Political Posts

[UK]

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/ukraine-war-russia-enlists-singers-080018966.html

[Xerxes]

The Christmas bombings: A US airman recalls the Vietnam War's Operation Linebacker II, 50 years on | CNN

 

Not related Ukraine directly. Saw this on CNN. This December is the 50th anniversay of the "Christmas bombing of Hanoi" to force North Vietnam back on the negotiation table that were taking place in Paris five decades ago.

 

I think if people are concerned about what war (declared or undeclared) is really about it, should re-examine the case study from the 1960s and 70s. Anything that moves is a target. Anything that does not move is a target. What is legitimate or not, only gets debated in history books. War crimes only matters if your lose.

 

United States never declared war in the Vietnam, and its military mission was conduced through the "Military Assistance Command Vietnam" outfit. While, strategic bombing, i.e. B-52s, were directly coordinate by the White House.

 

Make of this what you will, but I think It is an interesting anecdote, in light all of we see in today's world.

 

--------------------------------------------

"Operation Linebacker II saw more than 200 American B-52 bombers fly 730 sorties and drop over 20,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam over a period of 12 days in December 1972, in a brutal assault aimed at shaking the Vietnamese “to their core,” in the words of then US national security adviser Henry Kissinger.

 

“They’re going to be so god damned surprised,” US President Richard Nixon replied to Kissinger on December 17, the eve of the mission.

 

In what would become known as “the Christmas bombings” in America and “the 11 days and nights” in Vietnam (no bombing took place on Christmas day), swathes of Hanoi were obliterated."

 

.........

 

“The resulting physical destruction was staggering: 1,600 military installations, miles of railway lines, hundreds of trucks and railway cars, eighty percent of electrical power plants, and countless factories and other structures were taken out of commission,” wrote Vietnam War historian Pierre Asselin in his 2018 book, “Vietnam’s American War: A History.”

 

“The Linebacker bombings crippled the North’s vital organs, obliterating the results of its communist transformation, and its ability to sustain the war in the South by extension,” Asselin wrote. Such was the devastation that one Soviet diplomat warned that North Vietnam faced becoming “a wasteland.”

[Pelagic]

@Xerxes The US actually had very strict targeting rules during the Vietnam war, especially for targets in the North. The port of Haiphong for instance was often off limits entirely due to the fear of striking Russian ships in port. Likewise for airfields in North Vietnam close to the Chinese border from which North Vietnamese fighter aircraft took off from. The use of air power in Vietnam is interesting, you have quite a few factions within the US command structure with different priorities and thought processes. Suffice to say, anything that moves was most certainly not a target, much to the chagrin of American airmen facing the same MiGs and SAM sites day after day that they couldn't target. Linebacker II in 1972 was impactful (to the extent it was) because it was when Nixon let strategic air command have their way to execute bombings against infrastructure that they had wanted to target all war long. 

 

This is a very good lecture on the topic.

 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

Thanks @Pelagic

I will check it out.

 

For clarificaiton, what I meant (or should have added but neglected) was that:   everything that moves and/or fixed could be considered a target. But that is where the process starts.

 

The very strict process that you speak of were not there to protect poor Vietnamese rice farmers, while Westmoreland, McNamara and Lyndon B. Johnson waged their noble war. They were there because the Johnson administration suffered from "recency bias" of U.S. recent experience in the Korean War, where getting close to the Yalu river triggered a PLA invasion of 300,000 men under the guise of "volunteers". On Thanksgiving no less.

 

Another example, that comes to mind, during the Korean War communist supply line through Manchuria were also considered as a target. There were talks of dropping several dozen atomic bombs in Manchuria, to distrupt the flow of arms that contributed to American deaths. Not sure if this plan contributed to MacArthur's final downfall, but in any case it was not pursued as the risks did not meet the "hurdle rate". Is that a good thing or a bad thing ?  Had the plan went through, the Red block would have received a severe blow in its infancy, at a cost of millions Chinese, but the "casual" use of nukes would have become acceptable and normal.

