I'm not convinced the equivalence you mention - "aggression from both sides" - is really there. The current Taiwanese government's only stated goal is to defend itself; there is no serious surviving political will in Taiwan to attack China.
China could attack Taiwan (particularly Matsu and Kinmen), but an attack on the mainland also appears less likely these days, given the very real chance of humiliation a la Russia in Ukraine.
Even if Russia manages to level a few more cities, it's hard to see the past three months as anything but a humiliation of Russia's military might. The damage to Russian military international respect (fear, even) has already been done.
According to whom? Western journalists with degrees in subjects like humanities? US television news? Subreddits?
Russia invaded with the inverse of the ratio recommended by the US Military for attackers versus defenders (3:1) [which is why they had such significant losses in the first several weeks of personnel and equipment]. They have used probably less than 20% of their personnel and equipment.
Despite the assumption that the West has the best gear, at this point in time Russia has not only the best ballistics (hypersonic, etc) but also the best layered air defense systems. The best electronic warfare systems hands down. More diverse longer range artillery systems and more numerous than anything the West can throw at them.
Can you name a single significant counter offensive that the Ukrainian army, the second largest and well-armed in all of Europe with piles of Soviet equipment, their own military industrial complex as well as NATO intelligence and training (other than the sinking of the Moscow, which was pretty impressive).
Regarding tactics, google up "Maskirovka" and military feints. And please read Manufacturing Consent.
The massive English language Ukrainian social media effort does not win wars. We need to be realistic and honest about what is going on instead of projecting what we wish were happening.
Russian here. I condemn this war but let's be realistic. The extremely poor performance of Russian military at the start of the war is due to the following factors:
- extreme underestimation of Ukrainian people and government will to resist the occupation
- extremely poor planning and overstretching the communication lines
- frontlines in the beginning of the campaign were vastly undermanned for a conventional war (ww2 fronts in the same are had 5-15 times more soldiers per km)
- many troops in the initial wave were unwilling to fight this particular opponent. Brother nation and all that.
Now, many of these factors are no longer the same. Fronts are shrinked. RAF military better understands the capabilities of the UAF, and is countering their tactics more efficiently. Soldiers are better equipped with night vision equipment, drones, and they use artillery without hesitation. And most of all, new troops coming to front are no longer the kind of people who were brought in for a military exercise and found themselves invading Ukraine: they consciously signed up a (lucrative for provincial russians) military contract and know exactly what their objective is.
The humiliation is such thing. Yes, you are humiliated, so what? USSR was humiliated in the Winter war, yet, people often forget that it actually won it, taking 20% of Finland ( * ). Currently, Putin holds 20% of Ukraine, and I assess he can get a further 10% at this rate by the year end.
(Russia does have the resources to fight it till the end of the year, meanwhile the western public is clearly oversatiated with this war - last week I haven't seen a single Ukraine related topic trending on Twitter)
* - one can argue that Soviet poor performance in Winter war has led Hitler to attack USSR, but 1) I believe Hitler would have attacked regardless, high on confidence after having beaten France and 2) there are nobody now to attack Russia but possibly China, who wouldn't risk it while it is still in one piece. After it desintegrates as a result of Putin's genius rule, probably, I'll take some far East provinces, but not now. Also, unsuccessful wars are the best reality check if you manage to survive them, so if anything, Ukraine war experience will highly improve the real capabilities of Russian military. Equipment can be replaced far more easily than capable soldiers with war experience.
Not Russian but B1 level Russian speaker with lots of experience in that country and armchair general of the 404th chairborn division.
On your 2nd and 3rd points, you might be right. But have you considered the Russian war technique of Maskirovka and military feints?
Maybe (somewhat) surrounding the capital city was pure incompetence or was actually part of the plan, either way, it sufficiency tied up and discombobulated Ukrainian forces and allowed Russia to advance in the Donboss.
It's interesting to read comments from other Westerners who are so totally sure of Russias objectives but have never read Putin's invasion speech (which lays out the stated objectives) or any other Russian officials comments. Because that would be below them; all Russians are alcoholic, corrupt barbarians, don't you know?
> But have you considered the Russian war technique of Maskirovka and military feints?
From what information I was able to absorb about the start of the campaign, I think that Putin indeed was planning to take Kiev and Kharkiv in less than a week, and then suppress the riots there using riot police - as evidenced by him bringing in riot police troops equipped to disperse unarmed mobs, not to fight am army.
Regarding Putin's objectives, they were (I think, intentionally) very vague - 'denazify Ukraine' and 'secure Donbass'. So, for example, you can bomb a kindergarten and call it a day: Ukraine is now 'sufficiently denazified', Donbass is secure, and we can safely go home. With such goals, Putin can stop the war at any day and his propaganda corps will present any state of affairs as 'the greatest victory since WW2'.
For me, the humiliation comes to Russian society/governance in general. It’s pretty clear that Putin just wants to be another Czar. And the prevailing “well, what are you going to do” fatalism in Russian society means it’s just going to go on. Post 1990, as a child of the Cold War, I naively believed that “change was afoot.” That there was a desire amongst eastern countries to move beyond mideval behavior. It took a few years, but we’re right back to “I wanna be the boss forever”. People malign Putin for this. I have lost faith in the general Russian system at large that just keeps making one Stalin, kruschev, Putin after another. That the Russian system cannot move beyond this, is to me the real humiliation.
Nope, a few missteps in the first 90 days of the war will hardly matter a decade from now.
The West really needs to update their news cycle. While everyone was laughing at the problems Russia had early in the war, they went into full artillery mode.
Change of passport. The current government is also pushing to get the day-to-day name Taiwan more prominent. For example, they are putting the Taiwan name on the passport now, even though their constitutional name is Republic of China (I am wondering when they will change that).
Depending on which side you are, you may consider these are declaration of independence and a change of status quo.
> China could attack Taiwan (particularly Matsu and Kinmen), but an attack on the mainland also appears less likely these days, given the very real chance of humiliation a la Russia in Ukraine.
I think you may misunderstand the CCP. Even the perception of losing Taiwan will cause them to lose control in the mainland. What matters most to CCP? And imagine what they will do.
It's remarkable that anyone would classify something like a change of passport or a color on a map as "aggression" toward China! Especially when the Chinese aggression discussed here is airstrikes and missile barrage, followed by a naval invasion.
Everyone understands that Taiwan will not invade China. To classify Taiwan as the aggressor is wildly disingenuous.
What I meant is to start a conflict (intentional or unintentionally) to get US military involved. Just watch the local news commentors there. It is definitely been constantly discussed.
I understand your point. But ambiguity has deterred a formal Taiwan president from declaring independence. "Aggression" may not be the right choice of word, but this is what I meant, "the leash is gone" in the original post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/12/11/t...
Well they already are independent. They have their own laws, taxes, government, population, and borders. And this has been the case for 70 years.
The only "difference" here is that they aren't officially saying that they are independent. Even though yes, they are obviously already an independent country.
China could attack Taiwan (particularly Matsu and Kinmen), but an attack on the mainland also appears less likely these days, given the very real chance of humiliation a la Russia in Ukraine.