What’s the chance of Russia invading the Ukraine and China invading Taiwan at the same time?

No idea -- those two things seem bound to happen -- but what are the chances that whether those happen at the same time or separately, our response will be ineffective and embarrassing? And that our standing in the world will be that much more diminished?

I saw this thread and it first got me thinking it won't be for a few more years down the road for that to happen.

But then again, if I put myself in Russia's and China's shoes, the question I ask myself is: "Would there be a better time in the future than now when we can expect a weak response from the US?"

I can see both happening inside Biden's term. He'll putz around. And even if we get a strong conservative President and Congress in 2024, they would have been entrenched by then.

Neither Russia nor China are in the greatest of shape right now, and both of them are conscious of that. If either tries to take advantage of the Biden interregnum and then suffers some kind of catastrophic problem, the payback could potentially be devastating. It's not like Russia and China are likely to sign a joint-defense pact anytime in the next few generations.

quote:

What’s the chance of Russia invading the Ukraine

Putin has already invaded the Ukraine. Overtly in Crimea & with paid mercenaries in Donbas. The mercenaries are supported by the Russian Southern Military Command headquartered in Rostov-na-Donu.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Anush,

Students of history will note that things often happen in sequence.

For example, Germany's behavior right before WWII broke out, and the passiveness shown by the major powers in response, showed Stalin that there was little interest in standing up to aggression in the part of the major powers. So he figured, why not take advantage of the situation? And so, Russia invaded Finland and grabbed Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

RE: Taiwan and Ukraine in the 2020's...I personally doubt either will happen. But if one did happen and no major activity followed in response, the odds of the other would go way up, IMO.

The currents of isolationism in the US have run strong and deep at least since George Washington’s admonition about foreign entanglements. Much has obviously changed for various reasons since, but as evidenced as recently as our decision to abandon everything we’d accomplished in Afghanistan, a lot of people will still focus on the costs of our efforts rather than the benefits, and even when the costs at the end are as minor as they were there. We stopped seeing demands for our withdrawal from that country by members here as things started unraveling, but that was obviously because the debacle of how the withdrawal was accomplished served as a convenient big stick for Republicans in general to beat the Biden Administration with. Remember all the political commentators on the Right whose refrain was, “Yeah, we needed to pull out, but not like that”? Had it been a reelected President Trump who ordered the same action, the Left would have criticized and bemoaned the inevitable consequences, and the Right would have been silent, if not approving.

I haven’t followed either the Ukraine or Taiwan situation closely enough to have a good idea of how the US would or could act to defend either, but one thing I’m certain of is that there would be a lot of domestic opposition to doing it. Even a very limited conflict with either aggressor would involve a lot more than dealing with the occasional suicide bomber or roadside IED. Human nature being what it is, interventionists usually underestimate the power and capabilities of a potential adversary, and isolationists usually exaggerate it.

Would our threatened resolve to defend U or T be enough? Perhaps if they thought we were truly serious, but that’s another unknown. Any student of history should know that weak, incompetent leaders aren’t always the safest to challenge.

An interesting question in any event. We can hope that we will never see the answer, but as a friend often points out, hope is not a strategy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

It's all political manipulation and fear mongering. Russia as the eternal boogeyman.

Am I the only one who doesn't care what happens to the Ukraine? They want payback for the 10% they gave the Big Guy. They deserve what they get if they keep poking the Bear.

The invasion, will be simultaneously and will be well executed, both Putin and Xi know that there is nothing to stop them. The United States is as a whole weak and begging for oil from foreign countries. We have lost in less than a year our own sustainability and influence, for woke apologists ideals. Afghanistan has shown that our military resolve and fortitude has severely weakened, we’re now focused on race, gender, sexual orientation and inclusion than war and above all that we have no serious, credible, leadership that is either respected or feared. On a brighter note there are no more mean tweets and we’re building back better.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I haven’t followed either the Ukraine or Taiwan situation closely enough to have a good idea of how the US would or could act to defend either, but one thing I’m certain of is that there would be a lot of domestic opposition to doing it.

I think you're right on all points, but I would suggest keeping an eye out for what I think may be a wild card in the deck: both Russia and China, even in a generic sense, have become treated as ongoing issues in domestic elections and therefore domestic politics. That's true, by the way, among members of both the Dems and the Reps. I would also point out that both domestic politics in general and the domestic politics surrounding elections specifically have reached a fevered pitch at a time when the Dems and the Reps are very closely matched in power.

If a crisis hits at the right (or wrong, depending on how you see it) moment, a proposal that we go to (or sustain a) war could be dropped in front of a Congress where double handfuls of politicians are making decisions on the basis of anything else but a cool-headed assessment of the desirability or need for America to go to war with China, Russia or both.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I think may be a wild card in the deck:

You're right, of course, that there are many wild cards that might be played at the time. History is full of such examples of that as well. And popular opinion, especially if it's not overwhelming, may have little, if anything, to do with it. On the other hand sometimes it does, including, I believe, most recently.

At this point high Russia and China both know full well they can do anything they want and we can’t do a damned thing to stop it.

Whether they can afford to do it isn’t the issue. As long as they see diaper Joe and the Ho at the helm it’s a green light.

China won't do anything until after they get all the propaganda points they want from the winter Olympics - then it's Katie bar the door!

Plausible, I'm still wrapping my head around the economic suicide that China would incur with such an invasion. I know I shouldn't attempt to rationalize what the CCP would do...

Putin WILL invade Ukraine.
China will move on Taiwan after the Winter Olympics.