 

I would even say, Russia today can consider targets within Poland or Baltic Sea that are directly impacting the outcome of war that is critical to its perceived national security. Those targets have a very high "hurdle rate" to it, making it almost impossible to achieve any valuable output for the very tangible risk of triggering Article (whatever the # is).

 

 

 

 

[John Hjorth]

4 hours ago, Xerxes said:

... I would even say, Russia today can consider targets within Poland or Baltic Sea that are directly impacting the outcome of war that is critical to its perceived national security. Those targets have a very high "hurdle rate" to it, making it almost impossible to achieve any valuable output for the very tangible risk of triggering Article (whatever the # is).

 

Let him try, I would say.

 

Perhaps this thing would come much faster to an end, if he did.

 

Personally I think you as a Canadian citizen are greatly underestimating the sentiment in Northern Europe about this here.

 

It's not a "... very high "hurdle rate" ...", here, it's simply considered a suicidal action for his part trying. The crap will simply be beat of him, if he tries.

[Viking]

I think China is an important player in the war. China’s support of Russia is already accelerating the West’s move away from China. I am not sure China wants the West to accelerate its pivot even further as it would have more severe economic consequences for China. The chip sanctions were a shot across the bow.

 

If Russia escalates the war into other European/NATO states then China will likely experience collateral damage. US and European hawks will have a field day. And it could be severe for China. 2023 is shaping up to be another very crazy/interesting year. The geopolitical world is shifting. And in a big way. 
 

The iron curtain coming down in 1989 was a big deal for global economies and financial markets. China joining the WTO in 2001 was also a big deal. Both developments ushered in decades of global prosperity. As 2022 draws to a close we now know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that those days are gone for good. A thing of the past.
 

Russia and China have decided it is time for a new global regime. They have decided the global world order needs to be disrupted and at its very core (taking a page from Clayton Christensen’s book The Innovator’s Dilemma). Russia and China feel they have leverage over the West and the time is right to exercise that leverage. Long live authoritarianism. The split of the world into two blocks (authoritarian vs Western democracies) will be equally as impactful and will play out over decades.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Viking

[Xerxes]

54 minutes ago, Viking said:

I think China is an important player in the war. China’s support of Russia is already accelerating the West’s move away from China. I am not sure China wants the West to accelerate its pivot even further as it would have more severe economic consequences for China. The chip sanctions were a shot across the bow.

 

If Russia escalates the war into other European/NATO states then China will likely experience collateral damage. US and European hawks will have a field day. And it could be severe for China. 2023 is shaping up to be another very crazy/interesting year. The geopolitical world is shifting. And in a big way. 
 

The iron curtain coming down in 1989 was a big deal for global economies and financial markets. China joining the WTO in 2001 was also a big deal. Both developments ushered in decades of global prosperity.
 

Russia and China have decided it is time for a new global regime. They feel they have leverage over the West and the time is right to exercise that leverage. Long live authoritarianism. The split of the world into two blocks (authoritarian vs Western democracies) will be equally as impactful and will play out over decades.

 

 

If one is looking for long term historical arc, the one that is provided by Niall Ferguson is the most intersting one. Where he describes an era of globalization, where potential rival and powers traded with each other, an era that went on 40 or so years. 

 

Then, it is explained that this is not the 1990s to 2020s. But rather the 30-40 years inbetween the Franco-Prussian War leading to the First World War. After the 1914-18 war, the globalization was largely dead and wont be resurrected back till the fall of Berlin Wall. 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Let him try, I would say.

 

Perhaps this thing would come much faster to an end, if he did.

 

Personally I think you as a Canadian citizen are greatly underestimating the sentiment in Northern Europe about this here.

 

It's not a "... very high "hurdle rate" ...", here, it's simply considered a suicidal action for his part trying. The crap will simply be beat of him, if he tries.

 

Hi John,

 

I am completely unsure of how things will shape up in 2023, so perhaps undestimating and overestimating many many things at the sametime. The one thing that I know for sure, a war does not follow trends. It can have multiples reversion to the mean (politically, militarilly, economically etc.), everytime one side goes to one extreme. Only overwhelming interia may keep it on the trend.

 

And that it can easilly outlive the original sponser and take a life of its own.

