Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (197348)	3/16/2023 6:47:36 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218106

I think what's being put out there as propaganda... is 99% bullshit. The "war" in Ukraine... continues as it has been... a redux of WW I position battles and a bit of WWII tactics... and most of it flogged by profoundly bad decisions by leadership on both sides... although, the Russians clearly the worse in that... proving really not capable of fielding a modern army... and in the degree have "modern technology" to apply... have shown no obvious skill in its use, or any ability to generate any advantage from it. The only thing I see that's substantively different than war as practiced in WW II... is the range and weight and utility of "artillery" exchanged... as larger weapons are lobbed over greater distances by Russians... and the greater precision and selectivity allowed Ukraine... roughly balance out... An imbalance persists... imposed by the West... who allow Russia to continue to attack Ukraine... but seek to prevent Ukraine from fighting back... requiring they not fight the war on Russian soil instead of their own... or on any terms other than those Russia chooses... without reasonable equipment as modern war requires ? Russia takes NATO's imposition of that imbalance favoring them as "we're winning" ? <rolls eyes> The Russians expectations that "persistence" and "attitude" and antique weapons... can "occupy ground" and thus win a positional ground war with NATO... is about as ridiculous... as NATO's expectation that it can choose to fight on Russia's terms... the way Russia wants to fight... and impose a mostly static battlefield just by "metering out" tiny increments in the level of superior technology allowed to be applied in sustaining the "equal and opposite" erosion of the Russians capacity... The two sides are "geared" differently... and equipped differently... have dramatically different capabilities... Those saying "Russia is fighting NATO in Ukraine"... are not wrong in terms of Russian purpose and intent... but, otherwise, are clueless about the relative value in dispositions of forces and capabilities... Ukraine is... for now... a 3rd world hobby war... with NATO supporting it.. but with NATO's capabilities not a part of it... and with NATO's own forces reduced to observing from the sidelines. So, the war being conducted on Russian terms... while NATO has sidelined its own forces... to equip Ukraine only with a "counter force" that intentionally only "balances" Russia's own... very clearly isn't about NATO trying to "win" the war ? At least... not in any traditional terms... while allowing Russia to "expend itself"... In that sense, only... Putin massively over-reached... over-estimated his own capacity... under-estimated Ukraine as an opponent... probably discounted them totally... while expecting NATO would do nothing. In the process, he has allowed... required... Russia being forced into vassal status with China... China has its own calculus to consider in relation to the war in Europe... its own concerns with costs and consequences in result of... participation. China clearly "on board" with Putin's plan early on... backed it... clearly meaning either that China's leadership was just as clueless as Putin about "what would result"... or... if not that... then... ??? :<O The plan now... does impose logistical stresses on the NATO side... as they don't HAVE the crappy equipment and volumes of crappy supporting material required to sustain a war based on "crappy"... in volume. They could easily supply massive volumes of "crappy" equipment and material as defined in western terms... but, can't do that without dramatically shifting the balances in power, and tipping the scales in the conflict. Doing that... would shift the war we have from "WW II redux"... to "Gulf War" redux... NATO can easily solve those problems... if they want to. But, it doesn't appear that they really want to... They're still trying to "support" the war... on the cheap... and find it a bother to have to generate a sustainable supply of anything... that is of no real utility to themselves. They may carp about the cost... while still spending far less, in fact, than they're supposed to be spending to remain in NATO... But, that choice does mean... there probably has to be a decision made at some point... That Europe / NATO is reluctant to make any choice... isn't new ? So, we see typical European foot-dragging... while busily engaged in complaining about reality, and carping about choices needing to be made... when they'd rather not have to make any... but, clear error to interpret "the usual" as being predictive in any way. Either... continue to fight the war on Russian terms... with $ for doing whatever that requires... as is necessary if you allow the other guy to choose the game being played... Or, change the rules or the game being played in the way the war is being conducted... to eliminate Russian "advantages" in being left unmolested in the choices they make... that ALLOW them to dictate the way in which the war will be conducted... only as now being allowed to make that choice ? NATO doesn't have to allow them that... its just a choice... For now... it is a war conducted on terms and in a way that cedes every advantage to Russia... as the aggressor... and, even given that, they are still simply not competent enough to compete with Ukraine.. on any basis other than "larger mass"... IF allowed to use it. And, NATO has said that's their plan... to enable and allow Russia in expending its mass... If they don't like the result... they can do something different... Russia has set "the game" being played... defined the "rules"... and NATO says... "Yeah. OK. Sounds good. Knock yourself out." ??? So, I think the tactical elements observed in the contest as playing out now... with "front lines" moving a little this way or that... are largely irrelevant... as "not at all the point" ? Propagandists claiming "we got ya now" because of bit of give or take here or there in that contest ? Yeah. That's clueless. There is nothing I see occurring on the battlefield now... that appears it is capable of determining outcomes... But, how and when change in the plan for the conduct of the war will occur ? Who knows. My opinion ? It's all foolishness on a grand scale... As should be painfully clear to Russia (and everyone else), now... NATO can easily defeat Russia on the battlefield if they choose... but, however badly... they have instead gone far out of their way to avoid doing that... or even threatening it. Given the timidity of a Euro leadership afraid of its own shadow... as both what invited this... with Germany intending to deceive Russia re Ukraine... rather than just "tell" them to keep Russia inside Russia's borders ? The same lack of leadership prolongs it now... as some clearly intend... The nuclear threat is also almost entirely bogus... as Europe / U.S. / NATO <genuinely> have no interest in "invading Russia"... or in forcing Russia to defend itself... as opposed to decisively ending Russia's interest and presumption of any "right" in attacking neighbors... with the insanity inherent in expecting Russia's borders "include other countries". If Russia does go stupid... it is unlikely to "benefit" from the choice... But, lacking courage and leadership on all sides... is hardly a recipe that allows taking "bold risks"... even risks that are easily enough avoidable... only when parties in conflict can expect "good faith" from the other side. So... who actually does benefit... from an "endless war"... engineered as "let's you and him fight" ? Putin got lured into it by an expectation of an easy win... a useful prize... and a glory filled legacy revering him as the brave hero responsible for "restoring the Russian empire"... his miscalculation exposing instead... that he's sort of the opposite case of the "quality leadership"... that people do value. Whether its possible to "fix it" now ? Seems improbable... as I don't see any other leaders on the stage...

