Nelson Mandingo posted:

DandyLion posted:

Bunch of cowards. I demand Ukraine air drop just planeloads of boots on moscow.

Geisladisk posted:

Ukraine advancing on Moscow is so far fetched we might as well be speculating about the Lunar front of the Russo-Ukrainian war.

I also don't think Ukrainian strikes on Moscow are a good idea because they have only a handful (if any) of weapons capable of reaching out that long, and these would probably be better spent on other targets.

Strikes on Moscow would make the Russians absolutely lose their loving minds but I don't think that would have any real life effect. They can't escalate any further without dropping nukes, and they probably aren't dumb enough to do that.

DandyLion posted:

its no laughing matter!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv3L2knNodU

Power Khan posted:

Moscow should be drone-bombed with pink dildos

KazigluBey posted:

Why would Ukraine jeopardize that with a land-invasion of Russia?
This entire line of argument feels very fever-dream Clancy-chat-esque.

My Spirit Otter posted:

How is that remotely a strawman? In both scenarios, one country started a conflict in another country and wouldnt have stopped unless thoroughly trounced.

KazigluBey posted:

The Vietnamese did not have to do a single thing to the main-land US in order to win. Russia is losing men and material daily while support for Ukraine is steady. Why would Ukraine jeopardize that with a land-invasion of Russia? Like, it's one thing to argue that if Russia starts really going crazy with ammo/fuel dumps riiiiight close to the border which are contributing to logistics that they can be seen as legitimate targets and quite another to start fantasizing about Ukraine somehow managing to threaten/control a territory even a third the size of Russia's.

This entire line of argument feels very fever-dream Clancy-chat-esque.

KazigluBey posted:

The Vietnamese did not have to do a single thing to the main-land US in order to win.

freelop posted:

Hitting the Kherson bridge with those drones seems like a better use, wouldn't even matter if it causes any physical damage as it would piss off the Russian higher ups.

Get 2 drones, one loaded with blue paint and one with yellow then see how far you can get down the bridge spreading the paint

My Spirit Otter posted:

So allied troops on ground in germany during ww2 were wrong, gotcha

Tiny Timbs posted:

Oh there is absolutely zero moral hazard to Ukraine striking back against Russian leadership. The idea that there would be seems crazy to me. As a practical issue, I just don't see Ukraine as being capable of actually pulling off any serious damage.

Nelson Mandingo posted:

I want to reiterate that yeah, a land invasion of Moscow is absolutely fever-dream Clancychat and honestly I think should be banned outright because it's so far fetched. Russia would be in a state of absolute internal collapse at that point. But I don't think Vietnam is a perfect parallel. Media propaganda and culture of the US vs Russia is way different. Tactical strikes into Moscow disrupts Russian narratives very hard. They can't keep putting out press releases of "unfortunate smoking accidents" forever as an example.

CommieGIR posted:

Yeah, this. Ukraine isn't going to go march into Russia. Its crazy to even fantasize about it. Best scenario, they kick Russia out of mainland Ukraine and create a DMZ around the borders which Russia regularly violates.

My Spirit Otter posted:

Vietnam and the us arent fuckin neighbours

steinrokkan posted:

Hm? Turkey hasn't ratified it yet, has it?

My Spirit Otter posted:

How is that remotely a strawman? In both scenarios, one country started a conflict in another country and wouldnt have stopped unless thoroughly trounced.

Karma Comedian posted:

...
And a map:

shadow puppet of a posted:

I would support a precision drone operation against Moscow involving a drone, a glass cutter and 50 centilitres of indelible hot pink and neon green dye actioned against the tomb of Lenin where the only casualty is the dignity of a corpse.

yahoo posted:

The long-debated agreement on “Power of Siberia 2” (POS2) – a massive pipeline project to pump gas from Western Siberia to China via Mongolia – has become emblematic of the one-sided and slightly abusive relationship between China and Russia since the start of the Ukraine war. It is not good news for Moscow.

Ahead of Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Russia, Putin boldly announced that the pipeline deal was ready to be signed off, prematurely labelling it “the deal of the century”. But Xi, unmoved by such excessive zeal, declined to sign anything. No mention whatsoever of POS2 appears in the official statements Xi made during the meetings. In the final joint communiqué, all a disappointed Putin could comment was that more work still had to be done “on study and approval”.

It is in this context that we should read Xi’s parting words to Putin – oracular and ominous – that referred to “changes coming, such as haven’t been seen for a century”, which “we can push forward together”. China watchers have been poring over these words for every last nuance, but it’s pretty clear that Xi was framing himself as leader, with Putin nominally by his side, of a revisionist assault on the liberal world order.

Beijing’s vision for the People’s Republic of China’s centenary in 2049 is the global triumph of a “fully developed, rich and powerful China”. This will not include sharing power with a chaotic Russian kleptocracy. The harder Xi focuses his efforts on realising the “China Dream”, the more implacably will his political and economic coercion be directed at Putin and Russia, and the weaker and more dependent both will become.

Xi’s revisionist goals entail wiping out the shame of historical territorial losses. He has imposed Communist authority on Hong Kong, seeks to do so in Taiwan, and undoubtedly has the same ambition for the 600,000 square kilometres – three times the area of Great Britain – which Tsarist Russia wrested from Opium War-weakened Manchu control in 1858-60 under the Treaties of Aigun and Peking. This area includes parts of Siberia, from which Putin’s much-vaunted pipeline deal would extract resources to sell to China.

Since the Chinese Communist Party regime derives much of what it parades as “legitimacy” from these revanchist campaigns, paying Putin for Siberian resources feels like buying family silver back from a robber. Beijing regards its loss of Mongolian lands in the same way, given the crucial Soviet role in breaking Mongolia away from the remnants of Chinese authority in the early 20th century.

Already, cross-border economic activity in Siberia by uncounted Chinese communities, including in Khabarovsk and Vladivostok, tacitly revive historical Chinese claims to this resource-rich and highly strategic region. For decades, Chinese gangsters have been smuggling precious Siberian resources back to China through a porous frontier – often in collusion with Russian criminals. It’s a clear breach of Russian sovereignty.

Putin’s disastrous assault on Ukraine may have drawn his gaze far away from Russia’s 4,200km border with China, along with many thousands of soldiers who should guard it, but the Chinese remain focused. Xi Jinping’s zero-sum ambition for the “great rejuvenation of China” is imposing itself step by step on Russian soil.

Alexander Lukin posted:

Психологически надо готовиться к тому, что Россия по сравнению с Китаем будет страной менее влиятельной, а со временем — и менее развитой.

Lukin posted:

Psychologically, we need to prepare for the fact that Russia, compared to China, will be a less influential country, and over time, less developed. And get used to living with it in such a way that, while maintaining cooperation, you do not fall into excessive dependence

mobby_6kl posted:

Instead of the pointless clancychat, let's celebrate Finland joining us! With sound.

https://i.imgur.com/uJry7gl.mp4