gay marriage isn't even a strong step to lgbt liberation, it is literally just tepid assimilationism. We are only "accepted by federal law" in most narrow and on their terms sense. Call me when the US government federally covers trans Healthcare, makes conversion torture a federal crime, deals with the queer(especially child) homelessness problem, and purges the people calling us all pedophiles.
Also, learn some fucking humility.
But that's not what was under discussion. Does there exist a federal law which protects queerness?
Yes, yes there does.Is it perfect? By no means, there's a long way to go. But the characterization of the US as queerphobic in the context of comparison to Russia is a nonsense. Both-sidesing this issue is a disgusting affront to the LGBTQ people suffering under Putin.
You're original wording was:
which accepts queerness in its federal law.
You do not know what queerness is if you think that is met by gay marriage being legalized federally.
Is it perfect? By no means, there's a long way to go. But the characterization of the US as queerphobic in the context of comparison to Russia is a nonsense. Both-sidesing this issue is a disgusting affront to the LGBTQ people suffering under Putin.
This is whataboutism. Also US capitalists fund the passage of anti-lgbt laws and hate campaigns globally that create basically pogroms against gay and trans people. So it is ridiculous because the US is much worse to gay and trans people globally.
They also helped illegally and undemocratically dissolve the USSR and created the situation for Putin to exist in in the first place. Who knows, if they didn't interfere maybe the USSR would currently be as progressive as Cuba is on the issue of queer liberation. And Ukrainian and NATO capitalists and Russian capitalists wouldn't be sending conscripts to their deaths.
Disengage
Me, losing every chess game I ever play, but at least my mind is pure because I don't think like those dirty white pieces.
Imagine having the reading comprehension of a sixth grader.
Imagine thinking Ukraine is any less queerphobic than Russia.
Russia does not have the resources for that. A reminder this isn't a proxy war for them, even though it is for the West. Russia is there in person conventionally and is somehow losing to a minor Western ally.
The Ukrainians aren't going to run out of stuff within the next year for sure, and maybe not ever because even if the US gets bored Europe is highly invested. Russia has negligible productive capacity of it's own, and is bound to have serious problems eventually, unless they convince China to help and China has so far been uninterested. They could theoretically win by population attrition, I guess, but nobody's really talking about that yet. And, to do anything, they need political stability, after already having one mostly-failed coup.
is somehow losing to the minor Western allies
How are you defining "losing" here? They're occupying the separatist parts of Ukraine and can do so indefinitely.
Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev, and they've gotten fairly continuously further from that. Saying they're winning has "Mission Accomplished!" energy at this point.
They're occupying Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea if that's what you mean, although it's in question if they can do that or anything else including exist indefinitely.
Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev
According to who? If you read the article from U.S. military analysts posted elsewhere in this thread, not even they think that was the point of the early war thrust towards Kiev.
Interesting you mention "Mission Accomplished" -- would you say the U.S. and its media did a good job of accurately informing the public about the War on Terror? Would you say they had good intentions?
What did they decide the Kiev thing was about? Was it a botched attempt at a decapitation strike to prevent basically everything else that happened?
It's very much worth a read. The broad strokes are:
- There's a notable difference between the attack towards Kiev and the attack in the separatist regions (it also talks about attacks in southern Ukraine outside the separatist regions, but I think it says they're basically similar to the Kiev attack).
- The attack in the separatist regions were to hold territory with an amenable population. So you have a lot of troops, tons of artillery, and they dug in elaborate fortifications that they will actually stay and defend.
- The attack towards Kiev was an opportunistic raid to divert troops from the main thrust of the attack in thr separatist regions. The article talks about similar raids the Russian Empire did in the Napoleonic Wars, the Union calvalry did in the U.S. Civil War, pretty sure it mentions a Soviet one in WWII, etc. It involved much less artillery because it wasn't intended to hold ground and they wanted to avoid unnecessarily antagonizing civilians they didn't want to govern anyway.
- On that last point, the article also talks about how Russian missile strikes have largely avoided the most damaging civilian targets. It gives an example of striking an electrical substation that converts electricity into a type usable by trains instead of striking electrical infrastructure that is more general purpose (and would shut down broader civilian electricity, too).
The Kiev attack's goal appears to have been "disrupt, divert, and if you see opportunities, take them." I bet if the Ukrainian government had shown signs of folding or if the defense of Kiev had been weaker they would have pushed for more, but that didn't happen, the separatist regions were taken successfully, and the Russian Kiev column had no more reason to be there.
Okay, sure. That fits.
According to who? If you read the article from U.S. military analysts posted elsewhere in this thread, not even they think that was the point of the early war thrust towards Kiev.
All I see is a chain of threads that go mostly nowhere. No, a wargame from 2002 is not relevant.
Here is the comment with the article I referred to.
Yeah, that's the one I'm talking about. Is it buried somewhere in the tiny print of the image of some magazine that somebody has highlighted all over?
Had you bothered to read the article you'd see it's not talking about a 2002 war game, but the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Man where the fuck is that forest, all I can see around here are a bunch of trees.
Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev
Citation needed.
Here's a map of the invasion a few weeks in. Kiev (Киев if you can't read Cyrillic) is the capital of the nation. What does it look like they tried to achieve right off the bat?
Edit: Oooh, Wikipedia has an animation if it's still not clear.
Lmao, okay.
Well, there war goals were to protect Donbass, kill a shitload of Nazis, and de-militarize Ukraine. Plans change but it still looks like they're doing what they set out to do.