 

Everyone knows about Vietnam War, how many folks know that U.S. got involved first to help the French fighting the Viet Minh, which actually could be called the first Vietnam War. And there was a third Vietnam War as well, when the PLA crossed the border and tried to "punish" Hanoi, but failed miserably. The same Chinese PLA that the American feared would jump in the war to help the communist.

 

Three Vietnam wars in south east Asia that far far outlive the initial reason why it started, and not many people would care to remember.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Unrelated, there was a recent interview on The Economist with the c-in-c of Ukrainian military. Some interesting parts below, but I highly recommend to read what the top soldier in Ukraine has to say.

 

An interview with General Valery Zaluzhny, head of Ukraine’s armed forces | The Economist

 

But they are working on another task in parallel, they are doing everything possible not to let us regroup and strike ourselves. This is why you are seeing battles along the 1,500km frontline. In some places more intense, in some places less intense, but they are constraining our troops in order not to allow us to regroup. The fact that they are fighting hard now is very bad, of course. But it is not a solution to the strategic problem. It simply wears down the armed forces of Ukraine.

 

That’s why, just as during the second world war, I have no doubt about it, it is most likely that somewhere beyond the Urals, they are preparing new resources. They are 100% being prepared.

 

Ammunition is being prepared, not very good stuff, but still. It won’t be the same resources as it could have been in two years of ceasefire. It will not be like that. It will be lousy, and combat potential will be very, very low, even if he enlists a million more people in the army to throw bodies, like Zhukov [a senior Soviet commander during the second world war] did, it will not bring the desired result anyway.

 

..............

 

Our second strategic task is to get ready for this war which can happen in February. To be able to wage a war with fresh forces and reserves. Our troops are all tied up in battles now, they are bleeding. They are bleeding and are being held together solely by courage, heroism and the ability of their commanders to keep the situation under control.

 

The second, very important strategic task for us is to create reserves and prepare for the war, which may take place in February, at best in March, and at worst at the end of January. It may start not in Donbas, but in the direction of Kyiv, in the direction of Belarus, I do not rule out the southern direction as well.

 

 

Have the Russian forces adapted to himars [American-made multiple rocket launchers]?

 

VZ: Yes. They’ve gone to a distance the himars can’t reach. And we haven’t got anything longer-range.

 

 

TE: What do you make of Russia’s mobilisation?

 

VZ: Russian mobilisation has worked. It is not true that their problems are so dire that these people will not fight. They will. A tsar tells them to go to war, and they go to war. I’ve studied the history of the two Chechen wars—it was the same. They may not be that well equipped, but they still present a problem for us. We estimate that they have a reserve of 1.2m-1.5m people… The Russians are preparing some 200,000 fresh troops. I have no doubt they will have another go at Kyiv.

 

[UK]

6 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Let him try, I would say.

 

Perhaps this thing would come much faster to an end, if he did.

 

Personally I think you as a Canadian citizen are greatly underestimating the sentiment in Northern Europe about this here.

 

It's not a "... very high "hurdle rate" ...", here, it's simply considered a suicidal action for his part trying. The crap will simply be beat of him, if he tries.

 

John, thanks for your comment. Yes, looking one or two years out, as soon as new Himars, F35s and other stuff will arrive (which will be very plenty) and Sweden with Finland join NATO (foregone conclusion) I am too starting to become optimistic on the ability of the region to stand on its own, even against Russia.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-12-18/ukraine-conflict-brings-finland-s-troops-and-tanks-in-from-the-cold-war

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/12/16/lithuania-signs-495-million-deal-to-buy-himars-atacms/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/poland-will-double-military-spending-as-war-in-ukraine-rages?leadSource=uverify wall

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-expected-buy-skorean-rocket-launchers-after-tank-howitzer-sales-2022-10-19/

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by UK

[Spekulatius]

10 hours ago, UK said:

 

John, thanks for your comment. Yes, looking one or two years out, as soon as new Himars, F35s and other stuff will arrive (which will be very plenty) and Sweden with Finland join NATO (foregone conclusion) I am too starting to become optimistic on the ability of the region to stand on its own, even against Russia.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-12-18/ukraine-conflict-brings-finland-s-troops-and-tanks-in-from-the-cold-war

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/12/16/lithuania-signs-495-million-deal-to-buy-himars-atacms/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/poland-will-double-military-spending-as-war-in-ukraine-rages?leadSource=uverify wall

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-expected-buy-skorean-rocket-launchers-after-tank-howitzer-sales-2022-10-19/

 

 

 

 

Dont forget Japan doubling military spending as well, since their neighborhood good signficiantly more dangerous (North Korea, Russia, China etc).