C'mon, Hitler promised he wouldn't take anymore land after taking German speaking part of Czechoslovakia, and FDR believed the Japanese were running around like a lot of wet hens...\


The ChiComs will never make a move against Taiwan, and the Soviet Rooskies will never move on Ukraine.

Pshaw... I say...

Opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal.
=======================


Biden’s Only Honorable Course on Ukraine and Russia
If the U.S. wavers, Moscow will benefit and Iran and China will capitalize.

As President Biden tries to prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine, his administration continues to wrestle with a world that has refused to conform to its expectations. Russia is not parked. Iran is not cooperating. China—whose activities around Taiwan, as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned last week, look “like rehearsals” for more-serious aggression— has neither engaged with the Biden administration on common issues like climate nor been impressed by Washington’s get-tough policy.

Driving Vladimir Putin’s military buildup is the Kremlin’s conviction that time is not on its side. Largely because of Ukrainian bitterness at Mr. Putin’s 2014 invasion and the continuing war in the country’s southeastern region known as the Donbass, more Ukrainians are determined to escape what they see as Moscow’s suffocating embrace. Gradual changes in the civil service, the judiciary, the intelligence services and the educational system, implemented with Western encouragement and help, are quietly but steadily pushing Ukraine away from post-Soviet Russia and anchoring it more firmly in the West.

For Mr. Putin and the Russian nationalists whose support he needs, the consolidation of genuine Ukrainian independence is a threat. Russia needs Ukraine, they believe, to dominate the Black Sea, re-establish itself as the principal power in Europe, and defend the Orthodox and Slavic character of the Russian Federation itself at a time of rapid demographic change. A Ukraine aligned with the West, and especially with anti-Russian countries like Poland and the Baltic republics, is an unbearable humiliation and an unacceptable threat to Russian power.

The world has seen this movie before. In February 2014, Ukraine’s pro-Russia President Victor Yanukovych was overthrown after rejecting an economic association agreement with the European Union and opting for closer economic ties with Russia. His successors signed economic and political agreements with the EU, and the post-revolution constitution commits Ukraine to seek EU membership. The West celebrated the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution as a victory for freedom; in retaliation Mr. Putin seized Crimea and invaded the Donbass.

Mr. Putin’s new bellicosity is an admission of Russian failure. Sweet talk about Russo-Ukrainian brotherhood has failed to persuade Ukraine to throw in its lot with Moscow. All that is left is economic pressure and military force. Yet if the political situation inside Ukraine alarms Mr. Putin, the West’s disarray and ineptitude give him hope. In 2014 the West contented itself with economic sanctions and stern lectures when Mr. Putin annexed Crimea and launched an ugly war in the Donbass. America looks weaker and Europe more divided today than in 2014. Mr. Putin likely believes that fumbling Western leaders will be no more capable of stopping Russian aggression now than at any time since his 2008 invasion of Georgia.

President Biden, scheduled to have a video call with the Russian leader as this column goes to press, seems committed to a so-called peaceful-measures only approach. Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned of “high-impact sanctions,” and other administration officials have spoken of increased military aid to Ukraine. This sounds robust, but one of Mr. Putin’s favorite diplomatic strategies is to tempt American officials into pompous declarations and then humiliate them by exposing the hollow nature of their pretentious rhetoric. He ran this play repeatedly against the Obama administration, most spectacularly when President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly that Bashar al-Assad must leave power in Syria and Mr. Putin rallied to Mr. Assad’s defense, significantly undermining American power and prestige. He would like nothing better than to fillet Team Biden with the same knife.

Mr. Biden needs to reach a clear decision. If he is committed to helping Ukraine integrate with the West, he will have to convince Mr. Putin that he means business, possibly leading to the dispatch of significant NATO forces to the country. If he does not think Ukraine is worth the risk of a Cold War-style crisis with Russia, he must seek the most dignified retreat Mr. Putin will allow.

Neither course is attractive. Taking a hard line brings the risk of escalation. Many Americans will oppose another open-ended commitment, and Russian enmity for the U.S. will intensify.

Coming so soon after the Afghan meltdown and at a time when many longtime allies doubt America’s word, retreat would be even worse. Russia would become more powerful and more contemptuous of the U.S., while Iran and China will view Mr. Biden as a loser and adjust their policies accordingly.

From a position of strength, the U.S. can and should offer Russia face-saving ways out of the crisis, but on substance Mr. Biden should stand firm. The reality is that Russia has lost its battle for the heart of Ukraine. After encouraging Ukraine to cast its lot with the West for three decades, America’s only honorable course is to sustain Kyiv in this hour of trial.

GLOBAL VIEW

By Walter Russell Mead

LINK

^^^^

using 'Biden' and 'honorable' in the same sentence is bad grammar - and also an impossibility

Something seems to be missing from the conversation.

The Europeans have the most to loose in the Ukraine and other Asian countries in Taiwan.
Why aren't they stepping up in a more unified and vocal way?

Biden was supposed to be the guy that could get all of our "friends" onboard, where are they and what is he doing to make that happen?

^^^ Europe has always let us be the heavy with Russia because they live right next door, they need Russian gas to get through the winter, and we're the toughest partner in NATO.

This situation has evolved over the years to the point that the Europeans think of themselves as intermediaries between Russia and the US when things get bad.

On the flip side, how much confidence can the Euros have in Biden's commitment, Biden's readiness to act, Biden's judgement and Biden's leadership?