It is funny how you critical thinkers uncritically regurgitate Putin propaganda without any hesitation.
Ukraine is looking plenty militerised, and more pro-Western than ever.
There are a finite number of 18-35 year old men.
"Kill nearly every young man in Ukraine" is their main path to victory, but Russia has only about 4x the population of Ukraine, so they'll have to mind their casualty ratios pretty well. And avoid any more coups.
Presumably the young men of Ukraine will realize that throwing themselves on to the enemy guns is a losing proposition at some point before that but who knows?
It's not though. Russia, even assuming continued political unity, may well run out of weapons to give to it's troops, and then their K:D ratio will pass 4:1 easily.
Apologies if we already discussed this, I've spent way too much time in this thread already and it's blending together.
Pentagon said last year in a press briefing that Russia could keep up this war for 40 years at current rate. You sure USA and Europe can last even one year? Russia also has allies in China and India, in case West thought for even one moment about uniting.
Depends what you're talking about. This war started in 2014 so its already been 9 years.
Russia also has allies in China and India
Press X to doubt.
Pentagon said last year in a press briefing that Russia could keep up this war for 40 years at current rate.
Could you link that? It goes against everything I've read and I can't find it myself.
Press X to doubt.
India ramping up trade in oil and gas with Russia while refusing to even offer the most milquetoast condemnation of Russia's invasion on the world stage haven't clued you in?
Call me when they do more than not get involved.
India and China are fair-weather friends to Russia. India is also an increasingly close fair-weather friend of the West. Both the West and India see themselves as adversaries with China.
Call me when they do more than not get involved.
Russia's economy would have collapsed a year ago without India buying their gas.
So you think the neutral action would be an embargo, then? Buying gas at a heavy discount doesn't seem very political to me, or to the Western leaders for that matter.
Russia also has allies in China and India
Press X to doubt.
I do not think you are capable of learning anything, if you seriously say things that are opposite of reality.
Right back at you, although I assume you're plenty capable at learning other things.
Nobody who has even a modicum of understanding of geopolitics doubts this. India and Russia have a very strong relationship that goes back to the days of USSR which was one of the biggest forces that helped liberate India from western colonization. Meanwhile, Russia losing the war would be an utter disaster for China. US is very openly trying to surround China militarily, and Russia acts as a shield in the west. The worst possible outcome for China would be the west managing to destabilize Russia and put a pro western government in power. If there was even the slightest chance that Russia could lose this conflict then China would step in.
I disagree. The Cold War is ancient history and China's probably just as happy carving up Russia as living beside it.
Permanently Deleted
I don't think I have ever seen such a clear cut example of projection as your comment.
Ancient history is when less thsn 35 years ago
Every major head of state lived through the Cold War.
For example, Joe Biden was literally born when the battle of Stalingrad of World War 2 was occurring. Biden's literally old enough to have lived in the same era as the generation that lived during the American Civil War were dying out.
Anyone that was born in the 70s, for a brief time, lived on the same earth at the same time as the last living emancipated American slaves still drew their breath.
"Ancient history" is closer to us who are alive than we can truly perceive and comprehend. The past's heavy hands rest on our shoulders, burdening the present with the acts performed hitherto each passing minute.
A quote:
'Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.'
US literally says it wants to prevent China from developing and has surrounded it with military bases, but whatever you say buddy. The brains of Chinese leaders aren't as smooth as yours.
Give any example or argument that shows China would want to carve up Russia
More territory is good, if the opportunity would present itself this would make China stronger. They also don't want another Xinjiang they have to genocide, though, so I imagine they wouldn't actually annex much. Maybe just take back the old Qing cities and puppet the rest.
Like actual material evidence that China would want to do it and not just fantasy theory crafting in your mind
This is pure projection on what you'd do if you ran a country
They fight over territory with India all the time. And some of their other neighbors too, I think.
If I ran China, I'd make nice with the West, accept immigrants, put in a low wealth cap and expand the size and scope of their basic income. I would get executed by a coup early in the processes. The guys that do run China are allowed to do so because they feed nationalist, protectionist ideas that actually appeal to both the masses and the elite. So yeah, if it advances China's position with low risks, they'll probably do it.
PS before anyone comes at me for being dictator of China, that was specified in the scenario.
What do you base this on besides vibes?
OP gave me their vibes, and I responded with my vibes. Actual facts about the future of geopolitics are hard to come by (until they happen).
Nobody who has even a modicum of understanding of geopolitics doubts this. India and Russia have a very strong relationship that goes back to the days of USSR which was one of the biggest forces that helped liberate India from western colonization.
Only if you believe your own propaganda, because none of that occurred at all.
None of what occurred? If you're gonna lie then at least lie about something that can't be easily googled.
They could theoretically win by population attrition
I'm not a historian, but is that not how Russia approached every single war in recent history? Just throw bodies at the enemy until they run out of bullets?
Nah. That was basically Cold War propaganda, partly spread by ex-Nazis covering their asses after losing to "subhumans". Russia fought the same way every country did in it's recent wars.
Man I miss AskHistorians.
No, not at all; that's a myth started by Nazi propagandists to explain why they were losing to the Soviets, and it was picked up by USA propagandists during the cold war.
Pretty much every assuming USians have about Russia comes from Nazi propaganda.
Oh, and Ukraine is also populous. It has a quarter of Russia's population, about, so human wave wouldn't win anyway.