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pacifist-japan-unveils-unprecedented-320-bln-military-build-up-2022-12-16/

 

FWIW, i don't think Ukraine will ever get F35 fighters. most likely the Swedish Gripen fighters would be much better (I think) - cheaper, easier to maintain and can start from short airfields.

 

Ukraine will also get loner range weapons than Himars , it's just a matter of time.

 

[UK]

14 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

FWIW, i don't think Ukraine will ever get F35 fighters. most likely the Swedish Gripen fighters would be much better (I think) - cheaper, easier to maintain and can start from short airfields.

 

I agree. I was talking about Finland re F35 (they will receive 64) and Baltics re Himars. There will be 20 Himars in Baltics in two years including long range capabilities. It is more than currently are deployed in Ukraine. Finland already owns some 20+ larger versions. And Poland is in the league of its own: 

 

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/06/07/poland-himars-us/

 

 

[shhughes1116]

4 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

FWIW, i don't think Ukraine will ever get F35 fighters. most likely the Swedish Gripen fighters would be much better (I think) - cheaper, easier to maintain and can start from short airfields.

 

Ukraine will also get loner range weapons than Himars , it's just a matter of time.

 

I think it is a toss-up between Gripens and F-16s.  The Gripens were designed to operate in austere conditions by conscripted support staff, similar to the current conditions in Ukraine.  But there is a large bolus of F-16s about to be retired in the US, and sending these to Ukraine would enable sourcing munitions from a larger group of countries that operate the f-16.  Both planes are vulnerable to shorad.

 

I disagree with your point about getting longer-range weapons than HIMARs.  To make this happen, the US or NATO would have to give Ukraine tomahawk missiles, or storm shadow missiles.  Even if the tomahawk is a fairly old weapon, I don’t think we are likely to give Ukraine a 1000+ mile range weapon, and certainly not newer cruise missiles.  
 

The quickest way to end the war in Ukraine would be to hand over the soon-to-be-retired bolus or f-16s and ~250 M1A1s sitting in the boneyards.  Hell, give them the M-60s from the Gulf War also - they worked quite well for the Marines in the first gulf war.  We don’t need the old M-60s and we have more than enough old M1A1s sitting in storage for future conversion to M1A2 if needed.  This equipment helps Ukraine fight, and limits the impact of western weapons to the occupied areas of Ukraine.  

[ValueArb]

On 12/15/2022 at 5:12 AM, Spekulatius said:

@Luca I can imagine this or that but Xi is in power for life and he believes in communism. So I think that’s what we are going to get from China. Communism is not good for shareholder returns. I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that.

 

Would it be fairer to say Xi believes in one party rule and one man ruling that party?

 

Because it clearly seems that he believes in capitalism, as long as it's under strict party controls. 

[Blugolds]

1 hour ago, ValueArb said:

 

Would it be fairer to say Xi believes in one party rule and one man ruling that party?

 

Because it clearly seems that he believes in capitalism, as long as it's under strict party controls. 

 

Is Capitalism "under strict party controls" really Capitalism? 

 

I see it as black and white, either it is capitalism for better or worse...or its not, because sooner or later that will be tested..and in the CCP, there is never any question as to who is gonna win that battle...

 

If kids have freedom to play outside, that is much different than "yard time" in a prison. One might have general guidelines from parents, stay out of the street, let me know where you are gonna be etc from parents, the other is in constant fear of yard brawls, has to stay with their race, gaurds watching them with rifles etc. Both are outside getting exercise, but totally different experience. That makes a huge difference IMO.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Blugolds11

[UK]

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/12/22/zelensky-us-congress-speech-full-sot-vpx.cnn

[Viking]

China is a communist country. ALL THE MATTERS IS THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY STAYS IN POWER. There is no rule of law. There are no property rights. There are no individual rights/freedoms. There is no freedom of the press. There is no capitalism. Everything that exists in China is a mirage.  Everything (and everyone) exists to serve the Chinese Communist Party. It is not that complicated to understand.
 