To: ggersh who wrote (197348)	3/16/2023 7:19:41 PM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Recommended By ggersh Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218106

Re <<It does seem as if one side has a much different approach than the other>> ... interesting, the ruskie approach. Yep, the planet is getting stirred up. The equivalent China China China approach is below, a military recruitment video embedding ancient poem into the music as song lyric, and the visuals of reenactment from another era of long ago, rejuvenated to invigorate, presumably ... translation of song unnecessary for one gets a hint from the music, the language that fails not. However, as usual, the commentaries telling rough translation: kuojerry1002: only nearing almost-end of civilisation then one realises the importance of the nation; protect the home and serve the nation is the responsibility of all. Every time I listen to the song I get stirred up, and when the nation is in difficulty all must do all to protect the nation Hermit Crab: indeed that a 5000 year civilisation is not ordinary! as an overseas Chinese, am proud of my ancestral history and culture. David S: standup, Chinese, be proud! Given such feelings little wonder Core Comrade Xi not bothering to call out the China China China Neo people as they are doing important work without knowing it. Suppose for a moment even more Chinese return to the ancestral land, what happens? a question asked. Such approaches are not possible in the melting pot that be members of Nato, except in Poland and the minor states, and even then the societies would quickly crash into realities borne of past sins, am told. Some folks are more deliberated ... I actually have not the time to listen to below as yet and am unsure that Paul Keating is one of them or one of 'them'. I remain agnostic because I do not know yet.