The economic model will change to whatever the CCP feels serves its needs the best. Parts of it might look like a capitalist model today. But that means little. It is built on a foundation of sand. And a storm has been raging for a few years… and as the sands shift it is getting hard to make the old model out…

Edited December 22, 2022 by Viking

[ANP301191]

Maybe I have missed something, but I do remember western intelligence agencies talking about how the war would cripple Putin's ability to control the oligarchs/crush the Russian economy and eventually force him from power etc.? Havent heard that line of thought in a while. In fact, I do remember reading that some of the oligarchs who spoke out against Putin have had some pretty harsh reprisals.

 

All this goes to say, no matter what armaments the west gives to Ukraine, if Putin remains in power, there always remains a chance of further escalation (more mass mobilizations, utlization of nuclear weapons, etc.). So by all means, lets give the Ukrainians planes and guns and missiles, this ends in a political settlement or a nuclear war. In my opinion, there is no path for Ukraine to simply expel the invading forces and end the war, it only ends when Putin decides he's had enough or he's won.

[formthirteen]

1 hour ago, ANP301191 said:

In my opinion, there is no path for Ukraine to simply expel the invading forces and end the war, it only ends when Putin decides he's had enough or he's won.

 

Who knows, it might become a forever war:

 

 

The plot summary is interesting and prescient because history rhymes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War

[Xerxes]

Tucker never fails 

 

 

[LC]

 

[Dinar]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-is-rushing-arms-to-ukraine-but-running-out-of-ammo-11671707775?mod=hp_lead_pos6

 

Western European and somewhat US incompetence is stunning 

[Xerxes]

Long, but good

i have read the first 2/5

 

How Putin’s War in Ukraine Became a Catastrophe for Russia - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[Spekulatius]

22 hours ago, Dinar said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-is-rushing-arms-to-ukraine-but-running-out-of-ammo-11671707775?mod=hp_lead_pos6

 

Western European and somewhat US incompetence is stunning 

LOL, Germany alone will buy ammo for 20B Euro and is building new plants. US is building capacity as well. Russia will run out of conscripts before NATO and Ukraine runs out of ammo.

[formthirteen]

12 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Long, but good

i have read the first 2/5

 

How Putin’s War in Ukraine Became a Catastrophe for Russia - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

Thanks. That was good.

 

By the way, I heard it's not yet too late to buy Christmas gifts:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/17/ukraine-russia-bombs-slogans-fundraising/

 

Quote

After a donation is collected, a Ukrainian soldier scrawls the requested message on the munition and takes a picture of it. The picture is then sent to the donor.

…

The group recently branded a Buk surface-to-air missile with the message “Not for use on Malaysian Airlines”

…

“I’ve already donated $3,000,” said Colin Smith, a director at an e-commerce company in Dallas who has dedicated artillery shells to friends and relatives for birthdays, anniversaries and a job promotion.

Smith first discovered Sign My Rocket on a Reddit page earlier this year. He recently gave his wife a picture of an artillery shell for their anniversary, inscribed with their initials and wedding year: “C & Y. Est. 2021.”

“She loved it,” he said, “though she’s now kind of tired of me telling her about the war.”

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by formthirteen

[Viking]

Michael Pettis is one of my favourite China watchers. He has a great perspective of how China has developed the past 40 years and where it is at today. Bottom line, they might be where Japan was in the late 1980’s - in a heap of trouble. 
 

China’s fundamental problem is the institutions that drove its growth the past 40 years need to change. And doing so is exceptionally hard to pull off. Local government and a property bubble bigger than the one Japan experienced. This is not to say China will not muddle their way through it. Pettis’ comments are pretty wonky… so you have been warned.

—————
Lead-Lag Live: the China shock is coming with Micheal Pettis

https://www.youtube.com/live/mX8vyRXHCP8?feature=share